Definition: Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, punishes individuals who abet (encourage or assist) or conspire to commit offences related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The critical aspect: punishment is equal to the underlying offence, regardless of whether the crime actually occurs.
What is Abetment vs. Conspiracy Under Section 29?
These terms carry distinct legal meanings. Abetment involves actively instigating, encouraging, or assisting someone in committing a drug-related crime—even if you don’t handle the drugs yourself. Criminal conspiracy, conversely, requires a “meeting of minds”—an agreement between two or more people to commit an unlawful act. A landmark principle from the Aryan Khan case clarifies that mere proximity, friendship, or casual association doesn’t constitute conspiracy without evidence of an actual agreement.
Punishment Structure: Quantity Matters
Section 29 punishment depends on the underlying offence and the quantity involved:
| Quantity Category | Imprisonment | Fine | Applicable When |
|---|---|---|---|
| Small Quantity | Up to 6 months | Up to ₹10,000 | Personal drug possession |
| More than Small, Less than Commercial | Up to 10 years | Up to ₹1 lakh | Distribution/trafficking |
| Commercial Quantity | 10-20 years | ₹1-2 lakhs | Large-scale operations |
| Repeat Offence | 1.5x above | Same | Prior drug convictions |
Key distinction: Unlike Section 30 (preparation to commit offence, which attracts half punishment), Section 29 imposes the full penalty. A person abetting drug trafficking with commercial quantity faces 10-20 years imprisonment plus heavy fines.
Key Differences: Section 28 vs. Section 29 vs. Section 30
Understanding these neighbouring sections clarifies Section 29’s scope. Section 28 penalizes attempts to commit offences (same punishment as the offence). Section 29 covers abetment and conspiracy (same punishment as offence). Section 30 addresses preparation to commit offences (half the punishment). The progressively stricter framework reflects the legislature’s intent: planning and conspiracy are as serious as commission itself.
International Application: Section 29(2)
An often-overlooked provision, Section 29(2) extends liability beyond India’s borders. If someone abets or conspires in India to commit acts outside India that would constitute an NDPS offence under Indian law (or equivalent offences under foreign law), they’re punishable under Section 29. This prevents criminals from exploiting jurisdictional loopholes.
Real-World Example: The Aryan Khan Case
When actor Shah Rukh Khan’s son was arrested in October 2021 from a cruise, the NCB invoked Section 29, alleging conspiracy based on WhatsApp messages with alleged drug peddlers. The Bombay High Court’s bail analysis highlighted a critical requirement: prosecution must prove “positive evidence of an agreement to do an unlawful act” with a “meeting of minds.” Absence of drug recovery from Khan, combined with insufficient evidence of actual conspiracy, led to bail grant. This landmark judgment demonstrates courts demand robust evidence—not mere suspicion or association—to convict under Section 29.
Why Burden of Proof Matters
NDPS offences are cognizable and non-bailable, making Section 29 accusations particularly serious. However, courts increasingly recognize that circumstantial evidence and confessions to police officers alone cannot establish conspiracy. Credible, substantive evidence—such as documented agreements, intercepted communications showing explicit intent, or reliable witness testimony—remains essential.
Quick FAQ
Can police arrest someone under Section 29 without drug recovery?
Yes. Conspiracy doesn’t require actual possession or transaction completion.
What constitutes “meeting of minds”?
Explicit or implicit agreement to commit an unlawful act, evidenced through communications or conduct.
Is bail possible under Section 29?
Yes, but stringent criteria apply, especially for commercial quantities.
Conclusion
Section 29 NDPS Act represents one of India’s strictest drug laws, targeting the architecture of drug crimes rather than sole operators. Its deterrent effect is substantial—but courts maintain that prosecution must demonstrate genuine conspiracy, not mere association. If facing Section 29 charges, consulting an experienced criminal law practitioner immediately is essential, as bail conditions and sentencing frameworks demand specialized legal strategy.
