2026 Supreme(SC) 355

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Elvish Yadav @ Siddharth – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1661 of 2026 [SLP (Crl.) No. 11480 of 2025]
Decided On : 19-03-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Psychotropic Substance – Recovery of anti-bodies of snake venom from accused will not fall within purview of a psychotropic substance and does not warrant invocation of provisions of NDPS Act.
(2) Exercise of power by an authority who is not competent/authorised to do so, results in vitiation of its foundation – Once a power is exercised without jurisdiction, it is void ab initio, and any subsequent action or proceedings which stems from it, would be rendered void.
(3) Subject matter of an earlier complaint cannot form part of present criminal proceedings.

Headnote:

(A) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Section 55 read with Sections 9, 39, 48-A, 49, 50 and 51 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Illegal procurement of venomous snakes for consumption of their venom as a narcotic substance – What is required to be presented under Section 55 of 1972 Act is a private complaint by a competent “authorized officer” who is empowered to do so by the provision itself – When statute provides for special procedural mechanism to be followed, same shall be adhered to, by excluding general statutory provisions – Power exercised without jurisdiction results in nullity, and further proceedings emanating therefrom, also stand nullified – Action becomes non est in eyes of law – When an exception is carved out under a Special statute, there is express exclusion of jurisdiction of authorities who otherwise are empowered to take cognizance under Cr.P.C. – Irregularities in procedure may be curable, however, action taken in complete absence of any authority becomes nullified or illegal from its very inception – When competent authorities are vested with powers under respective legislations, Courts ought not to interfere with such exercise of power in a perfunctory manner, as same would render scope and objective of special statutes otiose. (Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 33 and 34)

(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8, 22, 29, 30 and 32 – Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 – Sections 9, 39, 48-A, 49, 50 and 51 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 120-B, 284 and 289 – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528 – Alleged involvement of appellant and his associates in organizing rave parties in Noida and National Capital Region (NCR) as well as their involvement in illegal procurement of venomous snakes for consumption of their venom as a narcotic substance – Recovery of anti-bodies of snake venom from co-accused persons will not fall within purview of a psychotropic substance and does not warrant invocation of provisions of NDPS Act – Where a statute contains stringent provisions, higher degree of care and caution is cast upon Investigating Authorities – Offences punishable under Sections 284 and 289 of IPC are cognizable and bailable in nature – Subject matter of an earlier complaint cannot form part of present criminal proceedings initiated qua appellant, that too by a different agency not having jurisdiction – Once a power is exercised without jurisdiction, it is void ab initio, and any subsequent action or proceedings which stems from it, would likewise be rendered void – Criminal proceedings quashed. (Paras 36, 38, 39, 40, 42 and 46)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal has been preferred against impugned judgment and order dated 12.05.2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 14438/2025. Appellant is challenging criminal proceedings emanating out of FIR No. 461/2023 dated 03.11.2023, registered at P.S. Noida Sector - 49, District - Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and Chargesheet No. 1/2024 dated 05.04.2024 for offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 284 and 289 of Indian Penal Code along with Sections 9, 39, 48-A, 49, 50 and 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Sections 8, 22, 29, 30 and 32 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

There are two seminal issues, amongst other issues, which have arisen for determination in present appeal. First issue pertains to cognizance of an offence under Section 55 of the 1972 Act taken on the basis of a chargesheet. The second issue pertains to the scope and applicability of Section 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act.

Findings of Court:

Appellant has been able to establish that FIR and criminal proceedings pending against him before the concerned Trial Court in the present case, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Result : Appeal disposed of.