Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1417
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of 2024)
JOTHI @ NAGAJOTHI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
… RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No. 125
of 2021, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the
appellant under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
referred as “ the NDPS Act ”) were affirmed.
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2025.12.11
15:30:35 IST
Reason:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 1 of 14
2. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2021 in C.C. No. 15
of 2020, convicted the appellant and imposed 10 years’ rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- for each count (sentences
running concurrently). The High Court upheld the same.
3. The case of the prosecution was that on 21.09.2019, PW-1 (Sub-
Inspector) received secret information that ganja was being
transported on a two-wheeler bearing TN-03-M-0585. PW-1 reduced
this information into writing, informed PW-5 (Inspector) and
proceeded with two constables, PW-2 and PW-3.
4. The appellant (A-2) and her husband (A-1) were intercepted.
After informing them of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act, the police searched the vehicle and seized 23.500 kg of ganja,
along with ₹ 21,140/-. Two samples of about 50g each were drawn,
sealed and marked as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’. PW-1 also recorded the
confession of A-1 at the spot.
5. After reaching the police station, PW-1 submitted a report to
PW-5 under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. On receiving the report, PW-
5 registered the F.I.R. No. 462/2019 dated 21.09.2019 for offences
under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 2 of 14
prepared the intimation memos. A-1 and A-2 were sent for remand
and PW-5 took up the investigation.
6. During investigation, PW-5 forwarded the seized samples to the
Court along with a requisition for chemical analysis. The samples
were received by PW-6 (Scientific Officer) through PW-4. PW-6
analysed the sample, detected cannabinoids and furnished the
report.
7. Thereafter, PW-5 recorded the statements of PW-6 and the
remaining members of the raiding team under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “ the
Cr.P.C ”). The seized cash was deposited to the Reserve Bank of India.
After completing the investigation, PW-5 filed the final report against
A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences.
8. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses. A-1 and A-2 were
questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., during which they
denied all incriminating circumstances.
9. The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, convicted them and
imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/-
for each count (sentences running concurrently).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 3 of 14
10. Aggrieved thereby, A-1 and A-2 approached the High Court,
which held that the Trial Court has rendered proper findings on the
basis of the materials placed by the prosecution to prove the case
against A-1 and A-2. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by A-1
and A-2 was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial court.
11. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-2)
has filed the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution
case suffers from multiple infirmities. First , it is urged that the
seizure took place in a residential locality containing about 50-60
houses, yet no independent witness was secured and only police
witnesses attested the mahazar, thereby casting doubt on the
genuineness of the seizure.
13. Secondly , it is submitted that the representative samples were
drawn at the spot itself, contrary to the mandate of Section 52-A of
the NDPS Act and without the presence or certification of a
Magistrate, rendering the samples legally infirm. Reliance is placed
on Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023 SCC OnLine SC 906)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 4 of 14
and Yusuf @ Asif v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328) to urge that
sampling at the spot vitiates the prosecution case.
14. Thirdly , learned counsel pointed to the absence of the markings
‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’ on the sample packets upon removal of labels, thereby
questioning the identity and integrity of the samples sent for
chemical analysis.
15. Fourthly , it is argued that there was non-compliance with the
statutory requirements under Sections 52-A(2) and 52-A(4) of the
NDPS Act, which vitiates the evidentiary value of the samples and
undermines the prosecution case.
16.
Thus, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
17. In the alternative, it was urged that the appellant was only 24
years of age at the time of the incident, is a first-time offender with
no prior criminal antecedents and is the sole caregiver of her minor
child. On these mitigating considerations, learned counsel pleaded
for remission or, at the very least, a reduction of the sentence to the
period already undergone, which presently stands at over 5 years and
9 months.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 5 of 14
18. Per contra , learned counsel for the State submitted that all
alleged discrepancies were minor, thoroughly explained and
incapable of discrediting the prosecution case which stood firmly
proved by the consistent testimony of official witnesses. The integrity
of the samples was never compromised and the High Court had
rightly rejected the appellant’s contentions.
