Procedural compliance in drug possession cases is critical; unexplained delays and non-compliance can warrant acquittal due to reasonable doubt about the prosecution's integrity.

JUDGMENT :

BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.

Appellant assails the verdict of guilty apart from the consequent conviction and sentence imposed upon him under section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’). By the impugned judgment, appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of thirteen years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, with a default sentence.

2. The prosecution alleged that on 21.10.2011, the accused was found in possession of 174 ampules of Lupigesic and 24 unlabelled ampules. Prosecution further alleged that each ampule contained 2 millilitres (ml) of contraband and 12 of the ampules were found in the pocket of the pants of the accused, apart from Rs.200/- found in his shirt pocket and thereby the accused committed the offences alleged.

3. The prosecution case was attempted to be proved through PW1 to PW6, apart from Exhibit P1 to Exhibit P20 and material objects MO1 to MO5, while the defence tried to justify the claim of innocence of the accused and marked Exhibit D1. However, after analysing the evidence adduced in the case, the Trial Court found the accused guilty and sentenced him as mentioned earlier.

4. Smt. Saipooja, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended inter alia that the production of contraband before the Court was delayed by around seven days, thereby creating doubts on the veracity of the prosecution case. The learned counsel also pointed out that the requirements under section 52A of the NDPS Act had not been complied with and the accused could not have been convicted since the sample was not taken in the presence of the Magistrate as required by section 52A of the Act and as held in the decision in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Another [ (2008) 16 SCC 417 ] and Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal [ 2025 INSC 993 ]. The learned Counsel further submitted that there was no compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act as it was compulsory to make an endeavour to take the accused to a Magistrate as held in Ranjan Kumar Chadha vs. State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 2023 SC 5164]. The learned Counsel also contended that Exhibit P1 and Exhibit P13 reports filed under section 42 and section 57 of the NDPS Act respectively, were not in accordance with law. In order to buttress her submissions that the prosecution was totally flawed, the learned counsel relied upon the absence of any independent witnesses in Exhibit P2 consent statement of the accused, absence of any independent local witnesses and the presence of two papers with the signatures of the accused and witnesses, all of which, according to her create doubts on the prosecution case itself. The learned counsel also pointed out that as per the deposition of PW2-the Village Officer, the width of the road was so narrow that a container lorry could not have been parked there. The learned counsel further submitted that the NDPS Act indicates quantity of contraband on the basis of grams while the prosecution case dealt with millilitres and in the absence of any evidence regarding quantum of alleged contraband after converting it into grams or even any reference in the court charge to the equivalent grams of contraband, the charge by itself is faulty and the accused cannot be found guilty, that too, for the offence of possessing commercial quantity of the contraband. It was further submitted that the two independent witnesses examined by the prosecution as PW4 and PW5, had turned hostile and there was no att