SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 135

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Rajwant Singh – Appellant
VERSUS
The State of Haryana – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2019
Decided On : 09-01-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR Mr. Vipin Gogia, Adv. Mr. Karanvir Gogia, Adv. Ms. Varnika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Devendra Kumar Saini, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sinha Roy, Adv.

The court upheld the conviction under the NDPS Act, ruling that non-compliance with Section 52A did not invalidate the evidence or conviction.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 15 and Section 52A - Conviction for possession of narcotics - Appellant convicted and sentenced to ten years imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh - High Court affirmed conviction - Non-compliance with Section 52A was argued but found insufficient to overturn conviction - Evidence supported the prosecution's case. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 13)

(B) Burden of Proof - Initial burden lies on the accused to demonstrate non-compliance with Section 52A - Prosecution must then prove compliance or that non-compliance does not affect the case. (Paras 9, 10, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was found in possession of poppy straw during a police raid, leading to his conviction under the NDPS Act. The trial court's conviction was upheld by the High Court.

Findings of Court:
The court found no procedural lapses that would undermine the conviction, affirming the integrity of the evidence presented.

Issues: The main issue was whether the non-compliance with Section 52A affected the validity of the conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appellant failed to establish non-compliance with Section 52A, and the prosecution's evidence remained credible and intact.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

ORDER

This appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 15.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA-S-2377-SB-2004 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and thereby, affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Special Court, Kurukshetra dated 21.10.2004 holding the appellant herein guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.1 lakh.

2. The case of the prosecution may be summarised as under:- The police had information that the appellant herein and one Dara Singh were dealing in narcotics. The information was that both are drug peddlers. On 23.04.2002, a vigil was kept on the movements of the appellant herein and Dara Singh. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellant herein was travelling in a Contessa car bearing registration No.HR 01-E-0948. The car was intercepted. The car was searched and the appellant was found to be the only person in the car and he was on the wheels. From the rear seat of the car, three bags filled with poppy straw were recovered and two bags containing poppy straws were recovered from the trunk of the car. The contraband was seized at the spot. The case against the co-accused Dara Singh was that he was following the car on a motorcycle. The trial court held Dara Singh guilty of the alleged offence however, he came to be acquitted by the High Court.

3. At the end of the investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offences enumerated above. The trial court framed charge to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses. The prosecution also led documentary evidence in support of its case. The further submission of the appellant herein was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the further statement, the appellant said that he was falsely implicated in the crime.

4. The trial court ultimately held the appellant herein guilty of the offence and sentenced him as above. The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of conviction. In such circumstances, the appellant is here before this Court with the present appeal.

5. We have heard Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-convict and Mr. Devendra Kumar Saini, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana.

6. The only argument canvassed before us by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the conviction could be said to have stood vitiated because of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. In support of her submission, she relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Mohammed Khalid and Another vs. State of Telangana (2024) 5 SCC 393, more particularly, para (26) therein. Para (26) reads thus:-

    “26. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the investigating officer PW 5 for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in the presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report (Ext. P-11) is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence. The accused A-3 and A-4 were not arrested at the spot.”

7. We are of the view that Section 52A talks about the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Even for the purpose of invoking Section 52A, a foundation has to be laid by putting appropriate relevant questions in that regard to the investigating officer. Out of the blue, the appellant cannot contend that Section 52A was not complied with. We have looked into the evidence of PW-7 – Mahavir Singh, ASI, who had at the relevant point of time attached to the Kurukshetra Police Station. In his examination-in-chief, he has deposed as under:-

    “ On 23.4.2002 I was posted as ASI in Police station, Babain. On that day,

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top