Facts
The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), Kondagaon, for allegedly transporting 265.700 kg of Ganja in a Bolero Pickup on 12.08.2017
Source reference: p. 1-2, para 1-2The prosecution alleged that the Investigating Officer (PW-9) received secret information, conducted a search, and seized 40 packets of contraband
Source reference: p. 3-4, para 2The independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile and failed to identify the accused
Source reference: p. 10, para 10Discrepancies arose regarding the date of information (11.08.2017 vs. 12.08.2017) and the handling of sample packets between the Police Station, Executive Magistrate, and FSL
Source reference: p. 11-13The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions
Source reference: p. 5, para 5Issues
1. Whether there was substantial non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 42, 52A, and 55 of the NDPS Act
Source reference: p. 5, para 52. Whether the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses and material contradictions in the chain of custody of samples vitiate the prosecution case
Source reference: p. 11, para 13; p. 15, para 25Law Applied
The Court applied Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act regarding the possession of commercial quantities of contraband
Source reference: p. 4, para 2It relied on the interpretation of Section 42 (procedure for search and seizure) and Section 52A (inventory and disposal of seized property)
Source reference: p. 14, para 22The Court cited Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 SCC OnLine SC 110), establishing that while Section 52A non-compliance may not be fatal alone, it becomes critical if other physical evidence discrepancies exist
Source reference: p. 14, para 22It further relied on Mohammad Khalid v. State of Telangana (2024 (5) SCC 393) regarding the necessity of proving a continuous link in the safe custody of samples from seizure to FSL
Source reference: p. 14-15, para 24Reasoning
The Court observed that the Investigating Officer (PW-9) admitted receiving information on 11.08.2017 but only prepared the Mukhbir Suchana Panchnama on 12.08.2017, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay or inconsistencies in the Rojnamcha Sanha
Source reference: p. 9-11, para 9-13Regarding the chain of custody, the Court found a "material inconsistency" between the testimony of PW-10 and PW-11; one stated inventory took place at the Tehsil office, while the other stated the Police Station
Source reference: p. 13, para 17Furthermore, the Malkhana Mohrir (PW-13) admitted he did not deposit the samples in the secure Malkhana but kept them separately, creating a gap in the link evidence
Source reference: p. 13, para 19Discrepancies in the weight of samples (100g vs 50g) and the dates of FSL return further weakened the prosecution's reliability
Source reference: p. 12-14, para 18-21Holding
The Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to the lack of "link evidence" and failure to satisfy the court regarding the safe custody of samples
The appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 15.01.2020 was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act
Source reference: p. 15, para 26The Court ordered their immediate release and directed them to furnish personal bonds under Section 481 of the BNSS 2023
Source reference: p. 15-16, para 27Original Court PDF
PARMESH NAYAKvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in