Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations
Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations. Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured dr The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
1[21. Punishment for contravention in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations.-- Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug 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 quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) 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 but 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.]
Section 21, 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.
-
Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-7.pdf 2005-09-19 DATE VERIFIED (orders 1–6 are ROPs). Crl.A. 1218/2005. B.N. Srikrishna / H.K. Sema. Isolate: a preparation with >0.2% morphine is an opium derivative / manufactured drug, so possession is NDPS s.21 not ss.17/18; commercial quantity of opium derivatives is 250 g, so 920 g attracts s.21(c). No s.29 conspiracy on these facts — do not pad 29 (already filled). Micheal Raj remains a pronouncement ROP — not used.
On this section: A preparation with more than 0.2% morphine is an opium derivative / manufactured drug, so illicit possession is NDPS s.21; 250 g is commercial quantity of opium derivatives, and 920 g attracts s.21(c) (Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot).
-
Hussain vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Speedy trial is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This right cannot be denied due to lack of resources. When criminal trials or appeals remain pending for extended periods without fault of the accused, the accused is entitled to either expedited trial completion within specified timelines (6 months for magisterial trials and 2 years for sessions trials with accused in custody; 5 years for appeals) or bail. High Courts are constitutionally obligated to issue directions to subordinate courts ensuring these timelines are met, and to monitor compliance through appropriate action plans and judicial performance assessments. The State is required to augment judicial infrastructure, including appointing additional judges, establishing forensic laboratories, and digitizing case records, to fulfill this constitutional obligation. Undertrial prisoners who have undergone detention exceeding the likely sentence upon conviction must be released on personal bond. These are mandatory obligations, not discretionary matters.
On this section: Offence under which first appellant Hussain was charged; serious offence justifying initial custody but not indefinite detention without speedy trial
-
State of Delhi vs Ram Avtar @ Rama
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a mandatory safeguard or fundamental right is provided under criminal law, particularly under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Section 50, which requires the searching officer to explicitly inform the person to be searched of his right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, non-compliance with this obligation renders the recovery illegal. An illegal recovery cannot form the foundation for conviction of unlawful possession under Section 21 of the Act, regardless of whether witness testimony or other independent evidence corroborates the recovery, because unlawful possession is the sine qua non for such conviction and must be established through lawful means. The doctrine of substantial compliance does not apply to such mandatory safeguards, which require strict compliance.
On this section: Addresses possession of narcotic drugs. The Court held that unlawful possession is the sine qua non for conviction, and such possession must be established through lawfully obtained evidence in compliance with Section 50.
-
Gurdev Singh vs The State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, courts have discretion to impose sentences higher than the minimum prescribed punishment based on factors they deem fit, including the quantity of narcotic substance recovered. The quantity of drug is a relevant factor that falls within the court's discretion under Section 32B of the Act. While mitigating circumstances such as poverty, first-time offender status, and carrier role may be considered, they cannot override the seriousness of possessing commercial quantities of narcotics. Public interest and the societal impact of drug trafficking must be balanced against individual liberty when determining appropriate punishment. A sentence of 15 years for possession of 1 kg heroin (four times the commercial quantity) with intent to sell is justified and does not require interference.
On this section: Defines offence of possession of narcotic drugs for sale or distribution. Prescribes minimum punishment of 10 years RI which may extend to 20 years with fine not less than Rs. 1 lakh but may extend to Rs. 2 lakhs for commercial quantity.
-
Rafiq Qureshi vs Narcotic Control Bureau Eastern Zonal Unit
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a minimum term of imprisonment is prescribed for an offence under the NDPS Act, courts retain discretion to impose punishment higher than the minimum based on factors they deem fit, which are in addition to (not limited to) the factors enumerated in Section 32B(a) to (f). The enumerated factors are illustrative, not exhaustive. Relevant factors such as the quantity of narcotic drugs involved can justify higher than minimum sentence even if not explicitly listed in Section 32B. However, when courts impose higher than minimum sentence based on factors other than those in Section 32B(a) to (f), higher courts can examine whether such factors are relevant, and if an irrelevant factor is used without any Section 32B factors being present, the higher sentence can be interfered with.
On this section: Defines the offence of possession of manufactured drugs in commercial quantity and prescribes punishment of not less than 10 years but not more than 20 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of not less than Rs. 1 lakh but not more than Rs. 2 lakh. This is the substantive provision under which the appellant was convicted.
-
Sarju @ Ramu vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases under the NDPS Act, particularly where serious allegations are made against police officials, the procedural safeguards contained in the Act, especially Section 50 requiring that a person to be searched must be informed of their right to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, must be scrupulously complied with. Failure to inform the person of this right renders the recovery of contraband suspect and vitiates the conviction where the conviction is based solely on possession of the illicit article recovered during the illegal search. Evidence obtained through violation of Section 50 safeguards cannot be used as evidence of unlawful possession to sustain a conviction. The investigating agency must follow the procedure envisaged by the statute scrupulously, and failure to do so must be viewed seriously by higher authorities. An accused is entitled to a fair trial, and a conviction resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to the concept of justice.
On this section: Offence of conspiracy to traffic in narcotic drugs; appellant charged under Section 8/21
-
Derajram Jat vs State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubt but requires a high degree of probability. Courts are not obligated to grant benefit of doubt based on fanciful possibilities or lingering suspicion when evidence is strong enough to leave only a remote possibility in favor of the accused that can be dismissed with the statement 'of course it is possible but not in the least probable.' The presumption of innocence must be judged on the basis of conceptions of a reasonable prudent man, not on meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent at the cost of allowing many guilty to escape. When both the Trial Court and High Court concurrently conclude on the basis of the same evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless there is manifest error or perversity.
