01Facts
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
pp. 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
pp. 3-4, para 2The independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile and failed to identify the accused
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
pp. 11-13The appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of non-compliance with mandatory NDPS provisions
p. 5, para 502Issues
i.1. Whether there was substantial non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements under Sections 42, 52A, and 55 of the NDPS Act
p. 5, para 5ii.2. Whether the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses and material contradictions in the chain of custody of samples vitiate the prosecution case
p. 11, para 13 · p. 15, para 2503Law Applied
The Court applied Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act regarding the possession of commercial quantities of contraband
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)
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
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
pp. 14-15, para 24Provisions in the judgment · 9 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 91Section 313Section 374
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20Section 42Section 50Section 55Section 57
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 481
04Reasoning
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
pp. 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
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
p. 13, para 19Discrepancies in the weight of samples (100g vs 50g) and the dates of FSL return further weakened the prosecution's reliability
pp. 12-14, para 18-2105Holding
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
pp. 14-15, para 24-25The 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
p. 15, para 26The Court ordered their immediate release and directed them to furnish personal bonds under Section 481 of the BNSS 2023
pp. 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
