Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances
Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances. 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 psychotropic substance shall be punishable,-- (a) where the contrav The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
1[22. Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances.--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 psychotropic substance 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 .
(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 22, 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.
-
Sushanta Kumar Banik vs The State of Tripura
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An unreasonable and unexplained delay between the date of proposal for preventive detention and the date of passing the detention order snaps the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, thereby vitiating the detention order. Additionally, the withholding or non-disclosure of material and vital facts by the sponsoring authority to the detaining authority, which would influence the detaining authority's decision on whether to make the detention order, vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and renders the detention order illegal. In the context of NDPS offences, the fact that an accused has been released on bail by a court despite the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a material fact that must be disclosed to the detaining authority, as it indicates the court's assessment that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty or is not likely to commit offences while on bail.
On this section: Sections under which the appellant was charged in the two FIRs. The Court examined the nature and severity of these charges in the context of preventive detention.
-
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 psychotropic substances with similar sentencing provisions as Section 21. Most of the accused were convicted under this section.
-
Mohd. Aslam Khan vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt, through independent corroborating evidence, that an accused person owns and is in actual possession of a premises from which contraband is seized. Retracted confessions, uncorroborated documents without established authenticity, and circumstantial information alone are insufficient to prove such ownership. The burden rests entirely on the prosecution to independently establish these foundational facts through proper evidence such as documents from concerned authorities, identification by independent witnesses, or expert verification, before invoking procedural provisions like Section 66 of NDPS Act. Possession of contraband at a location does not, by itself, establish ownership of that location.
On this section: Prescribes punishment for offences under Section 8(c); the appellant was charged under Section 22 read with Section 8(c)
-
M. Uma Maheswar vs State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 42(2) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which mandates that officers record received information in writing and transmit a copy to their immediate official superior within seventy-two hours, applies only to non-gazetted officers acting without prior warrant or authorization under Sections 41(1) or 41(2). This requirement does not apply to gazetted rank officers acting under Section 41(2) authority, as such officers are the source of authorization power for subordinates and cannot be equated with officers acting without authorization. The rationale for Section 42(2) - to inform superiors of unauthorized actions by subordinates - does not apply to gazetted officers who possess inherent authority to conduct searches and seizures on their own.
On this section: Section 22 was the primary offense under which both appellants were convicted - dealing with illegal possession of Diazepam (a Schedule-banned substance). The court upheld this conviction.
-
Ganesh Moorthy vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Supreme Court may grant bail where the investigation is complete, the final report has been filed, and the period of incarceration is substantial and disproportionate to the stage of proceedings, provided that the alleged quantity of contraband and nature of charges are considered. The grant of bail shall be subject to conditions imposed by the Trial Court to ensure appearance and prevent offences.
On this section: Charge related to distribution or sale of narcotic substances
-
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When conduct of a police officer during investigation prima-facie constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (such as fabricating false evidence under Sections 192-195 IPC), and specific procedures exist in the Criminal Procedure Code for addressing such conduct (Sections 340, 345, 346, 348), the High Court should exercise restraint and not invoke its contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court jurisdiction when the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under IPC. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when there is real prejudice constituting substantial interference with the due course of justice, and not as an omnibus remedy for every wrong affecting judicial proceedings.
On this section: Offence under NDPS Act cited in the underlying FIR
-
Fogiya vs State and Anr.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a person's citizenship status remains undetermined for an extended period due to government inaction despite judicial directions, and such person is detained under the National Security Act pending deportation (which itself depends on citizenship determination), the court may intervene by issuing specific directions to the competent authority to determine citizenship within a fixed timeframe. If the government fails to comply with such directions, the detention order shall be quashed and the person released. The court recognized that while citizenship determination is primarily the function of the Central Government under Section 13 of the Indian Citizenship Act, 1955, the court has the power to ensure that this process is not indefinitely delayed, particularly when the detention itself is contingent on such determination.
On this section: Petitioner convicted under Section 22 for drug smuggling; acquitted under Section 23 (import of contraband) as he was found within Indian territory
-
Massa Singh vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Matters concerning passport issuance for individuals with pending or concluded criminal investigations should be decided by the trial court in accordance with Central Government Notification No. 570 dated 25.08.1993, rather than by the High Court through writ jurisdiction. The trial court is the appropriate forum to evaluate the applicability of the notification to the specific circumstances of the case.
On this section: Charges under NDPS Act form the basis of criminal FIRs against the petitioner; cited as grounds for passport denial
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 22
What have the courts held on Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
Sushanta Kumar Banik vs The State of Tripura (30 Sep 2022) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Sections under which the appellant was charged in the two FIRs. The Court examined the nature and severity of these charges in the context of preventive detention. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, 5 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1996 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 22 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 22, section 22 NDPS Act, section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 22 c in hindi and ndps 22c. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sushanta Kumar Banik vs The State of Tripura (30 Sep 2022).
When did Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 22, 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.