Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 87504
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J
Ajay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRA-S-1121-2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sidhant Vermani
For the Respondents: Mohit Kapoor
Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is a procedural guideline for the disposal of seized contraband; its non-compliance or the use of samples drawn at the spot instead of those drawn before a magistrate does not vitiate a conviction if the chain of custody and integrity of evidence remain established.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22
(C), 52-A and 54 - Conviction for possession of contraband - Non-compliance with Section 52-A regarding sampling - Appellant argued that only samples drawn before Magistrate are admissible - Court held that Section 52-A provides a procedural mechanism for disposal of seized goods and drawing representative samples is not an absolute mandate to the exclusion of other evidence if recovery is proven - Substantial compliance is sufficient - Procedure prescribed by Standing Orders is meant to guide investigation and does not render trial vitiated unless there exists prejudice or doubt regarding integrity of evidence. (Paras 35, 41-43, 49-51)
(B) Evidence - Delay in dispatch of samples - Merely a rule of prudence and caution - Not fatal to prosecution case provided integrity and chain of custody are established - Where seals and specimen impressions are found intact and consistent at chemical examination, delay in forwarding samples does not automatically invalidate findings. (Paras 54-55)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was apprehended by police while attempting to dispose of a bag containing an intoxicant powder. The substance was weighed and sealed at the spot. A representative sample was subsequently drawn before a magistrate. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of procedural lapses, specifically that the sample drawn at the spot, rather than the one drawn before the magistrate, was sent for chemical analysis, and that there was an unexplained delay in dispatching the sample.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody and that the sample parcel remained secured in double lock storage. The integrity of the seals was verified at the laboratory. The contradictions cited by the appellant regarding witness testimonies were deemed minor inconsistencies insufficient to discredit the core prosecution case.
Issues: Whether compliance with Section 52-A mandates that only the representative sample drawn before a Magistrate be sent for chemical analysis and whether a delay in dispatching samples vitiates the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: Drawing of samples before a magistrate is a procedural safeguard for disposal, but the Act does not mandate this as the exclusive procedure for forensic analysis. If the prosecution establishes the chain of custody and the integrity of the seized goods, procedural lapses in sampling or delays in dispatch do not invalidate a conviction unless they cause prejudice or suggest tampering.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.
| Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or the full judgment is pronounced. | Operative part/full judgment |
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 09.03.2023 passed by the Judge Special Court, Amritsar in case bearing No. NDPS/427/2017 arising out of FIR No. 339 dated 05.12.2014 registered under Sections 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sultanwind, Amritsar whereby the appellant herein had been convicted for commission of offence under Section 22 (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.2023.
Briefly summarised, the facts of the present case are that on 05.12.2014, ASI Satnam Singh, along with other police officials, was present near Sapan Da Shivala Mandir situated on the canal road while conducting patrol duty and checking suspicious persons. During the course of patrolling, a young man was seen approaching on foot from the side of New Kot Mit Singh. Upon noticing the police party, the said person became perplexed, immediately changed direction and attempted to pull out a polythene bag from the right pocket of his trousers with an intention to throw it away. However, before he could do so, he was apprehended by ASI Satnam Singh with the assistance of the accompanying police officials. Upon inquiry, the said person disclosed his identity as Ajay Kumar @ Aju, (the present appellant). Before conducting the search of the polythene bag recovered from the possession of the appellant, efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to associate independent witnesses from the public, however, none agreed to join the proceedings. The search of the polythene bag was thereafter conducted, which resulted in recovery of intoxicant powder. Out of the recovered substance, a sample weighing 05 grams was separated and placed in a plastic container. The remaining bulk quantity, upon weighment, was found to be 255 grams and was also sealed separately in another plastic container. Both the sample parcel and the bulk parcel were sealed by the Investigating Officer with seal bearing impression SS”. A separate sample seal was also prepared and Form M-29 was filled at the spot with the seal impressions affixed thereupon. The seal after use was handed over to HC Bikramjit Singh. The recovered contraband along with the sample parcel was thereafter taken into possession vide separate recovery memo attested by the police officials present at the spot. Since the appellant failed to furnish any explanation regarding possession of the aforesaid intoxicant powder, ruqa was sent to the police station on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. Further investigation was thereafter carried out at the spot.
It is further the case of the prosecution that after reaching the police station, ASI Satnam Singh produced the accused, the sealed parcels, sample seal and Form M-29 before Inspector/SHO Parvesh Chopra, who verified the intactness of the seals and thereafter affixed his own seal bearing impression PC” upon the parcels as well as Form M-29. The SHO thereafter deposited the case property, sample seal and Form M-29 in the double lock after preparing the handing over memo. On the following day, i.e. 06.12.2014, the SHO operated the double lock and handed over the parcels, sample seal, Form M-29 and the accused to ASI Satnam Singh for production before the Illaqa Magistrate. It is averred that before the Court, a representative sample of 05 grams was again drawn in accordance with the prescribed rules and the remaining bulk parcel as well as the representative sample parcel were sealed by the Judicial Magistrate with seal impression NK”, though the same was wrongly reflected in the judgment as AS/SS”. The Investigating Officer also affixed his seal S
