Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025
The Supreme Court held that Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not listed in the Schedule of psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act, 1985, and hence, possession or recovery of this substance does not amount to an offence under the said Act.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
3 April 2025
Judges
Justice Dipankar Datta ⦁ Justice Manmohan
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The appellant was accused of traveling in a car where 550 tablets of Tapentadol Hydrochloride were allegedly recovered.
-
FIR was registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
-
Appellant sought anticipatory bail before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, which was rejected.
-
He approached the Supreme Court in appeal.
-
Counsel argued that Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not listed under the Schedule of psychotropic substances in the NDPS Act.
Issues
-
Whether Tapentadol Hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act?
-
Whether the appellant is entitled to anticipatory bail in the absence of a scheduled substance under the NDPS Act?
Judgement
- The Supreme Court, while adjudicating the anticipatory bail plea of the appellant, thoroughly examined the nature of the substance allegedly recovered—Tapentadol Hydrochloride—and its relevance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
- The Court began by analyzing whether the substance in question falls within the Schedules of the NDPS Act, which enumerate the specific narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances covered by the statute. Upon review, it observed that Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not listed as a psychotropic substance under the Act’s Schedule.
- The bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, emphasized that the criminal liability under the NDPS Act is strict and must be construed narrowly, and that an offence cannot be sustained in law if the substance involved is not legally notified.
- The Court further took judicial notice of two precedents from High Courts:
-
2024 SCC OnLine Mad 445 – where it was clearly held that Tapentadol does not fall under the ambit of the NDPS Act.
-
2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1631 – where the Bombay High Court reached a similar conclusion, ruling that criminal proceedings under NDPS are unsustainable in the absence of a scheduled substance.
- The appellant’s counsel relied on these judgments to argue that the NDPS charges were without statutory backing, as the substance was not banned under the law.
- The Supreme Court found merit in the submission and held that the absence of Tapentadol Hydrochloride from the Schedule of the NDPS Act meant there was no prima facie offence, and hence, no justification for custodial interrogation or arrest.
- Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order denying anticipatory bail, and directed that: “In the event of the appellant being arrested, he shall be released on bail by the trial court on such terms and conditions as the court deems fit.”
- The Court also reaffirmed the need to avoid misapplication of stringent criminal statutes, and insisted on legal precision and statutory compliance when invoking provisions that curtail personal liberty.
Held
-
The Supreme Court held that Tapentadol Hydrochloride is not listed in the Schedule of psychotropic substances under the NDPS Act, 1985, and hence, possession or recovery of this substance does not amount to an offence under the said Act.
-
Since the foundational element of the prosecution’s case (i.e., the involvement of a scheduled psychotropic substance) was absent, there was no prima facie case under Sections 22 (punishment for contravention) and 29 (abetment and conspiracy) of the NDPS Act.
-
The Court further held that criminal prosecution under a penal statute such as the NDPS Act must be strictly based on statutory mandates, and no person can be charged or arrested under its provisions unless the alleged substance is explicitly notified in the Schedules.
-
Consequently, the Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail, as there existed no legal ground to justify his arrest in connection with a non-scheduled substance.
-
The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was granted anticipatory bail with liberty to the trial court to impose appropriate conditions upon his arrest.
Analysis
-
The Court followed strict interpretation of criminal law – a person cannot be prosecuted under NDPS for a substance not explicitly listed.
-
Reinforces the principle that bail should not be denied when the foundational charge is legally unsustainable.
-
The Court aligned with prior High Court rulings, promoting consistency in judicial interpretation.
-
Protects individuals from misuse or overreach of stringent laws like NDPS where statutory elements are not met.
-
Reflects judicial caution in applying harsh statutes such as NDPS without clear legislative inclusion.