2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 8618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Bhausab Madhukar Gore – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence – Respondent
CRA No. 605 of 2025|CRA No. 702 of 2025

Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not automatically invalidate a conviction if the prosecution otherwise establishes the chain of custody and proves possession through credible evidence. Substantial compliance is sufficient to satisfy evidentiary requirements when the integrity of the seized material remains intact.

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

(C), 25, 29, 42, 43, 52A, and 57 - Illegal transportation of commercial quantity of narcotic substance - Seizure and search - Procedural compliance - The provisions of Section 42 of the Act deal with search of buildings, conveyances, or enclosed places, while Section 43 applies to seizure in a public place. There is no requirement for recording satisfaction under the proviso to Section 42 when a public conveyance is searched in a public place or if the search is conducted by a gazetted officer. (Paras 30, 31, 32)

(B) Evidence and Procedure - Sampling and Seizure - Section 52A of the Act - Non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A does not automatically vitiate a trial or warrant acquittal. If the prosecution establishes the chain of custody, corroborates seizure with credible testimony, and proves the case beyond reasonable doubt, procedural lapses in sampling do not invalidate the findings. Substantial compliance is sufficient. (Paras 33, 34, 35, 36)

Facts of the case:
Multiple individuals were intercepted while transporting a large quantity of a narcotic substance concealed beneath organic fertilizer bags in a truck, accompanied by a pilot vehicle. The investigation involved recording secret information, interception of vehicles in transit, seizure of contraband, and subsequent sampling procedures under the supervision of an executive magistrate. The accused were convicted and sentenced for the possession, transportation, and conspiracy to traffic a commercial quantity of the contraband.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent testimonies of official witnesses, verified recovery documentation, and forensic reports. The contention regarding procedural violations was rejected as the evidence demonstrated substantial compliance with statutory requirements, and the integrity of the seized material and chain of custody remained intact. The presumption under the law regarding possession of a commercial quantity of contraband was not rebutted by the appellants.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the search and seizure procedures complied with mandatory statutory provisions, whether the sampling method violated the procedure for preservation of evidence, and whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of commercial quantity recovery under the Act, procedural safeguards are designed to ensure fairness, but they are not inexorable rules. If the overall evidence—including consistent testimonies, seizure memos, and forensic verification—inspires confidence, minor procedural discrepancies do not vitiate the conviction. Once the factum of possession and recovery of the substance is established, the burden shifts to the accused, and a failure to rebut the statutory presumption warrants conviction.

Result: Appeals dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.