Punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy
Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy. Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indi The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
(1) Whoever abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under this Chapter, shall, whether such offence be or be not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy, and notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), be punishable with the punishment provided for the offence.
(2) A person abets, or is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence, within the meaning of this section, who, in India, abets or is a party to the criminal conspiracy to the commission of any act in a place without and beyond India which--
(a) would constitute an offence if committed within India; or
(b) under the laws of such place, is an offence relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances having all the legal conditions required to constitute it such an offence the same as or analogous to the legal conditions required to constitute it an offence punishable under this Chapter, if committed within India.
Section 29, The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Act 61 of 1985).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
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.
-
State of Kerala v. Rajesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
REPORTABLE Rastogi/Malhotra 24 Jan 2020, Crl A 154-157/2020. Use Judgement of Main Case order-8.pdf, not same-date order-9 ROP. MCP flagged WRONG DOCUMENT (cache reuse) but the body is this reportable NDPS s.37 judgment. Twin conditions in s.37(1)(b) for bail in commercial-quantity NDPS are mandatory: the court must be satisfied there are reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit an offence while on bail; the reverse burden is not a formality. High Court bail set aside. Map CrPC 439 (HC/Sessions bail) and successor BNSS 483 (mapping.csv near-identical). Do not map CrPC 482 (not the ratio).
On this section: Conspiracy / abetment count under s.29 travelled with the s.20 commercial-quantity charge into the s.37 bail bar.
-
Union of India vs Sheo Shambhu Giri
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Under Section 23 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the offense requires proof that the person was involved in import into India, export from India, or transhipment in connection with such import or export. The term 'tranship' must be understood in the context of international drug movement, not as a standalone offense for domestic possession or transportation. Mere possession and carrying of narcotic drugs without proof of involvement in international drug movement does not constitute an offense under Section 23; it may constitute offenses under other sections of the NDPS Act, but not Section 23.
On this section: Section 29 addresses conspiracy to commit offenses under the Act. The respondent was charged under this section but was acquitted, indicating the prosecution could not prove he was part of a conspiracy rather than merely a carrier.
-
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: Used to establish joint liability and conspiracy among accused persons in drug trafficking syndicate
-
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 punishment for abetment of commission of offence under the Act
-
Sanjay Kumar Kedia vs Narcotics Control Bureau
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person or company cannot claim immunity under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (which protects intermediaries from liability for third-party information) when engaged in illegal drug trafficking operations. Section 79 provides immunity only from prosecution under the Information Technology Act itself, not from prosecution under other statutes such as the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. When a company uses technology platforms and internet services as a facade to actively facilitate, design, develop, host, and control the distribution of banned psychotropic substances, it is not a mere intermediary but an active participant in the illegal trade and can be prosecuted under Sections 24 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Bail should be denied when overwhelming inculpatory evidence establishes a prima facie case and there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty or would not resume illegal activities.
On this section: Punishes abetment and criminal conspiracy to commit offences under Chapter IV; applies to acts committed outside India if abetted or conspired from within India; secondary charge against appellant
-
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 conspiracy or abetment in connection with narcotic substances
-
Rekha Sahni vs State Government
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An accused charged with drug peddling involving a minor, who is a habitual offender with multiple pending NDPS cases, is not eligible for bail. The involvement of a child in drug distribution constitutes an aggravating factor that outweighs personal circumstances such as illness or dependent children. The gravity of the offense under both NDPS Act Section 29 and Juvenile Justice Act Section 78, combined with the accused's criminal history, justifies bail denial.
On this section: Possession of narcotic drugs with intent to consume or distribute. The court applied this section to charge the accused with possession of 8.90 grams of smack allegedly given to a minor for distribution.
-
Subhash vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once an absconding accused appears before the court and faces trial, the purpose of property attachment under Section 82 CrPC is achieved and the attached property must be released, regardless of whether the application for release is technically time-barred under Section 85(3) CrPC, particularly when the accused was genuinely unaware of the proceedings due to being out of the country. The purpose of Section 82 CrPC is limited to securing the attendance of the accused, not to punish him or permanently deprive him of property. Once this purpose is achieved through the accused's appearance and trial, substantive justice requires that the property be restored to the accused, even if he has been acquitted.
On this section: Offence of criminal conspiracy in relation to narcotic drugs. Appellant was acquitted of this charge.
-
Kamlesh Kumar Lodhi vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When co-accused persons with identical roles in a narcotic drug trafficking case have been granted bail by the same court, and the applicant has no direct recovery of drugs, no criminal history, and has been in pre-trial detention for over seven months, bail should be granted applying the principle of parity, subject to stringent conditions ensuring the applicant's presence before court, cooperation in trial, and non-tampering with evidence. The mere fact that applicant was found inside a vehicle carrying commercial quantity of narcotic drugs, without direct recovery from the applicant, does not create an absolute bar to bail under Section 37 NDPS Act when considered against the totality of circumstances including parity with similarly situated co-accused.
On this section: Charge against applicant for abetment or conspiracy in narcotic drug offense; applicant charged under this section
-
State of Tripura vs Uttam Kumar Paul
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In NDPS cases, the mere proximity of an accused to contraband in a public place, without clear evidence of ownership or control, is insufficient to establish conscious possession if contradicted by independent witnesses.
On this section: Abetment and criminal conspiracy.
-
Pratheesh. R. Thankachan vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs under the NDPS Act, where the accused has serious criminal antecedents including multiple murder charges, prima facie evidence of involvement through confessions of co-accused and electronic communications, and poses a demonstrable risk of witness intimidation, bail should be denied despite the duration of custody, as the rigorous provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the gravity of the charges outweigh the right to bail.
On this section: Offense of abetment or conspiracy in NDPS offenses; applied to the charges against the petitioner
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.
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 29
What have the courts held on Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
State of Kerala v. Rajesh (24 Jan 2020) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Conspiracy / abetment count under s.29 travelled with the s.20 commercial-quantity charge into the s.37 bail bar. Another 10 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2007 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 29 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 29, section 29 NDPS Act, section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 29 punishment and ndps 29(1). Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 11 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State of Kerala v. Rajesh (24 Jan 2020).
What should I read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on Indian Penal Code 116 (Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment--if offence be not committed), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently 2021 Amendment to the Tamil Nadu Trade Unions Regulations,1927 under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (2021).
When did Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 29, 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.