Failure to establish conscious possession and Section 52A-compliant sampling sustains NDPS acquittal.

The Narcotics Control Bureau received secret information that a large quantity of opium poppy husk was stored in the cattle shed of Deoki Yadav at Village Jaigir, Gaya. On 15 June 2017, an NCB team, assisted by local police and accompanied by independent witnesses, searched the cattle shed and allegedly recovered 23 sacks containing 527.200 kg of opium poppy husk.

Although the case was initially registered against Deoki Yadav, the complaint was ultimately filed against Praveen Yadav @ Pintu Yadav under Section 15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”). The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and relied upon documentary evidence, including the seizure documents, test memo, malkhana receipt, Section 57 report, alleged Section 67 statement, and CFSL report.

The Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, acquitted the respondent on 16 April 2024, holding that the independent witnesses had not supported the alleged recovery, the prosecution had not established the respondent’s conscious possession of the contraband, and the requirements of Section 52A of the NDPS Act had not been satisfactorily complied with.

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was erroneous and warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal?

Whether the prosecution established beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was in conscious possession of the contraband allegedly recovered from Deoki Yadav’s cattle shed?

Whether the alleged sampling and certification procedure complied with Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act so as to establish the evidentiary link between the seized contraband and the sample examined by CFSL?

The Court applied Section 15(c) of the NDPS Act, which criminalises possession of a commercial quantity of poppy straw, read with the prosecution’s burden to prove recovery and conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act requires the seized contraband to be inventoried and representative samples to be drawn in the presence of, and under the certification of, a Magistrate; the Court relied on Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379, Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2023) 19 SCC 364, and Yusuf v. State, (2024) 14 SCC 217, which emphasise that proper Magistrate-supervised sampling and certification are essential to the evidentiary integrity of the seized substance.

The Court also applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415: an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but where the trial court’s view is reasonable and plausible, the double presumption of innocence requires that the acquittal not be disturbed merely because another view is possible.

The Court held that the alleged recovery was from a cattle shed belonging to Deoki Yadav and not from the physical or conscious possession of the respondent. The independent recovery witnesses had not supported the prosecution, and there was no cogent documentary or independent evidence showing that the respondent possessed or occupied the cattle shed.

The respondent’s subsequent implication, particularly on the basis of a co-accused’s statement, could not independently establish conscious possession.

The Court further found that the prosecution had not proved that the samples forwarded to CFSL were drawn in the presence of, and certified by, the Magistrate as required by Section 52A(2). The existence of later certification concerning the inventory or photographs did not establish compliance with the statutory sampling procedure.

Consequently, although the CFSL report could identify the substance in the sample, it did not establish the necessary evidentiary link between the seized material and the respondent’s conscious possession.

Since the trial court’s view was reasonable and neither perverse nor contrary to material evidence, the appellate court declined to interfere under the principles governing appeals against acquittal.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt either the respondent’s conscious possession of the contraband or the integrity of the sampling process under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

The Government Appeal was accordingly dismissed at the admission stage, and any pending application was also disposed of.