IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, SONI SHRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Surendra Prasad, Son of Late Lakhraj Mahto - Appellant
Versus
The Union of India through Custom Commissioner, Muzaffarpur – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1013 of 2024 with Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1074 of 2024
Decided On : 02-04-2026
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 20(b)(ii)(c) read with Sections 42 and 52A – Clause 2.2 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 dated 13th June, 1989 issued by Anti-Smuggling Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance read with Clauses 1.4', 1.5', 1.6' and 1.9' of Standing Instruction No. 1 of 1988 dated 15.03.1988 of Narcotics Control Bureau, Government of India – Recovery of Ganja – Conviction and sentence – There is no evidence of preparation of samples in presence of accused – Mere oral evidence as to features of seized contraband and production of Panchnama does not discharge heavy burden which lies on prosecution, particularly where offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under NDPS Act – Panchnama is a document written by police officer concerned – Panchnama in itself cannot be taken as a piece of evidence to prove prosecution case – Contents of Panchnama were required to be proved by prosecution through cogent oral as well as documentary evidence – There is no compliance with requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of NDPS Act – No plausible explanation has been furnished by prosecution for non-examination of two seizure-list witnesses – Sampling was not done in accordance with Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 – Appellants have made out a case for their acquittal giving them benefit of doubt – Impugned judgment and order of trial court set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 30, 31, 33, 43, 50, 51 and 52)
JUDGMENT :
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Manish Kumar No.II, learned counsel and Mr. Santosh Bharti, learned counsel representing the appellants in both the appeals and Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI).
2. Both the appeals have been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 27.06.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) and the order of sentence dated 01.07.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’) passed by the learned Exclusive Special Judge-II (NDPS), Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in NDPS Case No. 26 of 2023 arising out of DRI Case No. 26 of 2003. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’) and by the impugned order, they have been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fifteen years (15) years each with a fine of Rs.50,000/- each under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act and in default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Prosecution Case
3. The complainant, who was an Intelligence Officer at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Muzaffarpur, has alleged that on 16.11.2003 on the basis of specific information, he had intercepted one truck bearing Registration No. WB-25-2127 along with occupant of the truck, namely, Loki Rai and Dilip Kumar Sah at Chandani Chowk, Muzaffarpur. On search, in presence of independent witnesses, 28 bags or 56 packets of Ganja weighing 539 kgs (gross weight) or 525 kgs (Net Weight) was recovered from the truck which was concealed below the consignment of 64 bags of cattle feed. The recovered 525 kgs of Ganja and the Truck, which was used as mode of conveyance for transportation of Ganja, were seized under Section 42(c) of the NDPS Act. Further, the 64 bags of cattle feed used for concealment of Ganja was also seized.
It is further alleged that the above-named accused persons in their voluntary statement tendered before the independent witnesses admitted their guilt as regards their conscious involvement in trafficking of Nepali Ganja. They also stated that the Ganja was loaded on the truck at Laxmipur, Raxaul, Bihar in their conscious knowledge by the person, namely, Surendra Ji of Durga Transport and Yugal Mistry near Sona Cinema, Raxaul and the Ganja was to be delivered at Fatuha to a person, namely, Ram Prawesh at Fatuha Danapur. They could not disclose the complete address of the said Ram Parwesh and stated that they had to park the vehicle near Kacchi Dargan at Fatuha and had to deliver Ganja to the agent of Ram Prawesh on the direction of Yugal Mistri. They further stated that they were carrying Ganja from Raxual to Fatuha consciously for transportation charges of Rs.15,000/-. The above- named accused persons were arrested and forwarded to judicial custody on 17.11.2003.
It is further alleged that in course of follow up action, the accused Sri Surendra Prasad, son of Sri Lakharaj Mahato, R/o Village- Harreiyen, P.S.- Raxaul, East Champaran was apprehended and subsequently arrested on 18.11.2003 and forwarded to judicial custody on 19.11.2003 for associating in trafficking of Ganja. It is also stated that the seized ganja was sent for chemical analysis to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory wherein it was reported by the Chemical Examiner, C.R.C.L. New Delhi, vide end F.N.-1/ND/R/2003-CLD-299(N)/24.11.2003 dated 24.11.2002 that the same is “Ganja” within the meaning of NDPS.
It is stated that in course of inquiry/investigation conducted, the accusation against (i) Loki Rai, son of Sri Bilat Rai and (ii) Dilip Kumar Sah, son of Sri Yogi Lal Sah, the accused persons, who are members of big smuggler syndicate operating from Nepal and indulged in smuggling of Nepali ganja into India, were fully establish


Possession of narcotic substances can result in conviction under NDPS despite procedural non-compliance if evidentiary strength supports prosecution's claims.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in NDPS Act cases, and non-compliance with statutory provisions vitiates the trial.
The judgment established the significance of producing seized materials as evidence, proper sampling and handling of contraband, and compliance with N.D.P.S. Act provisions for maintaining the credib....
The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ruling that non-compliance rendered the prosecution's case unsustainable.
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, requiring samples to be drawn and certified by a Magistrate, vitiates the trial as it fails to produce primary evidence.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
The conviction under the N.D.P.S. Act was overturned due to significant procedural violations on search and seizure, establishing that prosecution must comply with established legal protocols.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.