On this section: Applied in conjunction with Section 8(c) to establish liability for interstate trafficking of narcotic substances
-
State of Rajasthan vs Manoj Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 applies only to searches and seizures made from the person of an accused and not to searches conducted inside a house or premises. When seizure is made from inside a house, the requirement to obtain an independent witness under Section 50 does not apply. However, the absence of independent witnesses in such cases may be excused if the investigating officer provides evidence showing genuine difficulties in procuring such witnesses, particularly when the accused are known to be dangerous or criminal persons. In cases of small quantity possession as defined by Central Government notification, conviction should be under Section 27 of the Act, and sentences should be reduced considering time already undergone in custody.
On this section: Establishes enhanced punishment for possession with intent to consume or supply
-
The State of Punjab vs Rakesh Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act applies to all forms of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, including manufactured preparations such as tablets, syrups, and vials containing narcotic substances. Possession of such manufactured drugs in bulk quantities without valid authorization constitutes a violation of Section 8 of the NDPS Act. The NDPS Act operates as a special law in addition to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and is not barred by it. The distinction between manufactured and non-manufactured drugs does not determine whether the NDPS Act applies; rather, the applicability depends on whether the substance contains narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances and whether possession is authorized for medical or scientific purposes in accordance with the Act, rules, and authorized licenses.
On this section: Provides punishment for contraventions in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations, with rigorous imprisonment not less than 10 years but extending to 20 years, and fine not less than 1 lakh rupees but extending to 2 lakh rupees for commercial quantity.
-
Sanjeev Kumar Alias Tota vs State of Punjab Home Department Secretary
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal appeals under the NDPS Act, where the conviction is based on credible evidence and properly affirmed by the appellate court, the Supreme Court may still exercise its discretion to reduce the sentence if it finds the original sentence to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, balancing the need for punishment with considerations of justice and proportionality. The conviction can stand while the sentence is moderated to achieve a fair and proportionate outcome.
On this section: Offence of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; primary charge against the appellant; conviction under this section affirmed by the Supreme Court
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs The Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Non-applicability of the strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act to controlled substances does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. The court can refuse bail if there is seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic substances, existence of incriminating material, and likelihood of non-availability during trial, particularly in cases involving trans-border drug trafficking operations.
On this section: Various offences under NDPS Act for which charges were framed against the accused.
-
Anilbhai Nayaka vs Union Of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Even though Section 37 of the NDPS Act (twin test for bail) may not strictly apply to controlled substances as opposed to narcotic drugs, the non-applicability of this section does not automatically entitle an accused to bail. Courts retain discretion to refuse bail in controlled substance cases based on: (1) seizure of huge quantity of controlled substance with potential for manufacturing narcotic drugs, (2) presence of incriminating material establishing active participation in drug trafficking, (3) likelihood of accused absconding or becoming unavailable for trial, particularly when accused are non-residents of the trial jurisdiction, and (4) transnational/international aspects of the drug trafficking operation. The burden remains on the accused to satisfy the court that bail should be granted, and in cases involving serious drug trafficking with international linkage, courts should exercise caution in granting bail.
On this section: Offences related to diversion, misbranding, and trafficking of controlled substances. Section 25A specifically addresses diversion of controlled substances; Section 29 addresses abetment and criminal conspiracy in NDPS offences.
-
Nishan Singh vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner's history of absconding during parole and committing further offences during the absconding period constitutes sufficient grounds to deny subsequent parole applications, even when compassionate grounds such as family illness are cited, as the state's security concerns and apprehension regarding threat to public order are well-founded and cannot be overridden by personal hardship.
On this section: Basis of charges in FIR No. 58 dated 27.8.2015 when petitioner was apprehended after absconding from parole
-
Amarjeet Ram Alias Baba vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted when an accused is booked under Section 27(A) for financing illicit traffic, independent of whether the quantity of contraband seized is commercial or non-commercial.
On this section: Possession of intermediate quantity of heroin.
-
Vikas Kumar vs State of Punjab
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable when the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available, particularly when seeking protection from arrest in criminal matters. The appropriate remedy in such cases is to seek anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS. The court will not intervene through writ jurisdiction when the petitioner has not exhausted or properly utilized the statutory remedies available to them.
On this section: Drug-related offense - charge in FIR No. 480 registered against the petitioner
-
Kundan Kumar vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving possession of small quantities of controlled substances or items regulated under drug and cosmetics laws, where the accused has been in custody for a substantial period and possesses a clean antecedent, regular bail may be granted subject to conditions ensuring cooperation in trial and preventing future similar offences.
On this section: Applied to charges related to possession of substances controlled under NDPS Act
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… was set aside under the Reference, thereby declining the Reference and imposed a sentence on him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years and to pay a fine of ₹1,50,000/- [Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only] and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for commission of offence under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985<sup>6</sup> . The appeals preferred by the accused were dismissed except for the modification in the order of sentence. Both the accused are before this Court in these appeals by way of special leave. I. FACTUAL MATRIX: (a) THE …
Questions about Section 21
What have the courts held on Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat (19 Sep 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: A preparation with more than 0.2% morphine is an opium derivative / manufactured drug, so illicit possession is NDPS s.21; 250 g is commercial quantity of opium derivatives, and 920 g attracts s.21(c) (Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 10 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2026.
How do I find court cases under Section 21 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 21, section 21 NDPS Act, section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 21b and ndps 21 c in hindi. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat (19 Sep 2005).
When did Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 21, 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 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.