IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Joymalya Bagchi, Gaurang Kanth, JJ.
Aizul Seikh @ Ajijul Sk & Anr. – Petitioners
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
C.R.A. 602 of 2019 With CRAN 3 of 2024
Decided On : 06-05-2024
NDPS - Conviction - NDPS Act - Sections 21(c), 29, 52A - The court emphasized the mandatory compliance with Section 52A regarding sampling procedures, ruling that non-compliance undermines the prosecution's case and invalidates chemical examination reports.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for possessing heroin after being detained by a patrol party, with samples taken at the scene. The defense argued that sampling did not comply with legal requirements.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sampling process violated Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates that samples be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, leading to doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
Issues: Whether the sampling of the seized substance complied with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, affecting the validity of the chemical examination report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that compliance with Section 52A is mandatory, and failure to adhere to this requirement renders the chemical examiner's report inadmissible as evidence.
Result: The conviction and sentence of the appellants were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Joymalya Bagchi, J. :
1. Appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 06.08.2019 & 07.08.2019 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Judge Special Court, NDPS Act, Berhampore, Murshidabad in NDPS Case No.05 of 2016 arising out of NCB Crime No.22/NCB/KOL/2015 and a complaint filed by Malay Kanti Mondal, Intelligence Officer, NCB, Kolkata Zonal Unit convicting the appellants for commission of offence punishable under Sections 21(c)/ 29 of the NDPS Act and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1, 00,000/-each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 21(c ) of the NDPS Act. The appellants were further sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/-each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act; both the sentences are to run concurrently.
Prosecution case:-
2. Genesis of the case as narrated in the FIR is as follows :
Prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 23.12.2015, PW 3 (Subhas Chandra Singh) a Constable attached to 20th Battalion, BSF received secret information and a patrol party went to Nurpur B.O.P. near Gangin village. He was a member of the patrol party. They detained two persons i.e. the appellants and two plastic packets were recovered from them. Thereafter, they were brought to BOP Nurpur. Information was given to NCB Kolkata about the incident. PW1 (Sumit Kr. Singh), an Intelligence Officer attached to NCB Kolkata after receiving the information went to BSF outpost. He found the appellants were detained and two packets had been recovered. Upon weighing 475 gms. of light brown coloured powder was found from each packet i.e. 950 gms. in all. Suspecting the powder to be heroin the consignment was seized and two samples of 5 gms. each was recovered from each packet and marked AS, AS1, NS and NS1. The remainder of the consignment was kept in an envelop marked NCB-I. The samples were sent for chemical examination and tested positive to heroin. PW 2 (Malay Kanti Mandal) filed complaint against the appellants and cognizance was taken.
3. During trial prosecution examined seven witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of the appellants was one of innocence and false implication.
4. In conclusion of trial, trial Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 06.08.2019 & 07.08.2019 convicted and sentenced the appellants, as aforesaid.
Arguments at the Bar:-
5. Mr. Kusal Kumar Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the appellants submits Section 52A of the NDPS Act was not complied. He elaborates samples were drawn at the spot instead of being drawn in presence of Magistrate as per sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. As the sampling was contrary to law, the report of the chemical examiner is of no value. Accordingly, he prays for acquittal of the appellants.
6. Learned Advocate for the State contends samples were drawn in presence of independent witness. Malkhana registers were also produced. Chemical examiner (PW 4) found the seals of the samples intact. Chain of custody has been established. Chemical examiner’s report showed presence of opium alkaloids. Hence, prosecution case is proved beyond doubt. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Evidence on record:-
7. PW 3, Constable Subhas Chandra Singh deposed on 23.12.2015 he was posted at BOP, Nurpur, Aurangabad, West Bengal. Around 4:15 p.m. he received secret information and the patrolling party proceeded to Nurpur BOP near Gangin village. At the spot patrolling party found two persons were detained. Two plastic packets were recovered. Detained persons along with the plastic packets were brought to BOP, Nurpur. On the next day, i.e. 24.12.2015 information was given to NCB, Kolkata. Officers of NCB came to Nurpur at 3:00 p.m. The detained persons and plastic packets were ha
Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act regarding sample collection invalidates the prosecution's case, creating doubt about the integrity of evidence.
Mandatory compliance with NDPS Act's provisions for seizure and evidence is essential; failure leads to invalidation of convictions.
Strict compliance with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the procedure for seizure, sampling, and safe custody of seized articles, is crucial. Non-compliance with these....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act in the seizure and handling of contraband substances, and the requirement for th....
The conviction under the NDPS Act was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for sample collection, emphasizing the importance of due process in narcotics cases.
Failure to comply with mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act vitiates conviction, necessitating primary evidence for a valid trial.
Non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, undermines the prosecution's case and warrants acquittal.
The conviction was quashed due to failure to comply with mandatory procedures for evidence collection under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the importance of a fair trial.
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.