Seizure of contraband from a vehicle in public transit is governed by section 43 rather than section 42 of the NDPS Act. Procedural requirements, including those under section 52-A, must be substantively complied with; however, minor deviations that do not cause prejudice or create doubt regarding the recovery are not fatal.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 20(b)(ii)

(C) - Seizure and search - Applicability of Sections 42 and 43 - Recovery of contraband from vehicle in transit - Seizure from public place or in transit attracts Section 43 - Compliance with Section 42 not mandatory for chance recovery or transit seizure - Section 50 only applicable to personal search, not vehicle search - Section 52-A requires substantial, not necessarily perfect, compliance - Minor procedural deviations do not vitiate conviction if prosecution proves recovery and possession through credible evidence. (Paras 24, 26, 30, 36)

(B) Evidence - Appellate review - Conviction under specialized penal statute - Appraisal of evidence - Where recovery is proved by consistent testimony and forensic confirmation, procedural technicalities do not override the duty to uphold the law against drug trafficking - Absence of prejudice to the accused renders procedural lapses non-fatal to the prosecution's case. (Paras 37, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were intercepted while traveling in a vehicle on a public road based on secret information. Upon search of the vehicle, multiple packets of contraband were recovered from the carrier. The police conducted seizure, preparation of panchnamas, sampling, and inventory procedures. The trial court convicted the appellants for illegal possession of contraband. On appeal, the appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of non-compliance with mandatory search and seizure provisions, specifically regarding secret information documentation, personal search requirements, and inventory certification.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the seizure occurred in a public place/transit, attracting Section 43 of the Act, which does not necessitate compliance with Section 42. Since the search was of a vehicle and not a personal search, the requirements of Section 50 were inapplicable. Regarding inventory, the court held that substantial compliance with the procedures was met, and the forensic analysis confirmed the nature of the recovered substance, leaving no reasonable doubt regarding the possession and criminality.

Issues: The main issues were whether non-compliance with procedural norms under Sections 42, 50, and 52-A of the Act vitiates the trial and whether the conviction for illegal possession is sustainable in the absence of absolute procedural perfection.

Ratio Decidendi: Procedural provisions under the Act are safeguards to ensure a fair investigation and prevent tampering; however, they are not intended to be straight-jacket formulas. Substantial compliance, wherein the court is satisfied that the integrity of the recovered contraband is maintained and the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt, is sufficient to warrant conviction.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Judgment on Board

12.03.2026

Per, Ramesh Sinha, CJ.

1 The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985) (in short, the NDPS Act), District Surguja at Ambikapur, in Special Criminal (NDPS) Case No.09 of 2024 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 20(b)ii(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced for RI for 12 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional RI for six months.

2 The prosecution case in brief is that, on 16.08.2023 the Police Inspector Ashwani Singh, PW-12, posted at Police Station, Sitapur, received a secret information that present appellants are transporting Ganja in Pickup vehicle bearing registration No.UP-64-BT-4606 after its purchase from one Girdhari Yadav, R/o Sihardhar and are coming towards Ambikapur from Lailunga Side. The secret information was reduced in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/47. Two independent witnesses Deepak Pansari, PW-1 and Purshottam Purohit, PW-2 were called through Constable Alok Gupta. Photographer Shailendra Singh was also called. Notice Ex.P/1&P/2 were given to the witnesses and they were informed about Secret information and Panchnama Ex.P/2 was prepared. The copy of secret information Panchnama was forwarded to SDO(P) Sitapur through Constable Alok Gupta, who obtained acknowledgment from the office of SDOP, Sitapur vide Ex.P/23. Necessity to search without warrant Panchnama was also prepared Ex.P/24 in presence of witnesses and copies of both these Panchnamas were forwarded to SDOP Sitapur. The police party, independent witnesses along with investigation kit proceeded towards the place of incident. Near Weight Bridge at Pratapgarh, Sadakpara, they intercepted the Pickup vehicle UP-64-BT-4606 and found two persons sitting inside the Pickup. They disclosed their name as Shravan Kumar and Daya Singh. The police party informed them about the secret information and their right to be searched by any Gazetted officer, Magistrate or by the police himself. Notice Under Section 50 of NDPS Act was also served upon them vide P/3&P/4. The accused persons gave their consent to be searched by the police officers and Panchnama Ex.P/5 was prepared. Thereafter police party also gave their own search to the accused persons but nothing incriminating articles were seized from police party and Panchnama Ex.P/6 was prepared. The search Panchnama of search of police vehicle was also prepared which is Ex.P/7. Talasi Panchnama of Police staff Ex.P/8 and Talashi Panchnama of the witnesses Ex.P/9 was prepared. On being search of the accused persons, mobile phones were recovered from the pocket of pant of both the appellants and on being search of said Pickup vehicle, in its carrier, six packets kept in two plastic bags were found and Talashi Panchnama Ex.P/10 was prepared. The said packets were contained with Ganja like substance which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/11. It was kept in total 36 small packets having 18 packets in each plastic bags. The calculation Panchnama Ex.P/12 was also prepared. Small quantity of contents of the packets were taken out and its was physically verified by its burning and smelling and it was found to be Ganja and identification Panchnama Ex.P/13 was prepared. A request letter Ex.P/36 for conducting inventory was sent to JMFC, Sitapur and weighment witness was also called through Constable Alok Gupta. When the request letter Ex.P/36 was served upon JMFC, Sitapur, he shown his inability to reach on the spot within time due to busy schedule of court proceeding, however, weighment witness Shanky Agrawal appear along with weighing apparatus. Weighing apparatus was physically verified and Panchnama Ex.P/14 was prepared. On being weight, 18 packets of one bag was found to be 18.150 KG and 18 packets of another bag was found to be 18.170 KG. The total weight of entire packets of both the bags

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 22484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRAMESH SINHA, CJ, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, JShravan Kumar – AppellantVersusState of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 1113 of 2025

Cases Referred (7)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J
Shravan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1113 of 2025