Prohibition of certain operations
Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 deals with prohibition of certain operations. No person shall-- (a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; The Act came into force on 14 Nov 1985.
No person shall--
(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation:
Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter-State and export inter-State of ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
1[Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the export of poppy straw for decorative purposes.]
Section 8, 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.
Referred to by 4
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 Rajasthan vs Tara Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the establishment of an unbroken chain of custody, proper documentation of sample handling procedures, and credible evidence regarding when and how samples were transported to the laboratory are essential elements of proof. Unexplained gaps in sample custody and documentary evidence that cannot be reliably authenticated create reasonable doubt regarding the sanctity of the samples and the authenticity of evidence, warranting acquittal despite physical seizure of contraband. The burden remains on the prosecution to establish these procedural safeguards beyond reasonable doubt.
On this section: Respondent was charged under Section 8 for possession of opium, a controlled substance
-
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: Primary charge: Possession of narcotic substance with intent to traffic. Court upheld conviction under this section based on recovery of 3.056 kg heroin from truck and 3 kg from residence
-
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: Prohibitory clause that prohibits possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except for medical or scientific purposes and in accordance with the Act, rules, and authorized licenses. The Court held that this section applies to all forms of narcotic drugs, including manufactured preparations.
-
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 possession of morphine with which the appellant was charged
-
Inspector of Customs, Akhnoor J & K vs Yash Pal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
While the examination of an accused under Section 313 CrPC is mandatory in warrant cases and should generally be conducted personally, procedural flexibility may be introduced in special exigencies where personal attendance causes genuine hardship involving substantial expense or physical incapacity, provided the court has satisfied itself as to the genuineness of the hardship. However, when omission to put incriminating materials to an accused has in fact occurred at trial, the trial court must ordinarily eschew such materials from its consideration unless the accused is afforded opportunity to explain them, either during trial or by appellate-stage explanation. In this case, because the foundation of the prosecution case (voluntary confessions to Customs authorities) was not put to the accused at all, their acquittal could not be set aside.
On this section: The accused were charged with offences under these sections for possession and trafficking of narcotic drugs (heroin). The court examined whether conviction under these provisions was properly supported by evidence and procedure.
-
State of Rajasthan vs Udai Lal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In narcotic drug trafficking cases under the NDPS Act, appellate courts must properly evaluate all evidence and circumstances, including witness credibility through admitted signatures on spot documents and sample evidence from bulk seizures, rather than acquitting on flimsy grounds based on hostile witnesses or non-production of entire bulk quantity; procedural irregularities in search and seizure do not render evidence inadmissible if court finds no serious prejudice or tampering, and appellate courts must intervene when trial courts' findings are manifestly unreasonable causing miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Primary provision under which Udai Lal was charged for illegal possession and transportation of narcotic substances (opium powder)
-
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 the offence of possession of narcotic drugs
-
Amritlal vs Union Govt. Th. Secy. Min. of Finance
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A valid detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 requires that the detaining authority must satisfy itself on cogent material that the detenue is likely to be released on bail. The mere likelihood of the detenue moving an application for bail is insufficient; there must be material on record establishing actual likelihood of bail release. The inference must be drawn from available material and cannot be the mere assertion of the officer passing the detention order.
On this section: Sections under which criminal prosecution was initiated against appellants for possession and trafficking of 132 kilograms of opium
-
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: Prohibits possession of Mandrex tablets; the foundational provision under which the appellant was convicted for possessing 50,000 tablets
-
Suman Kumar Rana vs Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In NDPS cases involving serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, where an accused has undergone prolonged custody for a period exceeding four years pending trial without completion of the main proceedings, the Supreme Court may grant bail on conditions to be determined by the Trial Court, considering the totality of circumstances including the length of detention already endured, the seriousness of the charge, and the availability of conditions to mitigate state apprehensions. The principle that bail is the rule and imprisonment is the exception applies even to serious criminal matters, particularly when considerable time has elapsed in pre-trial custody.
On this section: Sections under which the petitioner was charged for alleged involvement in drug trafficking. The order references these provisions as the basis of criminal charges against the petitioner, indicating their application in the underlying criminal case before the Trial Court.
-
Sakib @ Sakib Chana vs The State of Gujarat
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused charged under the NDPS Act has undergone incarceration for an extended period (exceeding eighteen months) and considering the quantum of contraband recovered, proportionality principles mandate bail grant even if the offences are serious, particularly where the High Court has not recorded specific reasons justifying continued custody beyond the incarceration period already served.
On this section: Offences for which the petitioner was charged; Supreme Court considered gravity of charges against proportionality of custody period
-
Sikandar vs The State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner challenges bail rejection in a serious criminal case under NDPS Act involving large contraband quantity, and the trial is demonstrably progressing with reasonable hope of completion, the appropriate remedy is not to grant bail on conventional grounds but to impose an enforceable deadline for trial completion, with liberty to apply for bail afresh if deadline is breached, thereby balancing the accused's liberty rights with public interest in prosecuting serious drug offences.
On this section: Sections under which accused was charged for possessing and transporting large quantity of poppy straw; these are serious offences attracting stringent punishment
-
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: Establishes prohibition on narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances; Phentermine and Butalbital fall within this prohibition as they are listed in the Schedule
-
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: Offences related to controlled substances. NCB registered case under these provisions.
-
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 possession and trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Applied to establish the nature of charges against accused.
-
Mohd. Zahir vs The Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Preventive detention under Public Safety Act cannot be invoked to circumvent or subvert ordinary criminal law remedies. Where a competent court has granted bail to an accused and the accused is facing trial while complying with bail conditions, preventive detention based on the same set of allegations cannot be justified without compelling reasons, as this violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution. The detaining authority must apply its mind to all material facts, including existing bail orders, and must consider representations within reasonable time. Failure to do so vitiates the detention order.
On this section: Offences related to narcotics trafficking alleged against the detenue; ordinary criminal law remedy available
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.
-
… Date of Judgment : September 22 , 2016. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Shri Anshuman Saxena for the appellant. Shri V.S. Godara, P.P. for the State. 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 105/09 registered at Police Station Harmada, District Jaipur, under Section 8/18 and 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 6.3.2009 at about 4.25 p.m., Chug Singh was posted as Station House Officer, (SHO for short) Police Station Bhatta Basti. On the basis of information secret …
-
… HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Shri Biri Singh, Sr. Advocate with Shri Jaswant Singh Rathore for the appellant. Shri V.S. Godara, P.P. for the State. 1. Appellant had faced trial in FIR No. 563/2007 registered at Police Station Deeg, District Bharatpur, under Section 8/22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') . 2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 21.10.2009 at about 4.30 p.m., information was received in the Police Station that one motorcycle bearing No. HR-51-R-0429 was coming from Kumher side and the motorcycle …
-
… Excise, Beawar. Appellants were found in possession of poppy husk without any permit or licence. 2. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has not challenged the conviction and sentence under Section 8/15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') but has submitted that the sentence qua imprisonment of the appellants be reduced from 15 years rigorous imprisonment to 10 years rigorous imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the …
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 8
What have the courts held on Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act?
State of Rajasthan vs Tara Singh (29 Mar 2011) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Respondent was charged under Section 8 for possession of opium, a controlled substance. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 13 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 1996 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 8 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 8, section 8 NDPS Act, section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. People searching for it also type ndps 8c and ndps 8 c punishment. 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 State of Rajasthan vs Tara Singh (29 Mar 2011).
What should I read with Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, and has it changed?
4 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently GSR 2(E) (2008).
When did Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act come into force?
Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, cited as NDPS Act 8, 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.