2025 Supreme(SC) 119 ; 2025 Supreme(SC) 120

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.B. PARDIWALA, R. MAHADEVAN, JJ.
Bharat Aambale – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2025 (Arising Out Of SLP (CRL.) NO. 14420 of 2024)
Decided on : 06-01-2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Even in cases where there is non-compliance with procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate trial or warrant an automatic acquittal – Procedural lapses must be viewed in context of overall evidence.
(2) Although, there is no mandate that drawing of samples from seized substance must take place at the time of seizure, yet process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in presence of accused, though same may not be done at the very spot of seizure.
(3) Where there has been lapse on part of police in either following procedure laid down in Section 52A of NDPS Act or prosecution in adequately proving compliance of same, it would not be appropriate for courts to resort to statutory presumption of commission of an offence from possession of illicit material under Section 54 of NDPS Act.

Headnote:

(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 52A – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Section 52A of NDPS Act lays down a comprehensive procedure for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Scope of Section 52A although primarily for disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet extends beyond immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose of strengthening evidentiary framework under NDPS Act – By providing for preparation of inventories and certification by Magistrates, provision enhances credibility and reliability of evidence presented during trial, minimizing scope for disputes or challenges related to handling and disposal of seized substances – Entire procedure envisaged under Section 52A of NDPS Act is meant to inject fair-play in investigation – Underlying object behind Section 52A of NDPS Act and Standing Order(s)/Rules thereunder is only to provide for a mechanism and procedure for safe and early disposal of narcotics substances and seized contraband to prevent such substances from endangering lives due to prolonged storage, ceasing to be of any evidentiary value due to degradation or spoilage, or from falling into wrong hands or being recirculated into market due to theft etc. (Paras 10, 12, 18 and 22)

(B) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 52A – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Non-compliance or delayed compliance with procedure prescribed under Section 52A of NDPS Act or Rules/Standing Order(s) thereunder may lead court to draw an adverse inference against prosecution – However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on peculiar facts and circumstances of each case – Such delay or deviation from Section 52A of NDPS Act or Standing Order(s)/Rules thereunder will not, by itself, be fatal to case of prosecution, unless there are discrepancies in physical evidence which may not have been there had such compliance been done – What is required is that courts take a holistic and cumulative view of discrepancies that exist in physical evidence adduced by prosecution and correlate or link the same with any procedural lapses or deviations – Whenever, there is any deviation or non-compliance of procedure envisaged under Section 52A, courts are required to appreciate the same keeping in mind discrepancies that exist in prosecution’s case – Where there has been lapse on part of police in either following procedure laid down in Section 52A of NDPS Act or prosecution in adequately proving compliance of same, it would not be appropriate for courts to resort to statutory presumption of commission of an offence from possession of illicit material under Section 54 of NDPS Act, unless court is otherwise satisfied as regards seizure or recovery of such material from accused persons from other material on record – Similarly, irrespective of any failure to follow procedure laid under Section 52A of NDPS Act, if other material on record adduced by prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies court regarding both recovery and possession of contraband from accused, then even in such cases, courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of NDPS Act. (Paras 26 and 27)

(C) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 52A – Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances – Although, there is no mandate that drawing of samples from seized substance must take place at the time of seizure, yet process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in presence of accused, though same may not be done at the very spot of seizure – Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of procedure prescribed under Section 52A of NDPS Act and Rules/Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52A sub- section (4) of NDPS Act, irrespective of whether substance in original is actually produced before court or not – Initial burden will lie on accused to first lay foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A – Once foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act, onus would thereafter be on prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there was substantial compliance with mandate of Section 52A of NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against accused, and standard of proof required would be beyond reasonable doubt – Even in absence of compliance of Section 52A of NDPS Act, courts cannot simply overlook other cogent evidence in the form of seized substance itself or testimony of witnesses examined. (Paras 37, 49 and 50)

Facts of the case:

Only contention raised by Counsel appearing for appellant herein is that conviction could be said to have stood vitiated because of the non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS, Act.

Findings of Court:

Identification test by colour was done, thereafter 73 packets were bunched into two lots of a maximum of 40 packets each, and representative samples were drawn which were then mixed together to prepare two sample packets. It can be hardly be said that there has been any procedural lapse in terms of Section 52A of NDPS Act, rather it appears that police have strenuously followed process prescribed thereunder that was in force at the time of seizure and sampling.

Result : Appeal dismissed.