Man Who Spent 5½ Years In Custody Acquitted In LSD-Cocaine Case As Madras HC Finds Seizure Unproved

The appellant, A1, was convicted by the I Additional Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under the NDPS Act, Chennai, for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 29, 21(a), 22(c), 27A and 28 of the NDPS Act.

The prosecution alleged that, following prior information, NCB officers searched a flat where A1 was present and seized cocaine and LSD; it also relied on A1’s statement under Section 67 and a subsequent search of A2’s premises.

A1 appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC

Section 42(1)–(2) of the NDPS Act requires information about drugs kept or concealed in a building to be recorded and a copy of that record sent to the immediate superior; under Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, total non-compliance is impermissible, while delayed compliance may be accepted if satisfactorily explained

Section 52A provides for Magistrate-certified inventories, photographs or representative samples; under Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, non-compliance is assessed in light of whether it creates doubt about the physical evidence

Under Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, confessional statements made to NCB officers empowered under Section 53 are inadmissible against an accused under Section 25 of the Evidence Act

The prosecution must prove the foundational fact of possession before presumptions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act can arise; Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not displace that burden

A chemical expert’s report must disclose the data and reasons supporting the opinion, and Section 293 CrPC makes a report admissible without making it conclusive

A witness’s prior statement is not substantive evidence and may be used to contradict the witness only in accordance with Section 145 of the Evidence Act; Section 27 permits proof only of the portion of information distinctly related to a discovery

Offences under Sections 27A, 28 and 29 require proof of their respective elements, including financing or harbouring, an attempt, or an agreement constituting conspiracy

The Court found that PW1 had ample time to comply with Section 42 but the original handwritten information was neither produced nor shown to have been sent to his superior; the typed note was admittedly not a verbatim record, and the officer could not explain his additions.

The sole independent witness examined did not support the material parts of the seizure, his earlier statement was improperly relied upon, and the other cited witness and the raiding-team members were not produced.

The evidence also failed to establish A1’s exclusive possession of the flat or the contraband, so the statutory presumptions could not fill the evidentiary gap.

No Section 52A process was followed, and unexplained discrepancies in weight, gaps in custody, absent seal documentation and failures to identify the case property undermined the link between the alleged seizure and the tested material.

The chemical report disclosed no underlying test data, and the examiner’s evidence did not resolve the deficiencies.

The Court therefore excluded the Section 67 confessions, found no independent proof of financing, attempt or conspiracy, and held that the prosecution had not established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

His bail bond and sureties were discharged, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded