Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where the offence involves small quantities (e.g., under Section 22(a)), which are punishable with less than one year imprisonment, the CJM has the power to discharge the accused, especially when the evidence does not support the charges ["Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the realm of narcotics law in India, questions about judicial powers often arise, especially for minor offences involving small quantities of drugs. One pressing issue is whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) possesses the authority to discharge an accused under Section 250 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023—the successor to Section 250 CrPC—for offences under Section 22(a) (possession of small quantity psychotropic substances) or Section 27 (consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
This blog post delves into this legal query: Cite case laws to show that CJM has power to discharge an accused under 250 BNSS for offence under section 22(a)/27 of the NDPS Act. While direct precedents may be elusive, judicial interpretations of magistrate jurisdiction, bailability, and the absence of NDPS overrides provide valuable insights. Note: This is general information based on available legal documents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Sections 22(a) and 27 NDPS deal with relatively minor offences compared to commercial quantity cases:- Section 22(a): Possession, purchase, or use of small quantity psychotropic substances, punishable up to 1 year imprisonment, fine, or both. Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168- Section 27: Consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, similarly punishable with less than 3 years imprisonment or fine. Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168
These are classified as bailable and triable by any Magistrate under Part II of the First Schedule to CrPC (now BNSS equivalent). As noted, Part II of First Schedule CrPC provides that if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or fine only it shall be bailable and can be tried by any Magistrate. Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168
High Courts have consistently upheld this:- Bombay High Court in Stefan Mueller vs. State of Maharashtra (2010 SCC OnLine Bom 1974): Offences under similar provisions like Section 20(b)(ii)(A) and 27 are bailable. Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168- Kerala High Court in Muhammed Navas Mahamood vs. Station House Officer (2020 SCC OnLine Ker 564): Section 22(a) is bailable due to punishment up to 1 year. Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168
This magistrate-triable status implies standard procedural powers, including potential discharge, unless NDPS explicitly bars them.
Section 250 BNSS empowers Magistrates to discharge an accused and award compensation if the accusation is frivolous or vexatious, mirroring old CrPC Section 250. For NDPS minor offences, no documents reveal an explicit bar. NDPS Section 37 overrides CrPC on cognizability and bail for serious offences but spares small quantity cases like 22(a)/27. Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168
Allahabad High Court in Abdul Aziz vs. State of U.P. affirmed: in the matter of bail the provisions of Cr.P.C. will apply in the present case. Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168 By extension, trial procedures—including discharge—likely follow suit, as NDPS lacks overrides for Section 250.
Available documents do not cite cases explicitly linking CJM discharge under Section 250 BNSS/CrPC 250 to NDPS 22(a)/27. However, broader NDPS jurisprudence supports magistrate powers:
This discharge in an NDPS context (though not exactly 22(a)/27 or by CJM under 250) shows courts exercising discharge powers without NDPS hindrance.
This reinforces that NDPS special procedures do not oust general Magistrate powers.
Other NDPS documents focus on bail (e.g., Section 37 bar for commercial quantities irrelevant here Sudheer VS State of Kerala - Crimes (2012)Sudheer, Ernakulam VS State of Kerala - 2012 0 Supreme(Ker) 118), convictions by Special Judges for larger cases Mohd Ramzan @ Hero VS State Of Punjab - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3170, or charge joinder Dhruv Dalip Tahil vs State of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3973, but none bar Magistrate discharge for small offences.
NDPS Section 36A routes serious cases to Special Courts, but minor ones remain with Magistrates. Documents note: While trying an offence under the NDPS Act, the Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under the NDPS Act... but affirm CrPC applicability otherwise. TOFAN SINGH VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - 2021 2 Supreme 1
Cognizability under NDPS Section 37(1)(a) does not strip trial powers: all the offences under the NDPS Act are cognizable notwithstanding the provisions of Cr.P.C. Yet, for small quantities, CrPC/BNSS governs. Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168
In bail contexts for non-commercial NDPS, CrPC applies fully. Sudheer, Ernakulam VS State of Kerala - 2012 0 Supreme(Ker) 118
While direct case laws affirming CJM's Section 250 BNSS power for NDPS 22(a)/27 are absent from reviewed documents, the bailable, Magistrate-triable nature strongly implies such authority exists absent overrides. Courts have discharged in NDPS proceedings on procedural grounds DHRUV DALIP TAHIL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4212 and upheld Magistrate powers in ancillary matters HARI VELLOOR VIJAYAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49694.
Recommendations (general):- File a discharge application before CJM, citing bailability precedents Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168 and CrPC/BNSS applicability.- Highlight no recovery or weak evidence, akin to bail grants without contraband recovery Shiv Kumar VS Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh - 2020 Supreme(P&H) 1535.- If denied, pursue revision under BNSS equivalents of CrPC 397/401.- Argue NDPS Section 37 inapplicable to small offences.
In conclusion, for minor NDPS offences, Magistrate powers under BNSS Section 250 appear intact, promoting justice against frivolous prosecutions. Stay informed on evolving jurisprudence, and always seek professional legal counsel.
