narcotics

What are the facts? What is the context?

Hello sir, greetings of the day.
As per your query, I have listed all the necessary provisions that a person can use as a defence in a Narcotic case.
Section 35 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, lays down the presumption of culpable mental state.
In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state of the accused, the Court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. Explanation.In this section culpable mental state includes intention, motive knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact. For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.
Section 13 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, lays down the special provisions relating to coca plant and coca leaves for use in the preparation of flavouring agent.
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 8, the Central Government may permit, with or without conditions, and on behalf of Government, the cultivation of any coca plant or gathering of any portion thereof or the production, possession, sale, purchase, transport, import inter-State, export inter-State or import into India of coca leaves for use in the preparation of any flavouring agent which shall not contain any alkaloid and to the extent necessary for such use. 
Section 14 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, lays down the special provision relating to cannabis.
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 8, Government may, by general or special order and subject to such conditions as may be specified in such order, allow cultivation of any cannabis plant for industrial purposes only of obtaining fibre or seed or for horticultural purposes.
You can also be given the benefit of doubt under this judgement.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Ranjan Gogoi, R Banumathi and Navin Sinha on August 16 held that an accused under the Act is entitled to acquittal if the Informant and the Investigating Officer (IO) is the same person. The bench made this possible through its liberal interpretation of the Act’s stringent and draconian provisions, for abuse by the prosecution.
Hope this solves your query
Regards
Nirali Nayak
Law Student