Minor inventory discrepancies do not invalidate an NDPS conviction when the chain of custody remains intact.

On 24 June 2017, police intercepted a car carrying Billu, Mohammad Imtiyaj and another person after its driver fled.

Police recovered 14 packets containing 77.470 kg of ganja from the car and seized the contraband.

The seized material was deposited in the police malkhana, inventoried and sampled before an Executive Magistrate under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and sample S-1 was confirmed as ganja by the FSL.

The Special Court convicted both appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced each to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000.

They appealed, challenging the reliability of the recovery and the post-seizure procedure, including discrepancies in the seal description, vehicle description, weight and number of samples; the independent witnesses had turned hostile.

1. Whether recovery of 77.470 kg of ganja from the car in which the appellants were travelling was proved.

2. Whether the post-seizure procedure was duly followed and the chain of custody remained intact.

3. Whether the appellants’ convictions and sentences warranted interference.

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act applies to an offence involving a commercial quantity of cannabis and prescribes a minimum sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000.

Section 52A provides for inventory and sampling procedures; the Court treated inventory and sampling before a Magistrate, supported by documentation and an intact chain of custody, as sufficient in the circumstances.

The Court applied the principle in Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627, that police testimony is not to be rejected merely because the witnesses are police officers, and that hostile independent witnesses do not by themselves defeat the prosecution where official evidence is reliable.

It distinguished Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1902, on the basis that samples there were not drawn before a Magistrate and lacked identifying marks.

The Court found the recovery supported by the consistent evidence of the investigating officer and a police constable, and held that the hostile witnesses’ evidence did not contradict that account.

It accepted that the contraband was deposited in the malkhana, inventoried and sampled before the Executive Magistrate, and that the FSL confirmed the sample as ganja, finding no unexplained break in the chain of custody.

It treated the discrepancies in the seal description and vehicle make, the unreduced 100 grams in the recorded weight, and the inconsistent reference to three samples as non-fatal, given the other evidence and the matching seal reported by the FSL.

The appellants’ presence in the car containing the concealed packets, together with their failure to offer a plausible explanation, supported the Court’s finding of conscious possession.

It dismissed both appeals and affirmed the convictions and sentences imposed on Billu and Mohammad Imtiyaz, noting that the trial court had imposed the statutory minimum sentence.