Are Male Potency Drugs covered under NDPS Act? SC answers, Read Order

  

The Supreme Court has ruled that herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.

The Bench comprising of CJI NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Hima Kohli while considering the appeal filed by the accused challenged the High Court order cancelling the bail so granted by the Special Court. 

The Bail was granted on the ground that he was not found to be in possession of any psychotropic substance and no contraband was recovered from his residence or office during the search. 

At the time when High Court cancelled his bail, the test reports of the seized material were awaited and it was not established whether the tablets would qualify either as a narcotic or psychotrophic substance so as to fall within the ambit of the NDPS Act as the accused claimed they were sexual enhancement tablets.

To this, the Supreme Court noted that the test report stated that the "quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities"

"In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. Further, a large number of the tablets that have been seized by the DRI admittedly contain herbs/medicines meant to enhance male potency and they do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act."

 The Court also noted that at a stage where scientific reports of the material siezed is awaited, reliance on Whatsapp messages isn't as sufficient to establish a link of the accused to others. 

The Court went onto remark that in the absence of any psychotropic substance found in the conscious possession of A-4, we are of the opinion that mere reliance on the statement made by A-1 to A-3 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is too tenuous a ground to sustain the impugned order and the same is contrary to SC Judgement in Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2020 Latest Caselaw 582 SC

The Court accordingly set aside the impugned High Court order.

 Read Order Here:

 

 

Social media is bold.

Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  

We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure