Bihar HC Sets Aside Truck Co-Driver’s 10-Year NDPS Conviction, Citing Unsealed 349-Kg Ganja Seizure And Unproved Sample Chain

The appellant was convicted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act after police allegedly recovered 349.730 kg of ganja from a concealed compartment in a truck in which he was travelling as co-driver.

The trial court imposed concurrent ten-year terms of rigorous imprisonment and fines.

On appeal, the appellant challenged, among other matters, the recovery and the sampling, sealing and custody of the alleged contraband.

The Court held that where contraband is recovered from a vehicle in transit, Section 43—not Section 42—governs the search and seizure; Section 50 does not apply where the prosecution case rests on recovery from the vehicle rather than from the accused’s person

Section 52A provides safeguards for the preparation and certification of an inventory and for sampling in the presence of a Magistrate

A failure to follow Section 52A or the applicable procedures is not necessarily fatal by itself, but must be assessed with the other evidence and circumstances

The prosecution must establish the identity and integrity of the seized substance and a reliable chain of custody for samples; the Section 54 presumption cannot cure foundational deficiencies in proof of recovery

The Court rejected the appellant’s objections under Sections 42 and 50 because the alleged ganja was recovered from a truck in transit, not from his person or an enclosed premises

It nevertheless found serious defects in the prosecution’s proof: the record did not show that the seized substance was produced before the court in a sealed condition, that sampling occurred before a Magistrate, or that an inventory was prepared; the seal and its specimen impression were not adequately documented; and the prosecution did not establish the samples’ safe custody during the unexplained interval before their receipt at the FSL

The missing Chandigarh laboratory report and the presence of the FIR number on a seizure memo said to have been prepared before registration of the FIR added to the doubts

Taken cumulatively, these deficiencies prevented the Court from finding that the FSL-tested samples were reliably connected to the alleged seizure, and therefore undermined the basis for invoking Section 54

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and directed the appellant’s release forthwith unless required in another case.