Magic Mushroom Per Se Not a Narcotic Drug, Psilocybin Content Key to Determining Offense: Madras High Court
Case Overview
In a recent decision, the Madras High Court addressed the legal classification of "magic mushrooms" under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The case, S. Mohan v. State (Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 19504 of 2024), examined whether possession of magic mushrooms, containing the psychoactive substance psilocybin, falls under the ambit of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The court underscored the importance of determining the psilocybin content in magic mushrooms for deciding whether the quantity is small, intermediate, or commercial.
Key Facts of the Case
The petitioner was apprehended on August 10, 2024, for allegedly possessing 60 grams of magic mushrooms, a natural fungus purportedly containing psilocybin. The prosecution contended that this possession violated Sections 8(C) read with 22(C) of the NDPS Act. However, the defense argued that magic mushrooms as a whole do not fall under the definition of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances; only psilocybin, a compound derived from them, is categorized as a psychotropic substance.
Court's Observations
1. Magic Mushrooms Not Listed as Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh emphasized that magic mushrooms per se are not listed in the NDPS Act. The relevant entry in the NDPS notification table is for "psilocybin" (Serial No. 145), which specifies small (2 grams) and commercial (50 grams) quantities. The court clarified that magic mushrooms are considered contraband solely due to their psilocybin content.
2. Need for Psilocybin Quantification
The Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report in this case did not specify the psilocybin content in the seized mushrooms. The court noted that equating the weight of the mushrooms with the weight of psilocybin was legally and scientifically unsound. Without knowing the psilocybin concentration, the mushrooms’ categorization as a commercial quantity could not be sustained.
3. Comparison with Previous Judgments
The court referenced its earlier decision in a case involving the plant "khat," which contains cathinone, a psychotropic substance. It was held that a natural material does not automatically become contraband unless its active psychotropic ingredient is quantified. Similarly, in this case, the presence and quantity of psilocybin in the mushrooms must be determined to categorize the offense under the NDPS Act.
4. Violation of Procedural Safeguards
The court highlighted lapses in adhering to Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates proper sampling and certification by a magistrate. These procedural deficiencies further weakened the prosecution's case.
The court distinguished between a natural material and the active psychotropic substance it may contain. This decision reinforces the requirement to determine the exact quantity of the controlled substance in any natural product to evaluate its legal classification under the NDPS Act.
The judgment underscores that prosecutorial reliance on the gross weight of a substance containing psychotropic elements, without quantifying the active content, could lead to miscarriage of justice. This principle was reaffirmed with references to the Supreme Court's ruling in Hira Singh v. Union of India (2020), which clarified how mixtures of narcotic drugs and neutral substances should be treated.
The court reiterated the importance of following statutory procedures, including sampling and certification, to ensure fair trial rights and robust prosecution under the NDPS Act.
Bail Order
Given the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the psilocybin content, procedural lapses, and the petitioner’s lack of a prior criminal record, the court granted bail with conditions. These included reporting to the local police station, abstaining from tampering with evidence, and maintaining regular court attendance.
Case Title: S Mohan v/s The state
Date: November-27-2024
Bench: JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
[Read/Download order]
