Supreme Court quashes FIR against YouTuber Elvish Yadav in snake venom case

The bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh confined its scrutiny to two specific questions — the applicability of provisions under the NDPS Act, 1985, and the validity of proceedings under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972. On both counts, the court found the case, as presently instituted, to be legally untenable.

Dealing first with the NDPS Act, the bench noted that the alleged substance recovered from a co-accused did not fall within the schedule of psychotropic substances under the law. “Admittedly, what is recovered from the co-accused cannot come within the purview of psychotropic substances found in the schedule,” noted the court.

It also took note of the submission that no recovery was made from Yadav, who was represented by advocate Raman Yadav, with the prosecution case resting largely on allegations that he had placed orders through an associate. In the absence of any scheduled substance and without direct recovery from the accused, the court held that invocation of the NDPS Act could not be sustained.