NDPS Act : Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

Introduction

The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985 was given with the intent of ruling drug abuse and stopping the use, dispersion, production, and work of drugs. Narcotic drugs are those that encourage sleep, whereas psychotropic elements are those that respond accompanying the mind and changing it absolutely. The Parliament of India gave the NDPS Act on 14 November 1985. These types of drugs have their place in the practice of cure. Consequently, the Act contains supplying for the nurture of marijuana, narcotic, and coca plants in addition to the production of psychotropic substances concerning the culture of these plants.

Its basic objective is to regulate the production, ownership, sale, and transportation of drugs that are thought-out narcotics or psychotropics. As a result of this act, 200 psychotropic substances are prohibited from demand by customer consumers. Prescriptions are required to acquire these drugs. There have existed diversified amendments to the standard because it was settled.

Additionally, NDPS does not differentiate between drug consumers, drug dealers, and dedicated criminals in this profession. An individual is prohibited from production, bearing, nurturing, acquiring, selling, buying, moving, putting or consuming any drug or substance that is considered narcotic or affecting the mind so as to produce vivid visions outside consent from the appropriate authorities. This item, thus, tries to focus on the provisions of the NDPS Act.

Overview of the Act

Development of law on drugs and narcotics in India and the enactment of the NDPS Act

There was no statutory control over drugs and narcotics in India before the introduction of the NDPS Act, hence, the control was essentially exercised through three Central Government acts, namely, the Opium Act, 1857 (XIII), the Opium Act, 1878 (I) and the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 (II). Throughout the Atharva Veda, cannabis smoking was mentioned and was accepted as a form of recreation on a par with drinking alcohol. In the country, cannabis and its derivatives like hashish, marijuana, and bhang were legal up until 1985.  

The Indian government is a signatory to the UN Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs (1961), the UN Convention on Psychotropic Substances (1971), and the UN Convention on Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (1988), which require a type of measures intended to attain the two-fold objectives of restricting the use of narcotics and psychotropic meanings for healing and controlled purposes and forestalling their abuse. India’s responsibilities under the three UN drug practices were captured in the report when enacting the NDPS act as well as Article 47 of allure Constitution. The Act covers all of India in addition to all Indian nationals living outside India in addition to men carrying aboard ships and aeroplanes registered in India.

India was among the first developing countries to plan a National Drug Policy (NDP) to increase approach to drugs for reduced-proceeds, even though drug guests have gradually consumed the market through prescriptions from physicians. A drug price control order (DPCO) was neglected by the Indian government in 1963 to regulate the prices of drugs marketing. Although DPCO had little effect, many drug associations retracted from the country. Consequently, the result of sure drugs proposed from India to China. In 2013, DPCO had a bigger correction. In 2013, DPCO was considered more approving of non-reserved fruit, as there were no new investments made.

Initially, opium and morphine were used for healing arrangements all along the civil war and led to narcotic addiction. Veteran guards who had engaged in these wars became compulsive to these drugs, leading to a disease famous as a soldier’s ailment. During the Second World War, even though hemp (marijuana) had been efficiently banned in 1937, few governments soon found it necessary for essentialities such as line and rope.

The Indian government opposed the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (1961). It was so decided byṣṣ tradition that India hoped for a grace period of 25 years to create cannabis available for scientific and healing purposes only and not for some different reason. Given the governmental awareness of the issue, India had enhanced its bound to international delegations. This forced the Indian administration to remove the intensely implanted use of cannabis. In consequence, the NDPS Act, enacted on 14 November 1985, forbade all narcotic drugs in India accompanying very little obstruction.

Aim and object of the NDPS Act

To achieve the following objectives, the NDPS was enacted:

• To amend and consolidate the laws governing the use and possession of narcotic drugs.
• To establish stringent provisions for the control, regulation, and supervision of the illegal possession, sale, transit, and consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• To provide a mechanism for forfeiting narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as well as the properties derived from, or used in, illicit drug trafficking.
• To establish a mechanism for the implementation of the provisions of the International Convention on Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, as well as for other purposes connected therewith.

 Definitions

Narcotic Drug 

It means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs.

[clause (xiv) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

‘coca leaf’ means-

(a) the leaf of the coca plant except a leaf from which all ecgonine (an alkaloid having a close structural relation to cocaine, found naturally in coca leaves), cocaine and any other ecgonine alkaloids have been removed;

(b) any mixture thereof with or without any neutral material, but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.1 per cent of cocaine.

