2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Vikash Kumar Ray – Appellant
Versus
Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence – Respondent
CRA No. 1495 of 2024|ACQA No. 247 of 2025|CRA No. 2595 of 2025

Non-compliance with the procedural norms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act does not automatically vitiate a conviction if significant, credible evidence of possession and recovery exists on record sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and satisfies the court's conscience.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)

(C), 25, 27(A), 29, 35, 42, 43, 52-A, 54, 55, 57 - Illegal transportation of contraband - Conviction and sentence - Non-compliance of Section 52-A - Effect thereof - As per settled law, non-compliance with Section 52-A is not per se fatal if independent cogent evidence exists - Procedural provisions are intended to guide and ensure fairness - Substantial compliance suffices - Burden on prosecution to prove case beyond reasonable doubt - Presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 place onus on accused to rebut conscious possession once recovery is established - Scope of appellate interference in acquittal is limited to cases of perversity or obvious illegality. (Paras 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 43, 60)

(B) Appeals against acquittal - Power of appellate court - Unless findings recorded by trial court are perverse, manifestly illegal or wholly unsupported by evidence, acquittal should not be interfered with - If two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. (Paras 53, 60)

Facts of the case:
Prosecution alleged illegal transportation of a large quantity of a narcotic substance in a vehicle featuring a specially constructed secret chamber. Several persons were apprehended or tried in connection with the seizure, while others were acquitted due to lack of direct evidence linking them to the offence or the premises involved.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the search and seizure on a public road fell under Section 43, rendering Section 42 compliance inapplicable. Regarding procedural lapses, it reaffirmed that Section 52-A of the Act is directory rather than mandatory in a manner that renders non-compliance automatically fatal; provided, the prosecution leads other cogent evidence, including testimony of official witnesses and independent panchas, to prove recovery and possession.

Issues: Whether the search and seizure conducted complied with statutory requirements and whether the procedural non-compliance vitiated the trial; further, whether the evidence established the guilt of the convicts and the legitimacy of the acquittal for the other respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the presence of a large quantity of contraband in a secret chamber and the recovery of incriminating materials, such as duplicate vehicle number plates, established conscious possession under the statutory presumptions of Sections 35 and 54 of the Act. Conversely, as there was no evidence linking the acquitted respondent to the contraband or the act of conspiracy, the trial court’s finding of acquittal was deemed a plausible view, warranting no interference.

Result: Conviction appeals dismissed; acquittal appeal dismissed.