19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
20. The contention of the appellant with regard to the absence of
independent witnesses has been examined in detail by the High
Court, noting that PWs 1-3 consistently deposed that no persons
were present in the vicinity at the time of seizure, despite the
presence of houses and no suggestion was made to the contrary in
cross-examination. The relevant paragraph of the impugned
judgment reads as under:
“23. It is to be pointed out that it is the consistent view of
the courts that non-examination of independent witnesses
cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution version so long
as the witnesses, who have been examined have deposed
in unison. As stated above, P.W.s 2 and 3 have corroborated
the evidence of P.W.1 on all material particulars. In fact,
P.W.s 2 and 3 have deposed that though at a distance of 50
mtrs., there are houses, yet no person was available and,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 6 of 14
therefore, P.W.s 2 and 3 were made witnesses to the
seizure, it is not the case of the defence/appellants that the
locality where the vehicle of the appellants was intercepted,
there was frequent movement of pedestrians or vehicles so
that there would have been no difficulty to obtain signatures
from independent witnesses. There is no suggestion made
in this regard to the witnesses by the defence at the time of
cross examination and in the absence of any suggestion
and eliciting a response, the mere non-examination of
independent witnesses or attesting of the mahazar by the
official witnesses could form the basis to doubt the
prosecution version. Therefore, the said contention deserves
to be rejected.”
21. This Court has consistently held that the non-examination of
independent witnesses is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution,
particularly in prosecutions under the NDPS Act where operations
often take place under challenging circumstances. In Surinder
Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020 (2) SCC 563) , this Court reiterated
that the mere absence of independent witnesses does not lead to the
conclusion that the accused has been falsely implicated. Referring to
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ((2011) 3 SCC 521) , the Court
underscored that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be
discarded solely on the ground of their official status and that their
evidence must be assessed on its own merits like that of any other
witness.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 7 of 14
22. In the present case, upon careful evaluation, the evidence of the
official witnesses stands out as consistent and coherent. Their
depositions corroborate each other on all material particulars and no
material has been brought out in cross-examination to cast doubt on
their credibility. The absence of independent witnesses, therefore,
cannot be said to weaken the prosecution case in any manner.
23. The appellant’s primary submission is that the representative
samples ought to have been drawn only before a Magistrate in terms
of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and that sampling at the spot itself
renders the entire prosecution void. This contention is legally
untenable. In Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8
SCC 452 , this Court has comprehensively clarified the scope,
purpose and effect of Section 52-A. Most significantly, paragraphs
56.5 and 56.6 of the said judgment make it clear that mere non-
compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52-A is not fatal
unless the irregularity creates discrepancies affecting the integrity of
the seized substance or rendering the prosecution case doubtful.
Equally, even where some procedural lapse is shown, if the remaining
oral or documentary evidence inspires confidence regarding the
seizure and conscious possession, the conviction may still be upheld.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 8 of 14
24. Applying these principles to the present case, the appellant has
failed to lay any foundational material to suggest that the sampling
process was unreliable or that the integrity of the samples stood
compromised. On the contrary, the record demonstrates a clear and
unimpeached sequence of events: (i) the samples were drawn at the
spot in the presence of PWs 1 to 3, (ii) the sample packets were duly
sealed with signatures and seizure details, (iii) the seized material,
along with the samples, was produced before the Magistrate, and (iv)
pursuant to the judicial order dated 20.10.2019, sample ‘S-1’ was
forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory while ‘S-2’ was retained
in judicial custody. The Scientific Officer (PW-6) affirmed that the seal
on the packet received for analysis was intact and bore the correct
identifying particulars.
25. The appellant’s contention that the markings ‘S-1’/’S-2’ were
absent upon removal of labels also lacks merit. PW-1 explained that
markings had been made and any fading could be attributed to
normal handling over time. More importantly, the Magistrate’s order
dated 20.10.2019 itself expressly refers to the sample packets as ‘S-
1’ and ‘S-2’, conclusively establishing their identity and dispelling
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 9 of 14
any doubt. The Scientific Officer (PW-6) further confirmed that the
sample received by the Laboratory corresponded to the seizure.
26. In addition, the chain of custody in the present case remains
clear and continuous. At no stage has any evidence been brought out
to indicate tampering, substitution or mishandling. The forensic
report confirms the presence of cannabinoids in the sample, which
stands in complete harmony with the seizure.
27. In these circumstances, even assuming some deviation from the
ideal procedure envisaged under Section 52-A, such irregularity does
not go to the root of the matter nor does it create any reasonable
doubt regarding the authenticity of the seized contraband or the
identity of the samples analysed. The prosecution has demonstrated
substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and the
integrity of the material evidence stands fully preserved. Accordingly,
the appellant’s contention founded on non-compliance with Section
52-A is rejected.
