Punishment for contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium
Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with punishment for contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium. Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, cultivates the opium poppy or produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses opium shall be punishable,-- (a The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
1[18. Punishment for contravention in relation to opium poppy and opium.--Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, cultivates the opium poppy or produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses opium shall be punishable,--
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2[one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees;
(c) in any other case, with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.]
Section 18, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985).
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Dharampal Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In narcotic drug possession cases under Section 18 NDPS Act, once the prosecution establishes possession of the illicit article (by proving recovery from a vehicle the accused was driving or occupying), the burden shifts to the accused to prove such possession was not conscious. In the case of private vehicles (not public transport), the mere fact of driving and occupying the vehicle from which narcotic drugs are recovered, combined with the statutory presumptions under Sections 54 and 35 NDPS Act, establishes conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt. The procedural requirement of Section 50 NDPS Act applies only to personal body searches and not to vehicle searches. The absence of questions explicitly framing the conclusion about conscious possession in Section 313 CrPC examination is not fatal if the circumstances leading to such conclusion were put to the accused and they failed to provide satisfactory explanation.
On this section: Primary offense charged - possession of narcotic drugs punishable with rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. Court established that conscious possession of the opium was proven beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Kulwinder Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once conscious possession of narcotic substances is established through circumstantial evidence (presence in vehicle, failure to establish alternative explanation, running away, abscondance), the accused is presumed to be in conscious possession. The absence of a test identification parade does not vitiate conviction where eyewitnesses with adequate opportunity have identified the accused in court. Section 50 of NDPS Act applies only to personal body searches and not to searches of vehicles or containers. The conviction of narcotics offences can rest upon trustworthy evidence of official witnesses even without independent witness corroboration, provided the quality of evidence is unimpeachable.
On this section: Presumption of possession when a person is found in the company of narcotic substances. The court referenced this section when discussing the legal framework around possession and conscious possession.
-
State of Punjab vs Gurnam Kaur
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a conviction is based on multiple procedural violations including violation of mandatory statutory search procedures (Section 50(4) NDPS Act), absence of independent witnesses with no explanation provided, failure to record informant statements in writing, unexplained delays in lodging FIR beyond mandatory timeframes, and absence of evidence establishing conscious possession of contraband, and when two views of the evidence are possible, a superior court should not interfere with a judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court. The exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 is not warranted in such circumstances.
On this section: Charges of possession of heroin and opium with intent to traffic; the respondents were convicted under these sections and the Supreme Court examined whether the evidence could sustain such conviction.
-
Kailash Mandal @ Kailash Chandra Mandal vs The State of West Bengal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In NDPS cases involving poppy cultivation on land, anticipatory bail may be extended for a defined period to facilitate investigation and verification of the accused's claim regarding prior alienation of property, provided the accused cooperates with the investigating officer, produces documentary evidence (such as sale deed) supporting the claim, and ultimately surrenders for regular bail proceedings. Elderly accused persons should receive expeditious consideration of bail applications within a reasonable timeframe, balancing procedural fairness with the seriousness of narcotics offenses.
On this section: Grounds for criminal liability in NDPS offenses; applicable to the charge against Kailash Mandal for alleged cultivation of poppy
-
Parveen Kumar Sareen vs The State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court has the supervisory power and responsibility to direct subordinate courts to dispose of long-pending criminal cases within a specified timeframe when inordinate delay is evident, balancing the rights of the accused to a speedy trial with the need for proper adjudication of serious criminal charges by the trial court.
On this section: Allegations of drug trafficking and related offences under NDPS Act provisions
-
Lalit Yadav vs State of U.p. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused has already been enlarged on bail in all related cases and the conditions under Section 19(4) of the U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities Prevention Act, 1986 are satisfied, bail should be granted in the main case as well, subject to strict conditions ensuring appearance and compliance with trial proceedings, in accordance with the principle that bail is the rule and committal to jail is the exception.
On this section: Drug-related charges in one of the related cases
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 18
What have the courts held on Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
Dharampal Singh vs State of Punjab (09 Sep 2010) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Primary offense charged - possession of narcotic drugs punishable with rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years and fine. Court established that conscious possession of the opium was proven beyond reasonable doubt. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: NDPS Act 18, section 18 NDPS Act, section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 18c and ndps 18 b. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Dharampal Singh vs State of Punjab (09 Sep 2010).
When did Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 18, came into force on 14 Nov 1985, having been enacted on 16 Sep 1985. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions1747 words
- 68B. Definitions819 words
- 9. Power of Central Government to permit, control and regulate816 words
- 36A. Offences triable by Special Courts631 words
- 10. Power of State Government to permit, control and regulate568 words
- 42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation507 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.