Manufactured drug proof and permitted personal medical possession defeat NDPS liability on the facts found.

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the recovered substance was a manufactured drug under the NDPS Act because it fell within neither the statutory definition nor any relevant notification. It also found that the substance was treated as a psychotropic substance, but possession was within the limit permitted for personal medical use under Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules. On those findings, the conviction and sentence could not stand, and acquittal followed because the alleged possession was not shown to be unlawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recovered substance was proved to be a manufactured drug within the meaning of the Act. (ii) Whether possession of the psychotropic substance was authorised as personal medical use within the permitted quantity under the Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the recovered substance was proved to be a manufactured drug within the meaning of the Act.

Analysis: The definition of manufactured drug in Section 2(xi) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 covers specified coca, opium and poppy derivatives, and other narcotic substances or preparations declared by notification. No material was produced to show that the recovered substance answered the first limb of the definition, and no relevant notification was shown to bring it within the second limb. The prosecution therefore failed to establish that the substance was a manufactured drug.

Conclusion: The substance was not proved to be a manufactured drug.

Issue (ii): Whether possession of the psychotropic substance was authorised as personal medical use within the permitted quantity under the Rules.

Analysis: The substance was treated as a psychotropic substance, and possession of such substance is prohibited except for medical or scientific purposes in the manner provided by the Act and the Rules. Rule 66 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 permits possession for personal medical use up to one hundred dosage units at a time. On the facts found, the quantity recovered did not exceed that limit, and the record did not establish any unlawful possession beyond the permitted range.

Conclusion: The possession fell within the permissible limit for personal medical use and did not constitute an offence.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained in law, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: Possession of a psychotropic substance is not punishable when the prosecution fails to prove that the substance is a manufactured drug and the quantity possessed is within the limit permitted for personal medical use under the applicable rules.

---