<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Supreme Court Clarifies Buprenorphine Hydrochloride as Prohibited Substance Under NDPS Act, Reinforcing Drug Control Measures</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87658</link>
    <description>SC held that dealing in &quot;Buprenorphine Hydrochloride&quot; constitutes an offense under Section 8 of the NDPS Act, regardless of its listing in Schedule I of NDPS Rules. The Court determined that psychotropic substances in the Act&#039;s Schedule pose significant societal risks. The decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande is retrospectively applicable, clarifying existing law without creating a new offense. The Court found that both Trial Court and High Court erroneously discharged charges under Section 216 CrPC. Consequently, the High Court&#039;s orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed, reinstating the original charges against the accused.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:34 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:36 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=816579" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Supreme Court Clarifies Buprenorphine Hydrochloride as Prohibited Substance Under NDPS Act, Reinforcing Drug Control Measures</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87658</link>
      <description>SC held that dealing in &quot;Buprenorphine Hydrochloride&quot; constitutes an offense under Section 8 of the NDPS Act, regardless of its listing in Schedule I of NDPS Rules. The Court determined that psychotropic substances in the Act&#039;s Schedule pose significant societal risks. The decision in Sanjeev V. Deshpande is retrospectively applicable, clarifying existing law without creating a new offense. The Court found that both Trial Court and High Court erroneously discharged charges under Section 216 CrPC. Consequently, the High Court&#039;s orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed, reinstating the original charges against the accused.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Apr 2025 09:09:34 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=87658</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>