Home  /  Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985  /  Section 79

Section 79: Application of the Customs Act, 1962

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1985
Section 78 All 83 Sections of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 80

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 79

Section 79 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 enacts an express non-derogation clause declaring that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Customs Act, 1962 (Act 52 of 1962). Designed to preserve the full spectrum of maritime, airport, and land customs powers against cross-border narcotics trafficking, Section 79 establishes a harmonious dual-enforcement regime allowing customs officers to invoke both Customs Act interdiction and confiscation powers alongside NDPS Act criminal prosecutions without encountering legal incompatibility or jurisdictional preemption.

  • Express Non-Derogation Principle: Section 79 commands that 'the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Customs Act, 1962.' This statutory formulation ensures that the enactment of the specialized NDPS Act did not repeal, restrict, or dilute any investigatory, search, seizure, or adjudication powers vested in customs authorities under the 1962 Act.
  • Concurrent Statutory Operations: Customs authorities intercepting narcotics at international airports, sea ports, or land customs stations can simultaneously exercise: (a) powers of search, baggage inspection, and seizure under Sections 100-110 Customs Act; (b) civil confiscation of goods and conveyances under Sections 111-115 Customs Act; and (c) criminal arrest and complaint proceedings under Sections 21, 23, and 53 of the NDPS Act.
  • Double Jeopardy Safeguards: While Section 79 allows concurrent regulatory and criminal operations, it must be harmonized with Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC (Section 356 BNSS). Civil departmental penalty and confiscation proceedings under the Customs Act do not constitute a 'prosecution' for a criminal offence, and therefore do not bar subsequent criminal trial before the NDPS Special Court.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. V.P. Sayed Mohammed (1983) 1 SCC 370 & Maqbool Hussain v. State of Bombay AIR 1953 SC 325 (Constitution Bench): The Supreme Court established that departmental confiscation and penalties under Customs legislation do not bar subsequent criminal prosecution before a court, as administrative confiscation is not a judicial prosecution under Article 20(2).
  • Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417: The Supreme Court analyzed the interplay between the Customs Act and NDPS Act, holding that when customs officers investigate offences under the NDPS Act, the specialized procedural safeguards of the NDPS Act apply fully, and the prosecution must prove conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

In international airport or port interdiction cases where Customs officers investigate under both the Customs Act and the NDPS Act: Scrutinize statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Following Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 4 SCC 1, argue that once customs officers are investigating an NDPS offence, confessional statements recorded under Section 108 Customs Act cannot be imported as substantive evidence to convict the accused under the NDPS Act, as doing so violates Section 25 Evidence Act / Section 23 BSA 2023.

Section 78 All 83 Sections of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 80