28. The decisions in Simranjit Singh (supra) and Yusuf @ Asif
(supra) are distinguishable on facts, as both involved serious doubts
regarding identity of samples, broken seals and unexplained
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 10 of 14
discrepancies. None of those infirmities have been proved by the
appellant in the present case.
29. The reduction in weight (from “about 50g” to 40.6g) is
sufficiently explained by natural drying and loss of moisture, a fact
also recorded by PW-6 in the Analysis Report, which notes that the
sample contained dry, broken fragments. The High Court rightly held
that minor variations in weight, particularly where the sample
quantity is described as “about”, do not affect the identity or integrity
of the sample. The relevant observations of the High Court read as
follows:
“31. The deposition of P.W.5 proves that he received a
quantity of 40.6 grams in one sealed cover from the court,
as evidenced by Ex.P-9. The letter of P.W.6, which has been
annexed with Ex.PP-9 also reveals that two samples of
about 50 grams each were taken for the purpose of chemical
analysis. Therefore, not only there is corroboration, but
there is not too much variance in the quantity sent for
chemical analysis and, therefore, the contention that the
samples, which were alleged to have been sent were not the
ones that were drawn out of M O.3 does not merit
acceptance. The minor discrepancy in the quantity does not
have much relevance, moreso, when it is the specific case
of the prosecution that about 50 grams was taken as
sample and not exactly 50 grams.
32. Further, it should also not be lost sight of that the initial
seizure and recovery was made on 21.09.2019 and,
thereafter, on 30.10.2019, on the orders of the court, one of
the sample packet, viz., S-1 was sent for chemical analysis.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 11 of 14
The time lapse between 21.9.2019 and 30.10.2019 also
has to be taken into consideration while the weight of the
sample is considered as the freshness of the sample on
21.9.2019 would have waned by 30.10.2019, as even the
recording of P.W.5 in Ex.P-9 shows that the leaves along
with the seeds were found broken, which clearly shows that
the samples, which were received by P.W.5 were dry. The
seizure had been made on 21.9.2019 and the sample was
sent on 30.10.2019 and during the interregnum 40 day
period, the sample would have dried and the loss of
moisture in the sample would have been the cause of
reduction in weight of the sample from about 50 grams to
40.06 grams Therefore, the reduction in weight, not being
too enormous, the decision in Rojesh Jagdamba Avasthi
case would not be of any assistance to the appellants.
Further, even in the said decision, the Supreme Court had
held that minor discrepancies in the weight could not be
given too much weightage so long as the discrepancy in the
weight is not too enormous. Therefore, the contention of the
appellants with regard to discrepancy in weight, creating a
doubt with regard to the samples does not merit
acceptance.”
30. This Court, in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. ((2008) 16
SCC 417) , has similarly observed in paragraph 98 that a slight
difference in the weight of the sample is not so material as to
undermine the prosecution case, and cannot by itself justify
discarding otherwise reliable evidence.
31. Therefore, upon careful evaluation, the prosecution has proved,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in conscious
possession of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity. The minor
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 12 of 14
procedural irregularities pointed out do not affect the core of the
prosecution case. The chain of custody remains intact and sampling
and sealing have been sufficiently established.
32.
The appellant urges this Court to consider her youth, lack of
prior criminal history and responsibility towards her minor child.
While we are not unmindful of the appellant’s circumstances, the
NDPS Act prescribes minimum mandatory sentences for possession
of commercial quantity. The Court has no discretion to reduce the
sentence below the statutory minimum under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the NDPS Act. Humanitarian considerations, though relevant for
executive remission, cannot override statutory minimum
punishment mandated by the legislature. Thus, no interference with
sentence is permissible.
33. For the said reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned
judgment of the High Court. The conviction and sentence imposed by
the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court call for no
interference.
34.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
35. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, as imposed
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 13 of 14
by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 15 of 2020 and affirmed by the High
Court in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, are hereby upheld.
36. The appellant, however, is at liberty to pursue any remedy
available in law for statutory remission before the appropriate
authority.
37. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………………J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
…………………………………J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]
New Delhi
December 11, 2025
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 14 of 14
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 259 OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of 2024)
JOTHI @ NAGAJOTHI … APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
… RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.