[clause (vi) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

‘cannabis (hemp)’ means-

(a) charas, that is the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish;

(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; and

(c) any mixture, with or without any natural material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink, prepared therefrom.

[clause (iii) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

‘opium’ means-

(a) the coagulated juice of the opium poppy; and

(b) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of the coagulated juice of the opium poppy,

but does not include any preparation containing not more than 0.2 per cent of morphine.

[clause (xv) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

‘poppy straw’ means-

all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom.

[clause (xviii) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

‘manufactured drug’ means-

(a) all coca derivatives, medicinal cannabis, opium derivatives and poppy straw concentrate;

(b) any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug, but does not include any narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any International Convention, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare not to be a manufactured drug.

[clause (v) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

‘medicinal cannabis, that is, medicinal hemp means-

any extract or tincture of cannabis(hemp).

[clause (xii) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

‘opium derivative’ means-

(a) medicinal opium, that is, opium which has undergone the process necessary to adapt it for medicinal use in accordance with the requirements of the Indian Pharmacopoeia or any other pharmacopoeia notified in this behalf by the Central Government, whether in powder form or granulated or otherwise or mixed with neutral materials;

(b) prepared opium, that is, any product of opium obtained by any series of operations designed to transform opium into an extract suitable for smoking and the dross or other residue remaining after opium is smoked;

(c) phenanthrene alkaloids, namely morphine, codeine, thebaine and their salts;

(d) diacetylmorphine, that is, the alkaloid also known as diamorphine or heroin and its salts; and

(e) all preparations containing more than 0.2 per cent of morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine.

[clause (xvi) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

‘poppy straw concentrate’ means-

The material arises when poppy straw has entered into a process for the concentration of its alkaloids.

[clause (xix) of section 2 of the NDPS Act]

Consolidated meaning of Narcotic Drug is: coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw, coca derivatives[crude cocaine, ecgonine and all the derivatives of ecgonine from which it can be recovered, cocaine and its salt, all preparation containing more than 0.1.per cent of cocaine], medicinal cannabis [any extract or tincture of cannabis (hemp)], opium derivatives [medicinal opium, prepared opium, phenanthrene alkaloids, diacetylmorphine or heroin, all preparations containing more than 0.2 per cent of morphine or containing any diacetylmorphine] and poppy straw concentrate.

It also includes isomers, within specific chemical designation, the esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, whenever existence of such substance is possible and any other narcotic substance or preparation which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug.

For example Opium, Heroin, Cocaine, Ganja, Hashish, Morphine, etc.

Punishment under the NDPS Act

The NDPS Act prescribes punishment according to the quantity of seized drugs. Depending on the severity of the offence, the degree of punishment will vary. A lesser punishment may be imposed if the drugs were used for personal purposes. In response to amendments, it now divides punishment into three categories depending on the number of drugs seized, as well as allowing judicial discretion in terms of punishment severity. In the case of cannabis, punishments for the cultivation of the plant may include rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, in addition to a fine that may be as high as Rs 1 lakh.

Further, persons who produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, and traffic in illegal cannabis are subject to punishment depending on the amount seized. Accordingly, if found in possession of a “small quantity” of cannabis, detention can result in a rigorous prison sentence of up to one year with a fine of up to Rs 10,000.

As long as the quantity is less than a commercial quantity but greater than a small quantity, the convict may face an intense jail term of up to 10 years and a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh. Commercial quantities of cannabis will be punishable by rigorous imprisonment for a term that shall not be less than 10 years but may extend to 20 years. A fine of not less than one lakh rupees extending to two lakh rupees can also be imposed along with the court being able to issue a fine of more than two lakh rupees. The Department of Revenue defines a “small quantity” of cannabis as possessing less than 1 kg, while a “commercial quantity” would be 20kg or more.

In addition, Section 27 of the Act deals with punishment for the consumption of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, stating that when the drug consumed is cocaine, morphine, diacetylmorphine or any other narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the punishment will include either a year of imprisonment or a fine of up to twenty thousand rupees. Those who use any other drug for which punishment has not been specified will be sentenced to up to six months in prison, as well as a fine of up to Rs 10,000.

The Act provides for rigorous punishment of repeat offenders, including jail time of up to one and one-half times the maximum term of imprisonment, as well as a fine of up to one and one-half times the maximum fine. It is also possible for repeat offenders to be sentenced to death if they are found guilty of a similar offence again, depending on the number of drugs seized.

