Medicinal use of non-Schedule I psychotropic substances may fall outside NDPS liability and instead attract Drugs and Cosmetics regulation.

Buprenorphine hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, but where it is not included in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules, the general prohibition in Rule 64 does not operate in the same manner for possession and related dealings. The court treated the earlier decisions in Rajinder Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Gupta as relevant to possession and sale for medicinal purposes, not confined to bail matters, and distinguished cases involving export outside India under Sections 23 and 24. On the facts, the conduct did not disclose an offence under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, and the matter was permitted to proceed under the Drugs and Cosmetics law.

---

---

Issues: Whether buprenorphine hydrochloride injections, being a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act but not included in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules, could support a charge under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, or whether the alleged conduct was governed only by the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Rules.

Analysis: The court held that buprenorphine hydrochloride is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act, but the NDPS Rules create a distinct regulatory scheme. Where a psychotropic substance is not listed in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules, the general prohibition in Rule 64 does not apply to its possession and related dealings in the same manner. The earlier decisions in Rajinder Gupta and Rajesh Kumar Gupta were treated as applicable to the question of possession and sale for medicinal purposes, and not as confined only to bail proceedings. The court distinguished cases involving export outside India under Sections 23 and 24 of the NDPS Act, explaining that those provisions deal with trade or supply abroad and are outside the medicinal-purpose exception relied upon in the present facts.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to show that the respondent's conduct disclosed an offence punishable under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, and the order remitting the matter to the Magistrate for proceedings under the Drugs and Cosmetics law was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the order altering the charge and directing trial before the Magistrate was rejected, leaving the respondent outside the NDPS prosecution on the facts found.

Ratio Decidendi: A psychotropic substance not included in Schedule I to the NDPS Rules cannot, by that fact alone and where the alleged dealings are for medicinal purposes, be treated as attracting liability under Section 22 of the NDPS Act; the governing regulatory regime may instead lie under the Drugs and Cosmetics law.

---