Procedural Lapses Under S.52A NDPS Act Not Fatal To Conviction If Recovery And Possession Are Proven By Credible Evidence: Gauhati High Court - 2025-07-09

Gauhati High Court Upholds 10-Year Sentence in 1490 Kg Ganja Seizure Case, Citing Substantial Compliance with NDPS Act

Guwahati , Assam – The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment of a man found transporting nearly 1500 kilograms of ganja in an oil tanker. The court, while acknowledging certain procedural lapses by the Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB), held that these were not fatal to the prosecution's case, which was otherwise supported by overwhelming and credible evidence.

The bench of Justice Susmita PhukanKhaund affirmed the 2018 trial court judgment convicting Irungbam Anil Meetei under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.

Background of the Case

The case dates back to January 28, 2017, when the NCB, acting on a reliable tip-off, intercepted an oil tanker (Reg. No. MN06-T-0336) near the ISBT Petrol Pump in Guwahati . The appellant, Irungbam Anil Meetei , was found in the driver's seat. A search of the vehicle led to the discovery of 139 packets concealed inside the tanker's chamber, containing a total of 1490.08 kilograms of ganja.

Following the seizure, Meetei was arrested, and the trial court subsequently convicted him, imposing a sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000. Meetei appealed this decision, raising several legal challenges to the investigation's procedure.

Key Arguments in the High Court

Appellant's Contentions: The appellant’s counsel, Mr. N.H. Barbhuiya, argued that the conviction was unsustainable due to significant procedural violations by the NCB, including:

- Non-examination of Independent Witnesses: The two independent witnesses present during the search and seizure were never produced in court.

- Violation of Section 52A: The mandatory procedure for preparing an inventory and drawing samples, particularly the requirement of taking photographs and obtaining certification from the Magistrate, was not scrupulously followed.

- Break in Chain of Custody: The counsel questioned the safe custody of the seized samples, alleging a possibility of tampering between their production before the Magistrate and submission to the forensic lab.

NCB's Rebuttal: Representing the NCB, Standing Counsel Mr. S.C. Keyal countered that the procedural requirements were substantially complied with. He argued that: - Non-examination of independent witnesses does not vitiate the trial when the testimony of official witnesses is consistent and credible. - The seizure was from a vehicle, not a personal search, making certain procedural challenges less relevant. - The seized articles and samples were produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), endorsed, and kept in the NCB godown, ensuring a proper chain of custody.

Court's Reasoning and Application of Legal Precedent

Justice Susmita PhukanKhaund meticulously re-appreciated the evidence on record. The court found the testimonies of the NCB officers (PW-1 to PW-6) to be consistent and credible, establishing the recovery of the contraband from the tanker driven by the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.

A central point of contention was the alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, specifically the failure to take photographs of the seized contraband. The appellant relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Mohanlal .

However, the High Court placed significant reliance on a more recent Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Aambale v. The State of Chhattisgarh , which clarified the law on this issue. The court quoted the Bharat Aambale ruling to emphasize its final conclusions:

"Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution’s case doubtful... If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty..."

Applying this principle, the Court observed:

"In this case, the photographs were not taken, but the physical evidence was not disputed. The seized articles were produced in the Court along with the samples and were identified by PW-3... Thus, in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decision of Bharat Aambale (supra), it is thereby held that the failure of the Investigating Officer to take photographs of the contraband and the seizure, does not vitiate the trial as there is sufficient evidence which has not controverted the fact that the appellant was carrying flowering tops of cannabis/Ganja hidden inside the container of the tanker."

The court also dismissed the arguments regarding the non-examination of independent witnesses and the alleged break in the chain of custody, finding the official testimonies and documentary evidence, including godown receipts (Exhibit 10 & 11), to be sufficient proof of compliance.

The Final Verdict

Concluding that the trial court had recorded sound reasons for its decision, Justice Khaund held that the "clinching evidence against the appellant proves this case beyond a reasonable doubt." Finding the appeal devoid of merit, the High Court dismissed it and upheld the conviction and sentence. The trial court records were ordered to be sent back.