1. Seizure of commercial quantity of ganja from a vehicle — Conviction under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2034
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
Jothi @ Nagajothi – Appellant
Versus
The State, Rep. By The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of 2024)
Decided On : 11-12-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P. Srivignesh, Adv. Mr. Lakshman Raja. T, Adv. Mr. Sharavena Raghul Asr, Adv. Mr. Mithun Kumaar N, Adv. Mr. Gokul Athithya R P, Adv. Mr. Manu Srinath, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P. Srivignesh, Adv. Mr. Lakshman Raja. T, Adv. Mr. Sharavena Raghul Asr, Adv. Mr. Mithun Kumaar N, Adv. Mr. Gokul Athithya R P, Adv. Mr. Manu Srinath, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR
Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution in NDPS cases; minor sampling irregularities do not undermine the case’s integrity, and mandatory sentences under the NDPS Act cannot be reduced by the court.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)
(C) and 29(1) - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine for possession of ganja - High Court affirmed the conviction - Prosecution case established via consistent eyewitness testimony and proper procedures - Non-examination of independent witnesses not fatal to prosecution. (Paras 20, 21, 25)
(B) Procedural Compliance - Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act - Court notes minor deviations in sampling do not undermine prosecution case if integrity and chain of custody remain intact - Effect of minor discrepancies examined. (Paras 18, 29, 30)
(C) Sentencing - NDPS Act prescribes minimum mandatory sentences - Humanitarian considerations do not override statutory minimum. (Paras 32, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the possession of 23.500 kg of ganja discovered during a police raid following a tip-off. The Trial Court sentenced her to 10 years of imprisonment and fined her.
Findings of Court:
The High Court confirmed the Trial Court’s conviction, ruling that the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt through coherent official testimonies.
Issues: The main issues included the legality of evidence regarding witness testimonies, purity of sampled substances, and the implications of mandatory sentencing under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal, and minor procedural lapses in sampling do not compromise the prosecution's case; statutory minimum sentences under the NDPS Act are not subject to judicial discretion.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Please provide the full legal document content within
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on absence of independent witnesses, non-compliance with Section 52-A sampling procedures, and plea for sentence reduction on humanitarian grounds. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Official witnesses' consistent testimony outweighs absence of independent witnesses; procedural lapses in sampling are not fatal if the chain of custody and substance integrity are preserved. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 )
4. Procedural irregularities under Section 52-A NDPS Act do not vitiate conviction unless substance integrity is compromised; statutory minimum sentences for commercial quantities are mandatory. (Para 23 , 32 )
5. Criminal appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act upheld. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 )
6. Does the absence of independent witnesses during seizure vitiate a prosecution under the NDPS Act?
No. The non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution if the official witnesses provide consistent and coherent testimony that is not discredited during cross-examination. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 )
7. Does sampling of seized contraband at the spot, rather than before a Magistrate, render the prosecution void under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act?
Not necessarily. Non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52-A is not fatal unless the irregularity creates discrepancies affecting the integrity of the seized substance or renders the prosecution case doubtful. (Para 23 , 24 , 27 )
8. Do minor discrepancies in the weight of samples sent for chemical analysis affect the integrity of the evidence?
Minor variations in weight, such as those caused by natural drying and loss of moisture over time, do not undermine the prosecution case or the identity of the samples. (Para 29 , 30 )
9. Can the court reduce the mandatory minimum sentence for commercial quantities under the NDPS Act based on humanitarian grounds?
No. The court has no discretion to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum prescribed for commercial quantities under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, as humanitarian considerations cannot override statutory mandates. (Para 32 )
JUDGMENT :
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as “the NDPS Act”) were affirmed.
2. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2021 in C.C. No. 15 of 2020, convicted the appellant and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running concurrently). The High Court upheld the same.
3. The case of the prosecution was that on 21.09.2019, PW-1 (Sub- Inspector) received secret information that ganja was being transported on a two-wheeler bearing TN-03-M-0585. PW-1 reduced this information into writing, informed PW-5 (Inspector) and proceeded with two constables, PW-2 and PW-3.
4. The appellant (A-2) and her husband (A-1) were intercepted. After informing them of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the police searched the vehicle and seized 23.500 kg of ganja, along with Rs.21,140/-. Two samples of about 50g each were drawn, sealed and marked as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’. PW-1 also recorded the confession of A-1 at the spot.
5. After reaching the police station, PW-1 submitted a report to PW-5 under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. On receiving the report, PW- 5 registered the F.I.R. No. 462/2019 dated 21.09.2019 for offences under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and prepared the intimation memos. A-1 and A-2 were sent for remand and PW-5 took up the investigation.
6. During investigation, PW-5 forwarded the seized samples to the Court along with a requisition for chemical analysis. The samples were received by PW-6 (Scientific Officer) through PW-4. PW-6 analysed the sample, detected cannabinoids and furnished the report.
7. Thereafter, PW-5 recorded the statements of PW-6 and the remaining members of the raiding team under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Cr.P.C”). The seized cash was deposited to the Reserve Bank of India. After completing the investigation, PW-5 filed the final report against A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences.
8. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses. A-1 and A-2 were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., during which they denied all incriminating circumstances.
9. The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 8 (c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, convicted them and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running concurrently).
10. Aggrieved thereby, A-1 and A-2 approached the High Court, which held that the Trial Court has rendered proper findings on the basis of the materials placed by the prosecution to prove the case against A-1 and A-2. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by A-1 and A-2 was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
11. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-2) has filed the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution case suffers from multiple infirmities. First, it is urged that the seizure took place in a residential locality containing about 50-60 houses, yet no independent witness was secured and only police witnesses attested the mahazar, thereby casting doubt on the genuineness of the seizure.
13. Secondly, it is submitted that the representative samples were drawn at the spot itself, contrary to the mandate of Section 52 -A of the NDPS Act and without the presence or certification of a Magistrate, rendering the samples legally infirm. Reliance is placed on Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023 SCC OnLine SC 906) and Yusuf @ Asif v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328) to urge that sampling at the spot vitiates the prosecution case.
14. Thirdly, learned c