Having committed an offence under the NDPS Act may even result in the same punishment as the actual offence under Section 28 of the Act. A similar provision in Section 25 provides that anybody who knowingly permits an offence to be committed on their premises by another individual will face the same punishment as if the offence was committed by them directly. By amendment to the Act in 1989, due to the serious nature of the offence, the sentence awarded under the NDPS Act became non-commutable except for the sentence awarded for the consumption of drugs. 

Positive and negative aspects of the NDPS Act

Positive aspects:

Among the significant features of this act is the fact that narcotics and psychotropic substances can be added or removed from the list quite easily. The government does not need to pass any formal bills or amendments to effect these changes, as the changes can be made based on information available or by simple publication in the official gazette.

The Central Government has established the Narcotics Control Bureau with specific responsibility for coordinating drug law enforcement nationwide in accordance with subparagraph 3 of Section 4. Based on national plan parameters, the NCB functions as the coordinator of national liaison and a central point for collecting and disseminating intelligence.

Specifically, the act empowers both Magistrates and specially appointed officers of the Central and State Governments to issue search and arrest warrants. By utilising this technology, it should be possible to respond to any information quickly and appropriately and avoid the need for a warrant to be issued. As a result, timely and effective responses to any information are guaranteed.

Negative aspects: 

In most cases, punishment is meted out for acts that cause harm to others, such as murder and theft. Offences created by statute, such as those referred to in the NDPS Act, fall into the category of victimless crimes. An individual in possession of marijuana or drinking an opium-laced drink does not harm themselves or others. As a general rule, an offence comprises two elements: the specific act and the guilty mind or dishonest intention that led to the act. 

The NDPS Act, however, eliminates the requirement of dishonest intention under Section 35 and directs the court to presuppose the presence of a culpable mental state for all offences under the Act. Thus, in a situation where possession is an offence under the Act, then there shall be involvement of conscious possession.

By virtue of the NDPS Act, a defendant is presumed to know the contents. According to Section 54 of the Act, if a person fails to account satisfactorily for the possession of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, or any other incriminating article, it will be presumed that he has committed an offence.

In the case of a second conviction, which may be limited to abetment or attempted committing an offence, Section 31-A provides for a mandatory death sentence, instead of a life sentence.

It is the belief of civil activists that the NDPS Act should be reviewed from the perspective of civil liberties due to its unduly harsh punishments such as the death penalty, virtual denial of bail, and the presumption of intent and knowledge, in effect placing the burden of proof on the accused to prove their innocence.

Amendment to the Act

The NDPS Act has been amended thrice till date. The first amendment was in the year 1988, followed by the amendment in 2001 and lastly the amendment in 2014. The 2014 amendment introduced new provisions and regulations for the use of narcotics drugs and psychotropic substances. The NDPS Act 2014 transferred the power to regulate possession, purchase, sale, transport, import, export or consumption of narcotic drugs and poppy straw from the State Government to the Central Government. The essential narcotic drugs include codeinone, fentanyl, morphine, methadone, codeine.

Major Shortcomings of the Act

The Act is considered to be a failure by many due to

• Delay in the trials
• Bail laws, which provide bail to the rich while keeping the poor in prison
• Failure of the investigating agencies to present prosecution cases according to the set procedure

The Act presupposes the guilt of the accused, reversing the onus of proving the innocence. Section 35 presumes that the accused had the intent, motive and knowledge of his actions. Section 54 of the Act goes a further step and states that if the contrary is not proved, it shall be presumed that the accused was in possession of the illicit drugs that were seized from him.

The restrictions imposed on the grant of bail under the Act amounts to denial and ensures years of imprisonment. Section 37(1) of the Act states that an accused is not to be released on bail unless the court has a reasonable ground to believe that the said accused is not guilty. 

Moreover, Section 31A of the Act prescribed mandatory death sentence for the offender upon conviction. However, the Supreme Court of India in 1983, declared mandatory capital punishment as unconstitutional.

Important sections under the NDPS Act

The following are the important sections under the NDPS Act:

Section 3 

According to Section 3 of the NDPS Act, the Central Government has the right to add or remove such substances or natural materials or salts or preparations of such substances or materials from the list of psychotropic substances. In a very simple manner, the government can do so at any given time simply by notifying in the official gazette without passing any legislation or amending the laws based on available information or a decision based on an international convention. 

