Separate Offences Cannot Be Clubbed to Frame Graver NDPS Charges Without Complying with Section 219 CrPC – Bombay High Court Discharges Actor Dhruv Tahil’s Son

“NDPS Charges Based on 18-Month WhatsApp Chats and Co-Accused Confession Unsustainable”, In a significant decision impacting the interpretation of procedural safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Bombay High Court quashed criminal charges against Dhruv Dalip Tahil, son of actor Dalip Tahil, holding that the prosecution’s attempt to frame NDPS charges based on multiple alleged procurements over 18 months violated Sections 218 and 219 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav held: “The procedural law does not permit the prosecution to assimilate more than three charges into a singular charge over a period of 18 months to be tried together and invoke a singular precipitative action.”

The Court further emphasized that the prosecution had “clearly erred while levying charges on the applicant”, and “failed to comply with the mandatory joinder-of-charge provisions under Chapter XVII-B of CrPC.”

WhatsApp Chats and Co-Accused Confession Form the Crux of Prosecution Case

The case stemmed from the interception of Accused No.1, Muzammil Shaikh, who was found in possession of 35 grams of mephedrone (MD). During the investigation, the police retrieved WhatsApp chats from his phone allegedly indicating that Dhruv Tahil (Accused No.2) had procured small quantities (1–2 grams) of MD from him on 15 different occasions between July 2019 and January 2021, totaling 44 grams and ₹24,700/- in payments.

Although no contraband was ever recovered from Tahil, the prosecution relied heavily on the chats and a confession from Accused No.1, claiming that Tahil had aided and abetted trafficking under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act.

However, the High Court held that these evidentiary materials failed to meet the legal threshold required to proceed with charges under the Act’s stringent provisions.

WhatsApp Messages and Confession Insufficient: “No Specific Mention of Contraband or Transaction”

The prosecution argued that Tahil’s repeated procurements and WhatsApp instructions to deliver contraband demonstrated a larger conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act.

But the Court categorically rejected this theory: “Neither said WhatsApp chats refer to name of any alleged contraband... nor any of the amounts paid reflect payment against any alleged contraband when read.”

“The case of prosecution qua Applicant is merely based on hearsay... no live link or nexus whatsoever is established by prosecution.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Karan Talwar v. State of Tamil Nadu, where it was held that: “Confession of a co-accused containing incriminating matter against a person would not by itself suffice to frame a charge.”

Further, the confession of Accused No.1, even if incriminating, was held inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Charges for Multiple Distinct Offences Over 18 Months Violates CrPC: “Prosecution Cannot Follow Its Own Procedure”

The Court’s most scathing observations were directed at the prosecution’s procedural illegality in clubbing multiple small alleged procurements into a single, severe charge to attract graver punishment under the NDPS Act.

“Even if prosecution version is believed... it prima facie appears that the Applicant has committed an offence under Section 8(c) r/w 22(a) on multiple occasions, but charge is not levied for each aberration.”

Justice Jadhav highlighted the illegal joinder of charges, holding that: “Apart from the exceptions enumerated under Section 219, joinder of charges is impermissible in law.”

The prosecution, by its own admission, was relying on 15 distinct acts of procurement over a span of 18 months, clearly breaching the Section 219 CrPC limitation of three offences within one year.

“Prosecution cannot be permitted to decipher and follow its own procedure for levying of charge of such a serious nature which is impermissible under the provisions of the statute.”

Court Reiterates Higher Standards Under NDPS Act: “Strict Compliance Needed Before Subjecting Accused to Harsh Provisions”

The Court underscored that since the NDPS Act is a special penal statute with stringent conditions (including minimum sentencing, harsh bail provisions, and higher financial penalties), the prosecution must strictly comply with statutory safeguards. Any procedural failure disproportionately prejudices the accused.

“The reciprocating duty is implicitly cast upon the Investigating Agency to strictly comply with provisions of the said Act... which the prosecution has failed to do in the present case.”

Discharge Allowed – Charges Unsustainable in Law

The Bombay High Court allowed the Criminal Revision Application and quashed all proceedings against Dhruv Tahil: “Invocation of charge against Applicant in the present crime is therefore not sustainable.”

“Orders dated 04.07.2023 and 07.10.2023 passed in NDPS Special Case No.711 of 2021 are quashed and set aside.”

Accordingly, Tahil was discharged under Sections 8(c), 22(b), 27A, and 29 of the NDPS Act, and the Criminal Revision Application No. 183 of 2024 was allowed.

This ruling stands as a clear precedent on three major legal principles:

1. Joinder of Charges: Offences committed on different occasions over more than one year cannot be clubbed without complying with Section 219 CrPC.

2. Evidentiary Threshold: WhatsApp messages without direct reference to contraband and co-accused confessions are insufficient to frame charges under stringent penal laws.

3. NDPS Act Prosecution Must Be Precise: In cases involving severe statutory punishments, procedural compliance must be strict, not optional.

Date of Decision: 9 June 2025