Procedural Deviations Under S.52A NDPS Act Not Fatal if Recovery is Proven: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Conviction for 1500 kg Ganja Haul. - 2025-09-20

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds 15-Year Sentence in 1500 kg Ganja Seizure, Rules Procedural Lapses Not Fatal to Conviction

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed an appeal filed by two men convicted for transporting over 1500 kilograms of ganja, affirming their 15-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that procedural deviations, particularly in sampling under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, are not fatal to the prosecution's case when the recovery and possession of the contraband are otherwise proven by cogent evidence.

The court reinforced the principle that substantial compliance with the law is sufficient, and technical objections cannot override credible evidence of a major drug trafficking offense.

Background of the Case

The appellants, Jagannath Das (driver) and Swapna Kumar Adhikari (helper), were convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kondagaon, under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. They were sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,50,000 each.

The case dates back to February 15, 2018, when police, acting on a tip-off, intercepted a twelve-wheeler truck on NH-30 near Kondagaon. A search of the vehicle revealed a specially constructed secret chamber containing 288 packets of ganja, weighing a total of 1502.590 kilograms. The substance was confirmed to be ganja by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), leading to the appellants' arrest and subsequent conviction.

Appellants' Arguments on Procedural Non-Compliance

The defense counsel argued for acquittal based on several key grounds, claiming the prosecution's case was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act:

* Violation of Sections 42, 50, 52, 55, and 57: The appellants contended that the search, seizure, and arrest procedures were flawed.

* Improper Sampling: It was argued that the procedure for drawing samples did not adhere to Standing Order No. 1/89, as the entire quantity was homogenized before samples were drawn, instead of sampling from individual packets.

* Contradictions in Witness Testimonies: The defense pointed to alleged omissions and contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses.

State's Rebuttal and Court's Analysis

The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, countered that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was argued that a massive commercial quantity of contraband was recovered in the presence of witnesses, the chain of custody was meticulously maintained, and all legal provisions were substantially complied with.

The High Court meticulously analyzed the legal challenges raised by the appellants and provided clear rulings on each point:

On Search and Seizure (Sections 42 vs. 43)

The court observed that the seizure occurred while the truck was "in transit" on a public highway (NH-30). Therefore, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act (Power of seizure and arrest in a public place) were applicable, not the stricter requirements of Section 42, which governs searches in private buildings or enclosed places. The court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat (2024) to affirm that when a search is conducted in a public place, the requirements of Section 42(2) do not apply.

On Personal Search (Section 50)

The defense's claim of non-compliance with Section 50 was dismissed. The court reiterated the settled legal position that Section 50 applies only to the search of a person. In this case, the ganja was recovered from the vehicle, not from the appellants' persons. Therefore, the procedural safeguards under Section 50 were not attracted.

On Sampling Procedure (Section 52A and Standing Order 1/89)

This was a central plank of the appeal. The court acknowledged the procedural deviation from Standing Order 1/89 regarding sampling. However, it held that such a lapse does not automatically vitiate the entire proceedings. The court heavily relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (2025) , which held:

"...irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the Court regarding both the recovery and possession of the contraband and from the accused, then even in such cases the Courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural difficulty..."

The High Court concluded that the evidence of the investigating officer and the Naib Tehsildar, who supervised the inventory and sampling, was credible and sufficient to prove the seizure. The FSL report confirming the substance as ganja further corroborated the prosecution's case.

Final Decision and Implications

The bench found no perversity in the trial court's judgment, holding that it was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The court noted, "There is no material available on record so as to arrive at finding that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case."

Finding no merit in the appeal, the High Court dismissed it and affirmed the conviction and sentence. The appellants, who are currently in jail, will serve the remainder of their sentences. The judgment underscores the judiciary's focus on substantive justice in NDPS cases, ensuring that technical or procedural errors do not become a loophole for offenders involved in large-scale drug trafficking, especially when the core facts of possession and recovery are established by reliable evidence.