DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE VERSUS RAJ KUMAR ARORA (SUPREME COURT) 2025 INSC 498

(i) It cannot be said that the dealing in of “Buprenorphine Hydrochloride” would not amount to an offence under Section 8 of the NDPS Act owing to the fact that the said psychotropic substance only finds mention under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and is not listed under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules. There exists nothing to indicate that Rules 53 and 64 of the NDPS Rules respectively, are the governing rules in their respective Chapters, more so, when the language of the other rules in Chapters VI and VII respectively, are clear about their application to the substances mentioned under the Schedule to the Act as well.

(ii) All the psychotropic substances mentioned under the Schedule to the Act have potential grave and harmful consequences to the individual and the society at large, when abused. Some psychotropic substances mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act are also mentioned under the D&C Act and the rules framed thereunder. This is only because those substances while capable of being abused for their inherent properties could also be used in the field of medicine. However, the mere mention of certain psychotropic substances under the D&C regime would not take them away from the purview of the NDPS Act, if they are also mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act.

(iii) There arises no occasion for us to declare the interpretation given to Section 8 of the NDPS Act and the relevant NDPS Rules, by the decision in Union of India & Anr. Vs. Sanjeev V. Deshpande 2014 13 SCC 1, as prospectively applicable. There exists no overwhelming reason for us to do so. On the other hand, in order to meet the ends of justice and with a view to ensure that public interest is safeguarded and to give effect to the salutary object behind the enactment of the NDPS Act, the decision must necessarily be retrospectively applicable. The Supreme Court in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra), perhaps, did not think fit to confine or restrict its interpretation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act to future cases only. This is evinced from the fact that whilst overruling State of Uttranchal v. Rajesh Kumar Gupta (2007) 1 SCC 355, it deliberately chose not to discuss the doctrine of prospective overruling let alone resort to it. This conspicuous silence in Sanjeev Deshpande (supra) as regards the prospective or retrospective effect of overruling Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) has to be borne in mind and given due deference. As a natural corollary to the aforesaid, we see no reason why we should deviate from the default rule of retrospectivity and instead, resort to the doctrine of prospective overruling. Therefore, pending cases, if any, which were instituted before the decision of this Court in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would also be governed by the law as clarified by it.

(iv) Furthermore, the retrospective application of the dictum in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would not give rise to any implications as regards the rights of the accused persons under Article 20(1) of the Constitution. This is because while overruling the decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) has only clarified the law as it stood from its inception and given true effect to the meaning assigned to the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act and the Rules thereunder, by the lawmakers. The same cannot be construed as creating a new offence. Additionally, the overruling of a decision cannot be equated to the enactment of an ex-post facto law, especially when the interpretation given to the statute/provision in the overruling decision is not a novel and unreasonably expansive interpretation of the provision in question such that it was completely unforseeable. It cannot be reasonably argued that the indiscriminate dealing in of substances which are only mentioned under the Schedule to the NDPS Act and absent under Schedule I of the NDPS Rules, was indubitably legal and allowed by the legislation, prior to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra). Therefore, there remains no doubt in our minds that giving retrospective effect to the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) would be necessary considering the facts and circumstances in the background of which we are called upon to adjudicate these matters

(v) However, having held that the decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) must be given retrospective effect, we find it necessary to clarify that acquittals which have already been recorded as a consequence of the decision in Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) and have attained finality, would not be unsettled in light of the overruling decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande (supra) or the observations made by us.

(vi) We are, therefore, of the view that both the Trial Court and the High Court committed an error in holding that the offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act is not made out. The Trial Courts in both the appeals could also not have discharged/deleted the charge under the NDPS Act framed against the accused persons while disposing of an application under Section 216 CrPC. This is something not permissible within our criminal procedure and the High Court unfortunately failed to take notice of this aspect.