Aryan Khan case: The laws invoked against Shahrukh Khan's son

Aryan Khan, son of Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan, has been arrested for offences under various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for the sale and possession of various drugs.

Khan and 7 others were detained by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) on Saturday for interrogation after drugs were found on Cordelia Cruises' Empress ship, on which a rave party allegedly took place.

Yesterday, a Mumbai Court granted NCB custody of the accused till October 4.

What are the provisions of law invoked against Khan? And what is the punishment under the law, if he is found guilty? Let's take a closer look.

The rigour of the NDPS Act varies greatly based on the quantity of the contraband seized. As per the arrest memo, 13 grams of cocaine, 5 grams of MD, 21 gram charas and 22 pills of MDMA have been seized.

The memo has accused Khan of contravention of Sections 8(c), 20(b), 27 read with Section 35 of the Act. First, let us examine the provisions.

Section 8(c) provides that no person shall 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.

Section 20(b) lays down punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis.

It states that whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-state, exports inter-state or uses cannabis, shall be punishable: -

(A) for small quantity - with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to [one year], or with fine which may extend to ₹10,000 or with both;

(B) for quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity - with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to ₹1 lakh;

(C) for commercial quantity - with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than ₹1 lakh but which may extend to ₹2 lakh:

Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.

Section 27 provides for punishment for consumption of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.

It says that whoever, consumes any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance shall be punishable,—

(a) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance consumed is cocaine, morphine, diacetylmorphine or any other narcotic drug or any psychotropic substance as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twenty thousand rupees; or with both; and

(b) where the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance consumed is other than those specified in or under clause (a), with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both.

As is evident above, the punishment under Section 20 would vary greatly depending on the quantity of contraband recovered. According to experts, the quantities specified in the arrest memo could vary from small to intermediate.

Advocate MF Philip, who appears in NDPS cases in Delhi, says that the charas recovered from Khan would be considered as 'small quantity,' while cocaine would be intermediate.

This would mean that Section 20B(b) which prescribes punishment of upto ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of upto ₹1 lakh would be applicable, if he is convicted. However, the provision does not prescribe any minimum punishment for intermediate quantity and a much shorter jail term is what is usually awarded.

“If found guilty, it is likely that the accused may be awarded some jail time though the statute does not prescribe a minimum sentence for intermediate quantity,” said Philip.

The punishment for consumption under Section 27 is much lesser.

There is another interesting aspect to NDPS law, with regard to bail. It provides that for offences involving commercial quantity, an accused cannot be released on bail if the public prosecutor opposes the bail.

In such an event, bail can be granted only if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

“Since the contraband seized in this case does not amount to commercial quantity, the rigour of Section 37, which makes jail a rule and bail an exception, will not be attracted,” Philip said.