1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No. 125
of 2021, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the
appellant under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
referred as “ the NDPS Act ”) were affirmed.
RASHI GUPTA
Date: 2025.12.11
15:30:35 IST
Reason:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 1 of 14
2. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2021 in C.C. No. 15
of 2020, convicted the appellant and imposed 10 years’ rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- for each count (sentences
running concurrently). The High Court upheld the same.
3. The case of the prosecution was that on 21.09.2019, PW-1 (Sub-
Inspector) received secret information that ganja was being
transported on a two-wheeler bearing TN-03-M-0585. PW-1 reduced
this information into writing, informed PW-5 (Inspector) and
proceeded with two constables, PW-2 and PW-3.
4. The appellant (A-2) and her husband (A-1) were intercepted.
After informing them of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS
Act, the police searched the vehicle and seized 23.500 kg of ganja,
along with ₹ 21,140/-. Two samples of about 50g each were drawn,
sealed and marked as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’. PW-1 also recorded the
confession of A-1 at the spot.
5. After reaching the police station, PW-1 submitted a report to
PW-5 under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. On receiving the report, PW-
5 registered the F.I.R. No. 462/2019 dated 21.09.2019 for offences
under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 2 of 14
prepared the intimation memos. A-1 and A-2 were sent for remand
and PW-5 took up the investigation.
6. During investigation, PW-5 forwarded the seized samples to the
Court along with a requisition for chemical analysis. The samples
were received by PW-6 (Scientific Officer) through PW-4. PW-6
analysed the sample, detected cannabinoids and furnished the
report.
7. Thereafter, PW-5 recorded the statements of PW-6 and the
remaining members of the raiding team under Section 161 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “ the
Cr.P.C ”). The seized cash was deposited to the Reserve Bank of India.
After completing the investigation, PW-5 filed the final report against
A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences.
8. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses. A-1 and A-2 were
questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., during which they
denied all incriminating circumstances.
9. The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 8(c) r/w
20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, convicted them and
imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 1,00,000/-
for each count (sentences running concurrently).
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 3 of 14
10. Aggrieved thereby, A-1 and A-2 approached the High Court,
which held that the Trial Court has rendered proper findings on the
basis of the materials placed by the prosecution to prove the case
against A-1 and A-2. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by A-1
and A-2 was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence
imposed by the trial court.
11. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-2)
has filed the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution
case suffers from multiple infirmities. First , it is urged that the
seizure took place in a residential locality containing about 50-60
houses, yet no independent witness was secured and only police
witnesses attested the mahazar, thereby casting doubt on the
genuineness of the seizure.
13. Secondly , it is submitted that the representative samples were
drawn at the spot itself, contrary to the mandate of Section 52-A of
the NDPS Act and without the presence or certification of a
Magistrate, rendering the samples legally infirm. Reliance is placed
on Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023 SCC OnLine SC 906)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 4 of 14
and Yusuf @ Asif v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328) to urge that
sampling at the spot vitiates the prosecution case.
14. Thirdly , learned counsel pointed to the absence of the markings
‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’ on the sample packets upon removal of labels, thereby
questioning the identity and integrity of the samples sent for
chemical analysis.
15. Fourthly , it is argued that there was non-compliance with the
statutory requirements under Sections 52-A(2) and 52-A(4) of the
NDPS Act, which vitiates the evidentiary value of the samples and
undermines the prosecution case.
16.
Thus, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
17. In the alternative, it was urged that the appellant was only 24
years of age at the time of the incident, is a first-time offender with
no prior criminal antecedents and is the sole caregiver of her minor
child. On these mitigating considerations, learned counsel pleaded
for remission or, at the very least, a reduction of the sentence to the
period already undergone, which presently stands at over 5 years and
9 months.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 5 of 14
18. Per contra , learned counsel for the State submitted that all
alleged discrepancies were minor, thoroughly explained and
incapable of discrediting the prosecution case which stood firmly
proved by the consistent testimony of official witnesses. The integrity
of the samples was never compromised and the High Court had
rightly rejected the appellant’s contentions.
19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the
material available on record.
