Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act is mandatory; non-compliance vitiates proceedings, and confessions under Section 67 are inadmissible without corroboration.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21, 22 and 52A - Quashing of FIR and charge sheet - Petitioner challenged proceedings against him based on confessions of co-accused without corroboration - Court held that Section 52A mandates preparation of inventory and drawing of samples in the presence of a Magistrate; non-compliance leads to vitiation of proceedings - Confessional statements under Section 67 inadmissible without corroboration - Proceedings quashed due to lack of evidence against petitioner. (Paras 4, 9, 10, 11, 18, 19, 20, 21)

CAV ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special C.C.No.2063 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’ for short) and pending before XXXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Bengaluru.

2. Heard Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

It is the case of the prosecution that on 23-09-2021 at about 2.30 p.m., the complainant/CW-1 receives credible information that outside “Pinger Family Bar and Restaurant” accused No.1 has been selling drugs to consumers. The complainant lodged a complaint with Koramangala Police Station and pursuant to registration of crime, a team of officers CWs-2 to 7 proceed to the place of alleged selling and conduct a surprise raid, wherein accused No.1 who had come to the spot to sell drugs was caught by the Police for selling MDMA pills to the consumers. The officers took accused No.1 into custody, seized about 12.20 grams of MDMA tablets contained in a black plastic bag and on the same day, registered complaint for offence punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act in Crime No.206 of 2021. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against two persons. Here comes accused No.2, the petitioner. The concerned Court, on filing of the charge sheet, took cognizance of the offence against both the accused for offences punishable under Sections 21 and 22 of the Act. Filing of the charge sheet and taking of cognizance of offences is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel Sri Madhukar Deshpande appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that Section 52A of the Act has been violated. This a mandatory procedure, violation of which, would vitiate the proceedings is his submission. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel would place reliance upon four judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of: (i)UNION OF INDIA v. MOHANLAL, [(2016) 3 SCC 379], (2)SIMARNJIT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 906] (3)MANGILAL v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 862] and (4)BOTHILAL v. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER, NCB, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 498]. He would further contend that confession statement secured from the hands of the co-accused to pin down the petitioner runs counter to Section 67 of the Act and is inadmissible in evidence. He would seek to place reliance upon the following judgments to buttress the said submission: (5)STATE v. PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA , [(2022) 12 SCC 633] (6)BALWINDER SINGH v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1213] (7)FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT, [2024 SCC OnLine Sc 680] and (8) MR.PARITOSH CHANDRASHEKAR KULKARNI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA , [Crl.P.No.1850 of 2023 decided on 19-07-2024]. In all, it is the submission of the learned counsel that entire proceedings are vitiated on account of violation of law, as contended hereinabove.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would submit that the procedure under Section 52A of the Act is in fact followed and even if it is not followed, it is a mere irregularity and not illegality that would vitiate the proceedings. He would clarify that the Apex Court in a later judgment reported in BHARAT AAMBALE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH , [2025 SCC OnLine SC 110] has clarified the position. All the judgments that the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon have been considered and the law is steered clear in the said judgment.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner is accused No.2. A crime comes to be regist

Click Here to Read the rest of this document