HC Upholds NDPS Conviction Despite Procedural Lapse in Sampling

The appellants were apprehended by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) while transporting 415.800 kg of Ganja in a truck. The contraband was concealed in a secret cavity behind the driver’s cabin. Following a tip-off, the vehicle was intercepted near the Raipur-Aurang road. Search and seizure operations were conducted in the presence of independent witnesses, and samples were drawn.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1.25 lakh each. The appellants challenged this before the High Court, primarily arguing that the mandatory procedure for sampling before a Magistrate under Section 52A of the NDPS Act was not followed, which they claimed vitiated the entire trial.

Issue Raised: Whether the non-compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act regarding the drawing of samples in the presence of a Magistrate is sufficient to invalidate the prosecution’s case and entitle the accused to acquittal.

HC Held: The High Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the convictions. The Court held that while Section 52A provides a specific procedure for sampling and certification to ensure the integrity of evidence, its non-compliance does not automatically result in an acquittal if the factum of recovery and possession is otherwise established beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court noted that the DRI had followed the search and seizure procedure under Sections 42/43 of the Act, and the testimonies of the seizure witnesses and the Investigating Officer were consistent and reliable. The Court emphasised that procedural requirements are meant to prevent the planting of evidence, and in this case, the massive quantity of contraband (over 4 quintals) and the hidden cavity in the vehicle made the possibility of planting highly improbable.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below