Gauhati High Court acquits two in NDPS case as seizure witnesses fail to prove recovery

In a significant judgment underscoring the stringent procedural requirements under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Gauhati High Court has acquitted two individuals convicted for possessing 105 kg of ganja. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery, as key seizure witnesses admitted they had not witnessed the seizure and signed documents at the police station or their homes.

When Witnesses Don't Witness: A Fatal Flaw in the Prosecution Case

The case originated from a naka checking on February 15, 2020, at Bahipukhuri Line No. 12 in Orang-Rupa Road, where a swift dezire vehicle was intercepted. The police allegedly recovered 30 kg of suspected cannabis from the vehicle and, acting on information from the occupants, recovered another 75 kg from a residence in Rowta. The trial court convicted both appellants—Hobiqul Islam and Nijut Bormoholia—under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh each.

Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, hearing the appeals, scrutinised the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. The Court noted that PW-1, a seizure witness, stated he could not say what was written on the papers he signed. PW-2 said his signatures were obtained at his residence and he never visited the alleged recovery site. PW-3 admitted signing the seizure list at the police station, not at the place of recovery. PW-4 also did not go to the recovery location.

A Tale of Procedural Lapses: Inventory Missing, Magistrate Not Present

The High Court highlighted that the investigating agency failed to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband as mandated by Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the samples were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate. The Court observed that the record indicated the samples were drawn at the police station itself.

“Further, it also appears that neither the inventory has been prepared nor the seized contraband was produced before the court during trial. As to what happened to the seized contraband could not be comprehended on perusal of the records,” the judgment stated.

The Court emphasised that the mandatory procedural requirements under the NDPS Act, which prescribes harsh penalties, must be strictly adhered to. “Any lapse on that count would dent the prosecution case and the accused will get an advantage due to such procedural lapses,” Justice Kalita remarked.

Chain of Custody Broken, Conviction Unsustainable

The prosecution also failed to establish the chain of custody of the samples. PW-5, the investigating officer, stated the samples were not sealed in his presence, while PW-7, the Officer-in-Charge, did not confirm the sealing process. No test memo was exhibited regarding the collection and forwarding of samples.

“...none of the seizure witnesses has been able to prove the fact of recovery and seizure of the seized contraband from the possession of the present appellants,” the Court concluded.

Judgment Day: Both Appellants Acquitted, Ordered Released

Setting aside the trial court's judgment, the Gauhati High Court acquitted both appellants of all charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The Court ordered their immediate release unless required in connection with any other case.

The ruling serves as a stern reminder to investigating agencies that procedural compliance is non-negotiable in NDPS cases, where deviations can lead to the acquittal of even those caught red-handed with large quantities of contraband.

Case Details: Criminal Appeal No. 144/2026 With Criminal Appeal No. 192/2023 | Hobiqul Islam and Nijut Bormoholia v. State of Assam | Before Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita | Date of Judgment: August 24, 2026.