Section 7A and Section 7B

The Central Government is empowered under Section 7A to form a fund called the National Fund for Control of Drug Abuse. Specifically, the fund is intended to be used to cover expenditures incurred in connection with the measures taken to combat illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Among the provisions of Section 7B, the Central Government must submit an annual report on the activities that are funded by this fund.    

Section 8(c) 

According to Section 8(c), It is unlawful for anyone to cultivate any coca plant or gather any Portion of coca plant, or cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant or 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.

However, the following is an exception to the section:

‘Medical or Scientific Purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder.’

In State Of Uttaranchal vs Rajesh Kumar Gupta(2006), it was held that the exceptions must be judged on two criteria: first, whether the drugs are used for medicinal purposes, and second, whether they fall within the scope of the regulatory provisions contained in Chapters VI and VII of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985. 

In Union of India & Anr vs Sajeev V. Deshphande (2014), the Court held that under Section 8(c), the prohibition would be attracted to drugs that are not mentioned in Schedule I to NDPS Rules but are mentioned in Schedule I to NDPS Act, and to the drugs intended for medicinal and scientific purposes, because they are prohibited by NDPS Act. It is not contemplated in the NDPS Act to write any rules prohibiting various activities that involve narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. With regards to dealing with such substances, it merely involves the framing of rules that permit and regulate such activities. Under Section 8(c), certain activities are expressly prohibited (such as the import and export of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances out of India in the present case). The rules adopted under the NDPS Act should not be interpreted in a manner that overrides the rights and obligations found in the parent act. Furthermore, the Court made it clear that just because narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are being dealt with for medical or scientific purposes, it cannot itself lift the prohibition created under Section 8(c). The dealing must be done in accordance with the NDPS Act, Rules and Orders, in the manner and to the extent specified. 

Section 27

Various punishments are laid out in this section for the consumption of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, such as harsh imprisonment up to 1 year, or a fine that could reach twenty thousand rupees, or both, and upon consumption of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance other than cocaine, diacetyl-morphine, or any other narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, a prison term up to 6 months may be imposed, or a fine of Rs 10,000 may be imposed, or both.

In Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa, Secretariat Panaji, Goa, the Court held that in order to satisfy Section 27, the following requirements must be met:

• An individual has been found in possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, even if the quantity is ‘small’;
• The possession of such goods should, therefore, be in violation of any provision of the Act, any rule or order made under it, or any permit issued thereunder; and
• Any such narcotics or psychotropic substances that were in his possession were intended for his personal use and not for resale/distribution.

In Anil Kumar v. State of Punjab (2017), the Court stated that if a person who is already imprisoned is convicted of a subsequent criminal offence, the prison term would normally begin when the person has served the original sentence. A court can only run the sentence concurrently with an earlier sentence if it is appropriate, considering the specific facts of the case. It is necessary that the court exercise such discretion in accordance with sound judicial principles and not mechanically. It depends on the nature of the offence/offences and the facts and circumstances of each case as to whether discretion is to be exercised in directing sentences to run concurrently.

Section 36A

A clause in Section 36A of the NDPS Act called ‘non-obstante’ empowers the Special Court to hear cases punishable by imprisonment for more than three years. This provision is intended to ensure speedy trials. Following are some of the features: 

• Under the NDPS Act, the government can set up Special Courts to speed up the prosecution of offences.
• Through a notification to the official gazette, it will be set up in particular areas or areas. 
• The Special Court shall be considered to be a Court of Session.
• There shall be one judge of the Special Court, who will be appointed by the government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court. To qualify for an appointment as a Special Court judge, a judge must first be a sessions judge or additional sessions judge.
• Under the NDPS Act, all of the offences punishable with a term of imprisonment over three years can be tried by a Special Court.
• By reviewing a police report or a complaint made by a state official or a central official, a Special Court will determine whether there was an offence.
• Besides the offences under the NDPS Act, the Special Court has also been empowered with the authority to try an accused who has also been accused of other criminal offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).  
• Proceedings before a Special Court will be governed by the provisions of the CrPC, including those pertaining to bail and bonds.
• In the case of a Special Court, the person prosecuting the case shall be considered a public prosecutor. 

Section 41

In Section 41 of the Act, magistrates have the authority to issue search warrants as well as specially designated Gazetted officers of the central excise department, narcotics department, customs department, revenue intelligence unit, or any other department of the state. As a result, actions can be taken promptly as well as effectively when receiving information. 

