10-year NDPS sentence upheld for truck driver convicted of transporting 987 kg of ganja

On 6 September 2021, police stopped a 14-wheeler truck during vehicle checking.

The appellant and another driver allegedly stated that they were carrying dry ganja; police searched the truck and seized 89 packets weighing 987 kg.

The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000.

On appeal, the appellant challenged, among other matters, the chain of custody and delay in forensic examination, non-production of the malkhana register, alleged non-compliance with Section 57, and a discrepancy in the truck’s registration number.

1. Whether the evidence sufficiently established the identity and safe custody of the seized ganja, despite the non-production of the malkhana register and the asserted delay before forensic examination.

2. Whether the alleged non-compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act vitiated the prosecution or conviction.

3. Whether the discrepancy in the truck’s registration number and the challenge to the witness evidence undermined the conviction.

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act prescribes punishment for an offence involving a commercial quantity of cannabis.

Section 57 requires an officer making an arrest or seizure to report the particulars to the immediate superior within 48 hours; following Gurmail Chand v. State of Punjab, (2021) 14 SCC 334, the Court treated the provision as directory, holding that non-compliance does not automatically vitiate the prosecution where there is substantial compliance and no resulting prejudice.

The Court also assessed the integrity of the seized material by considering the evidence concerning sealing, production before the CJM, transmission to the forensic laboratory, and the laboratory’s receipt of the samples intact; it observed that non-production of the malkhana register is not, by itself, fatal where the chain of custody is otherwise established.

The appellant’s reliance on Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627, and Vijay Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2019) 18 SCC 215, was considered but found inapplicable on the facts.

The Court found that the independent witnesses’ evidence corroborated the police witnesses on the truck’s detention and recovery of ganja.

The forensic witness testified that the samples were received sealed, and the laboratory confirmed them as ganja; the Court therefore found no material showing tampering, substitution, or a break in the chain of custody, and held that the absence of the malkhana register alone did not discredit the prosecution.

It accepted the explanation that the different registration number on the second page of the FIR was a mistake.

Applying Gurmail Chand, it held that the alleged Section 57 non-compliance did not vitiate the case, particularly as the appellant had not shown prejudice.

It concluded that no substantial infirmity warranted appellate interference.

It affirmed the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000, with the default sentence imposed by the trial court.

The appellant was directed to serve the remaining sentence, subject to lawful adjustment for time already undergone.