Patna: In a significant ruling that could have far-reaching implications for NDPS drug-related prosecutions involving common pharmaceutical compounds, the Patna High Court has held that Phenothiazine and Promethazine do not qualify as narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The substances are instead regulated under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
A division bench comprising Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and Justice Arun Kumar Jha, in its order dated April 10, 2026, suspended the 15-year prison sentences and fines imposed on three men — Dharmendra Kumar, Ravindra Kumar, and Vijay Kumar — who had been convicted under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The court observed that the seized substances (approximately 1 kg each from two motorcycles) were Phenothiazine and Promethazine, neither of which finds mention in the NDPS Act’s schedule of psychotropic substances or in the 2001 Central Government notification listing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The appellants were intercepted by police on NH-83 while allegedly heading to a hotel to deliver what was initially suspected to be heroin. A field test using a DD Kit showed a positive reaction, leading to their arrest and subsequent conviction by the trial court. However, during the appeal, the defence successfully argued that the recovered compounds were pharmaceutical substances with antihistamine and antipsychotic properties, widely used in medicines, and not covered under the NDPS Act.
The bench noted: “The discussions made hereinbefore clearly shows that the seized articles which have been found to be Phenothiazine and Promethazine do not come within the ambit of any narcotic drug and psychotropic substances for the purposes of NDPS Act.” It further clarified that Promethazine is listed as an ‘Antihistaminic substance’ and Phenothiazine (along with its derivatives) falls under Schedule H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. Any alleged violation would therefore be cognizable only under Chapter IV of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, where police have no authority to register an FIR or make arrests — only a Drug Inspector can do so, as per Supreme Court precedent in Union of India vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. (2021).
The court granted the appellants bail during the pendency of their appeals upon furnishing bonds of ₹10,000 each, emphasising that the conviction under NDPS Act appeared prima facie unsustainable. It made it clear that the observations were limited to the bail stage and would not prejudice the final hearing on merits.
The State had argued that the substances might have been used as “cutting agents” to dilute heroin or enhance its effects, but the bench held that this did not bring them within the NDPS framework if they were not explicitly listed.
Legal experts view the ruling as a timely reminder against the “invariable misuse” of the stringent NDPS Act in cases involving licit pharmaceutical preparations. Phenothiazine derivatives and Promethazine are commonly prescribed for allergies, nausea, and certain psychiatric conditions. The judgment underscores the need for forensic laboratories and investigating agencies to accurately identify substances before invoking the NDPS Act, which carries far harsher penalties than the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The order is expected to influence similar cases where cough syrups or other medicines containing permissible ingredients are wrongly booked under NDPS provisions.
Acknowledgement: This news is prepared directly from the official order of the Patna High Court (Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 285 of 2025 and batch) as reported by LiveLaw and Verdictum on April 10, 2026. The reporting faithfully reproduces the bench’s observations and legal reasoning.