Section 50

Section 50 of the NDPS Act provides that a person can request a search be conducted by a magistrate or gazetted officer and that the officer can detain the person until the magistrate is brought in. It is, however, possible for the officer to proceed to search the person pursuant to Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 if he has reason to believe that the person cannot be taken to the nearest constituted officer or magistrate without the likelihood of the person being found in possession of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The search warrant shall state the reasons for such belief, and a copy thereof shall be sent to his immediate supervisor within 72 hours. 

Section 64A

This is an appreciable initiative on the part of the government whereby addicts are offered a chance to seek medical treatment and for which they are not liable. In order to make use of Section 64A, an addict must be charged under Section 27 of the NDPS Act or with an offence involving a small number of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. Moreover, he shall seek voluntary medical treatment for de-addiction; if he undergoes medical treatment for de-addiction, he will not be indicted under the provisions of section 27 or under any other provision for offences involving a small number of narcotics or psychotropic substances. However, if the addict doesn’t receive complete treatment to overcome the addiction, this immunity can be lost.  

Bail under the NDPS Act

As a matter of law, it is well established that a liberal approach in the area of narcotics and psychotropic substances is inappropriate. The Supreme Court has laid down parameters in its various judgments through which it has been provided as to what is required to be considered when the accused is seeking bail for an offence under the NDPS Act.

The Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Ors. (1999) observed that

“….It should be borne in mind that in a murder case, the accused murders one or two persons, while those persons who are dealing in narcotic drugs are instrumental in causing death or in inflicting death−blow on several innocent young victims, who are vulnerable; it causes deleterious effects and a deadly impact on the society; they are a hazard to the society; even if they are released temporarily, in all probability, they would continue their nefarious activities of trafficking and/or dealing in intoxicants clandestinely.”

Accordingly, bail is treated differently in narcotics cases than it is in general. Generally, bail is a rule and jail belongs to the exception category, whereas, in cases of NDPS, jail belongs to the rule category and bail belongs to the exception category. It should be noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act deals with the issue of cognizable and non-bailable offences. In Section 27 of the NDPS Act, it is stated that all offences punishable under the Act are cognizable and that no person accused of an offence punishable under the Act will be released on bail or his bail unless certain conditions are met. This section applies to offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27A and also to offences that involve commercial quantity.

The following conditions must be met before bail can be granted under the Act:

• The accused has reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence.
• The fact is that if bail is granted, the defendant is unlikely to commit any crime while out on bail.

In another case of State of Kerala v. Rajesh, the Apex Court observed that,

“The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 of the CrPC but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with a non−obstante clause.”

Under said section, the operative part is in the negative form which prescribes that no person accused of commission of an offence under the Act is entitled to an extension of bail unless both of the following conditions are met:

• The prosecution must have a chance to object to the application.
• The decision can only be made if the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence.

It is not possible to grant bail if either of these conditions is not met. The pertinent point to note is that, when there is a conflict between Section 37 of the NDPS Act and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), Section 37 of the NDPS Act prevails.

In the case of Hakim@pilla v. the State of Rajasthan S.B (2019)., the Court noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act is titled ‘offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. The section, however, begins with a non-obstante clause that states that whatever offences are punishable under the Act will be cognizable. The legislation does not prohibit bail for every crime. There are also offences under other laws discussed in Schedule I of the CrPC. In Part II of the First Schedule, item No.3 stipulates that if the offence in question is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years under other law, it is bailable and non-cognizable.

Under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, the offence of possession of a small quantity of Ganja (up to 1 kg) can result in a six-month prison sentence and a fine. The offence is cognizable by virtue of Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act, however as stated in Item No.3 in the list (in Part II of the First Schedule), the offence is bailable.

In the case of Rhea Chakraborty v. The Union of India and Ors. (2020), the Supreme Court took precedents from the State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999). According to the Court, Section 37 of the Punjab Incarceration Act makes all offences under the Act to be cognizable offences and non-bailable offences as well as provides stringent conditions for the grant of bail. Relying on the same, Justice Kotwal noted that “the situation has not changed since 1999 when these observations were made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court”. These observations are therefore applicable to today’s scenario with greater force, which is why the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s ruling in Baldev Singh is binding and all offences under the NDPS Act are non-bailable.

Conclusion

Even though India has a strong legislation, it fails to have a control over the drug trafficking as the cases of drug abuse are increasing day by day. The main reason behind this is the improper implementation of the laws. Hence, amendments with addition of new drug substances and their derivatives need to be done from time to time. Maintenance of drug data of the addicts should be maintained and regulated by establishing agencies and organisations.