20. The contention of the appellant with regard to the absence of
independent witnesses has been examined in detail by the High
Court, noting that PWs 1-3 consistently deposed that no persons
were present in the vicinity at the time of seizure, despite the
presence of houses and no suggestion was made to the contrary in
cross-examination. The relevant paragraph of the impugned
judgment reads as under:
“23. It is to be pointed out that it is the consistent view of
the courts that non-examination of independent witnesses
cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution version so long
as the witnesses, who have been examined have deposed
in unison. As stated above, P.W.s 2 and 3 have corroborated
the evidence of P.W.1 on all material particulars. In fact,
P.W.s 2 and 3 have deposed that though at a distance of 50
mtrs., there are houses, yet no person was available and,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 6 of 14
therefore, P.W.s 2 and 3 were made witnesses to the
seizure, it is not the case of the defence/appellants that the
locality where the vehicle of the appellants was intercepted,
there was frequent movement of pedestrians or vehicles so
that there would have been no difficulty to obtain signatures
from independent witnesses. There is no suggestion made
in this regard to the witnesses by the defence at the time of
cross examination and in the absence of any suggestion
and eliciting a response, the mere non-examination of
independent witnesses or attesting of the mahazar by the
official witnesses could form the basis to doubt the
prosecution version. Therefore, the said contention deserves
to be rejected.”
21. This Court has consistently held that the non-examination of
independent witnesses is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution,
particularly in prosecutions under the NDPS Act where operations
often take place under challenging circumstances. In Surinder
Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020 (2) SCC 563) , this Court reiterated
that the mere absence of independent witnesses does not lead to the
conclusion that the accused has been falsely implicated. Referring to
Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ((2011) 3 SCC 521) , the Court
underscored that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be
discarded solely on the ground of their official status and that their
evidence must be assessed on its own merits like that of any other
witness.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 7 of 14
22. In the present case, upon careful evaluation, the evidence of the
official witnesses stands out as consistent and coherent. Their
depositions corroborate each other on all material particulars and no
material has been brought out in cross-examination to cast doubt on
their credibility. The absence of independent witnesses, therefore,
cannot be said to weaken the prosecution case in any manner.
23. The appellant’s primary submission is that the representative
samples ought to have been drawn only before a Magistrate in terms
of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and that sampling at the spot itself
renders the entire prosecution void. This contention is legally
untenable. In Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8
SCC 452 , this Court has comprehensively clarified the scope,
purpose and effect of Section 52-A. Most significantly, paragraphs
56.5 and 56.6 of the said judgment make it clear that mere non-
compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52-A is not fatal
unless the irregularity creates discrepancies affecting the integrity of
the seized substance or rendering the prosecution case doubtful.
Equally, even where some procedural lapse is shown, if the remaining
oral or documentary evidence inspires confidence regarding the
seizure and conscious possession, the conviction may still be upheld.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 8 of 14
24. Applying these principles to the present case, the appellant has
failed to lay any foundational material to suggest that the sampling
process was unreliable or that the integrity of the samples stood
compromised. On the contrary, the record demonstrates a clear and
unimpeached sequence of events: (i) the samples were drawn at the
spot in the presence of PWs 1 to 3, (ii) the sample packets were duly
sealed with signatures and seizure details, (iii) the seized material,
along with the samples, was produced before the Magistrate, and (iv)
pursuant to the judicial order dated 20.10.2019, sample ‘S-1’ was
forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory while ‘S-2’ was retained
in judicial custody. The Scientific Officer (PW-6) affirmed that the seal
on the packet received for analysis was intact and bore the correct
identifying particulars.
25. The appellant’s contention that the markings ‘S-1’/’S-2’ were
absent upon removal of labels also lacks merit. PW-1 explained that
markings had been made and any fading could be attributed to
normal handling over time. More importantly, the Magistrate’s order
dated 20.10.2019 itself expressly refers to the sample packets as ‘S-
1’ and ‘S-2’, conclusively establishing their identity and dispelling
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 9 of 14
any doubt. The Scientific Officer (PW-6) further confirmed that the
sample received by the Laboratory corresponded to the seizure.
26. In addition, the chain of custody in the present case remains
clear and continuous. At no stage has any evidence been brought out
to indicate tampering, substitution or mishandling. The forensic
report confirms the presence of cannabinoids in the sample, which
stands in complete harmony with the seizure.
27. In these circumstances, even assuming some deviation from the
ideal procedure envisaged under Section 52-A, such irregularity does
not go to the root of the matter nor does it create any reasonable
doubt regarding the authenticity of the seized contraband or the
identity of the samples analysed. The prosecution has demonstrated
substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and the
integrity of the material evidence stands fully preserved. Accordingly,
the appellant’s contention founded on non-compliance with Section
52-A is rejected.