References:- Raju Kumar VS State of Bihar - 2025 0 Supreme(Pat) 168, Sudheer, Ernakulam VS State of Kerala - 2012 0 Supreme(Ker) 118, DHRUV DALIP TAHIL vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 4212, HARI VELLOOR VIJAYAN vs STATE OF KERALA - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 49694, Sudheer VS State of Kerala - Crimes (2012), Mohd Ramzan @ Hero VS State Of Punjab - 2018 0 Supreme(P&H) 3170, Dhruv Dalip Tahil vs State of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 3973, TOFAN SINGH VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU - 2021 2 Supreme 1
#NDPSAct, #CJMDischarge, #BNSSLaw
The offence under Section 22(a) of the Act is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both. The punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) A of the Act is also the same. ... Case No. 13 of 2025 registered for the offences under Section 8(B) and 21(c) of #HL_START....
C. , and Section 4 (2) does not prevent the Magistrate in a proper case to discharge the accused if he finds that the prosecution has not established what it has to establish under the provisions relating to the offence with which the accused has been charged. ... J. , and Umamaheshwaram, J. was posed with a question whether Section 4 (2) of the Madras Prohibition Act prevents the Magistrate to discharge#....
Prosecution case primarily relies on WhatsApp messages in support of its case against Applicant under Section 8(c), 22(b), 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act [The Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985]. ... Provisions of Section 27-A of NDPS Act pertain to financing either directly or indirectly for trafficking of alleged contraband. None o....
Prosecution case primarily relies on WhatsApp messages in support of its case against Applicant under Section 8(c), 22(b), 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act, [ The Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ]. ... Applicant is discharged under Section 8(c) r/w 22(b), 27A and 29 of NDPS Act in NDPS Special Case No.711 of 2021.....
Section 28 of the NDPS Act, in the present case, since the petitioner has only attempted to commit the offence. Section 27 and 28 of the NDPS Act, reads as follows:- Section 22 (a) of the NDPS Act. He submits that undisputedly ganja gummies seized is of small quantity. ... Right from clauses (vii-a) and (xxiii-a#HL_....
The learned Senior Public Prosecutor submitted that this is a case in which the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable. The petitioners are involved in another crime, in which the offence alleged is punishable under Section 22 (a) of the NDPS Act. ... The accused possessed methamphetamine in violation of the provisions of section 8(c) of the #HL_STA....
Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not deprive the jurisdictional courts of its power to grant interim custody of the vehicle under Section 497 of the BNSS. 4. I heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The petitioner's Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.KL 46 U 5071 was seized in connection with Crime No. 251/2025 registered at the Kunnamkulam Police Station for the offence
Act, Section 77 of the JJ Act, 2015 and Section 22(a) of the NDPS Act. ... 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, filed by the 1st accused in Crime No.250 of 2023 of Kannamali Police Station, Ernakulam District, registered under Sections 354, 376, 376(2)(n) & Section 324 of IPC, Sections 5(l), 5(p) r/w Section 6 and Section 16 r/w....
Section 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act lay down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless a complaint on 01.07.2010 filed a complaint against the accused/respondent u/s 22-A cognizance of offence u/s 22(A), M.W.Act can be taken against accused No court shall take cognizance of an #HL_STA....
Section 22-B of the Minimum Wages Act lay down that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act unless a complaint on 01.07.2010 filed a complaint against the accused/respondent u/s 22-A cognizance of offence u/s 22(A), M.W.Act can be taken against accused No court shall take cognizance of an #HL_STA....
The trial Court has observed that the accused has been charged for the offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act for being a party to the criminal conspiracy for committing an offence under NDPS Act. There is no evidence to show that, besides the accused, any other person is involved in commission of the offences. The evidence on record shows that, the accused landed alone in India and he was found in possession of Narcotic Drug Cocaine.
Moreover, the present case has been registered under Sections 8/18/29 of NDPS Act, whereas Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars grant of bail to an accused, who has committed the offence under Sections 19, 24 and Section 27-A of the NDPS Act. However, in the present case, the fact remains that no recovery of contraband had been effected from the petitioner and as per the reply filed by the respondent itself, only recovery of zipper polythene packets was effected from the petitioner and allegedly the left over substance in the said packets was found to be positive for opium. Indi....
(v) Where a person accused or suspected of an offence under the NDPS Act, is forwarded to a Special Court under Clause (b) of Section 36A of the NDPS act, the Special Court shall have the same power which a Magistrate, having jurisdiction to try a case, may exercise under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Cr.P.C. [Section 36A(1)(c)]. (vi) While trying an offence under the NDPS Act, the Special Court may also try an offence other than an offence under the NDPS Act, with which the accused may under the Cr.P.C. be charged at the same tr....
Considering the gravity of offence, Section 32A NDPS Act prohibits the grant of remission to a convict for an offence under NDPS Act except under Section 27 of the Act. Even though judgment of the Court cannot be a bar to exercise of the power by the executive under Section 432 Cr.P.C., as held by the Supreme Court in V. Sriharan (supra), the executive action should give due weight and respect to the judicial decision arrived at by taking into consideration all essential factors including the seriousness of the offence. Further, Section 432(2) Cr.P.C. also provides for taki....
The accused are charged of an offence under Section 20(b) and (c) of the NDPS Act. 1. This criminal petition is filed Sections 437 and 439 Cr.P.C., seeking bail to the petitioners/Accused Nos. 3, 5, 6 and 7 in Cr. No. 76 of 2019 on the file of Anandapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
