MUMBAI, June 10 -- In a significant relief for actor Dalip Tahil's son Dhruv Tahil, 34, the Bombay High Court on Monday quashed four serious charges under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act that had been filed against him by the Mumbai Police's Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC). Justice Milind Jadhav, presiding over a single-judge bench, held that the serious charges-relating to drug trafficking, conspiracy, and financing the illicit drug trade-were wrongly applied. The court noted that these charges stemmed from the ANC's decision to club together multiple alleged drug purchases made over 18 months, which was legally unsound. The case dates back to May 2021, when the ANC's Bandra unit arrested a man named Muzammil Shaikh near HDIL Tower in Bandra East. Police allegedly recovered 35 grams of mephedrone (MD) from him. Examination of Shaikh's mobile phone reportedly revealed that he had supplied small quantities of the drug to various individuals, including Dhruv Tahil. According to the police, between July 2019 and January 2021, Dhruv purchased a total of 44 grams of MD in 15 separate transactions, paying a total of Rs.24,700. On this basis, the ANC booked him under stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, including Section 8(c) read with 22(b) (for possession of intermediate quantity), Section 27A (for financing illicit trafficking), and Section 29 (for conspiracy). While Section 8(c) carries a sentence of up to 10 years, Sections 27A and 29 prescribe imprisonment between 10 and 20 years. Dhruv had challenged the charges before the special NDPS court, which dismissed his plea on July 4, 2023. He then approached the High Court. His counsel, advocate Ayaz Khan, argued that the police had improperly aggregated multiple instances of small-quantity possession to frame charges applicable only to intermediate quantities. He contended that even if the allegations were accepted, they would, at most, attract Section 8(c) read with 22(a), which deals with small quantities and carries a maximum punishment of one year or fine, or both. Khan further relied on Section 218 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which mandates a separate charge for each distinct offence. He argued that the prosecution could not legally merge 15 separate small purchases into one case to apply more serious provisions. Justice Jadhav agreed with the argument, observing that the prosecution had "clearly erred" in clubbing multiple transactions into a single, more serious offence. "This has led to the applicant being charged with an offence of a higher magnitude," the judge noted. He pointed out that the NDPS charges under Sections 27A and 29, applied across an 18-month period, were "prima facie bad in law." He also emphasised that the procedural law-specifically Sections 218 and 219 of the CrPC-does not permit clubbing more than three offences into one trial if they span such a long period. "Procurement of 1 or 2 grams of contraband at a time by the applicant over 18 months constitutes separate acts, and each would require a distinct charge," Justice Jadhav said. With this reasoning, the court struck down the four serious NDPS charges against Dhruv Tahil....