28. The decisions in Simranjit Singh (supra) and Yusuf @ Asif
(supra) are distinguishable on facts, as both involved serious doubts
regarding identity of samples, broken seals and unexplained
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 10 of 14
discrepancies. None of those infirmities have been proved by the
appellant in the present case.
29. The reduction in weight (from “about 50g” to 40.6g) is
sufficiently explained by natural drying and loss of moisture, a fact
also recorded by PW-6 in the Analysis Report, which notes that the
sample contained dry, broken fragments. The High Court rightly held
that minor variations in weight, particularly where the sample
quantity is described as “about”, do not affect the identity or integrity
of the sample. The relevant observations of the High Court read as
follows:
“31. The deposition of P.W.5 proves that he received a
quantity of 40.6 grams in one sealed cover from the court,
as evidenced by Ex.P-9. The letter of P.W.6, which has been
annexed with Ex.PP-9 also reveals that two samples of
about 50 grams each were taken for the purpose of chemical
analysis. Therefore, not only there is corroboration, but
there is not too much variance in the quantity sent for
chemical analysis and, therefore, the contention that the
samples, which were alleged to have been sent were not the
ones that were drawn out of M O.3 does not merit
acceptance. The minor discrepancy in the quantity does not
have much relevance, moreso, when it is the specific case
of the prosecution that about 50 grams was taken as
sample and not exactly 50 grams.
32. Further, it should also not be lost sight of that the initial
seizure and recovery was made on 21.09.2019 and,
thereafter, on 30.10.2019, on the orders of the court, one of
the sample packet, viz., S-1 was sent for chemical analysis.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 11 of 14
The time lapse between 21.9.2019 and 30.10.2019 also
has to be taken into consideration while the weight of the
sample is considered as the freshness of the sample on
21.9.2019 would have waned by 30.10.2019, as even the
recording of P.W.5 in Ex.P-9 shows that the leaves along
with the seeds were found broken, which clearly shows that
the samples, which were received by P.W.5 were dry. The
seizure had been made on 21.9.2019 and the sample was
sent on 30.10.2019 and during the interregnum 40 day
period, the sample would have dried and the loss of
moisture in the sample would have been the cause of
reduction in weight of the sample from about 50 grams to
40.06 grams Therefore, the reduction in weight, not being
too enormous, the decision in Rojesh Jagdamba Avasthi
case would not be of any assistance to the appellants.
Further, even in the said decision, the Supreme Court had
held that minor discrepancies in the weight could not be
given too much weightage so long as the discrepancy in the
weight is not too enormous. Therefore, the contention of the
appellants with regard to discrepancy in weight, creating a
doubt with regard to the samples does not merit
acceptance.”
30. This Court, in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. ((2008) 16
SCC 417) , has similarly observed in paragraph 98 that a slight
difference in the weight of the sample is not so material as to
undermine the prosecution case, and cannot by itself justify
discarding otherwise reliable evidence.
31. Therefore, upon careful evaluation, the prosecution has proved,
beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in conscious
possession of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity. The minor
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 12 of 14
procedural irregularities pointed out do not affect the core of the
prosecution case. The chain of custody remains intact and sampling
and sealing have been sufficiently established.
32.
The appellant urges this Court to consider her youth, lack of
prior criminal history and responsibility towards her minor child.
While we are not unmindful of the appellant’s circumstances, the
NDPS Act prescribes minimum mandatory sentences for possession
of commercial quantity. The Court has no discretion to reduce the
sentence below the statutory minimum under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the NDPS Act. Humanitarian considerations, though relevant for
executive remission, cannot override statutory minimum
punishment mandated by the legislature. Thus, no interference with
sentence is permissible.
33. For the said reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned
judgment of the High Court. The conviction and sentence imposed by
the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court call for no
interference.
34.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
35. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections
8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, as imposed
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 13 of 14
by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 15 of 2020 and affirmed by the High
Court in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, are hereby upheld.
36. The appellant, however, is at liberty to pursue any remedy
available in law for statutory remission before the appropriate
authority.
37. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………………J.
[SANJAY KAROL]
…………………………………J.
[VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]
New Delhi
December 11, 2025
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 Page 14 of 14