NDPS conviction upheld where the appellant failed to establish procedural lapses in seizure and sampling.

On 20 September 2023, the appellant was allegedly intercepted while driving vehicle No. TR-04C-0671 at Dhalabil Chowmohani, and 66 grams of suspected heroin was recovered from beneath the driver’s seat.

The contraband was seized, and the appellant was prosecuted under Sections 21(b) and 25/21(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The prosecution examined 13 witnesses, while the appellant denied the allegations in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

The Special Judge (NDPS), Khowai, convicted the appellant under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act and acquitted him under Section 25/21(b).

On 12 March 2026, the trial court sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹25,000, with five months’ simple imprisonment in default, while granting set-off for 62 days of custody.

In appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of contradictions in the prosecution evidence, absence of proof of conscious possession, lack of reliable independent witnesses, delay in producing the seized contraband before the Magistrate, and failure to establish that the material produced before the Court was retrieved from the Malkhana.

The State relied on communications dated 20 and 30 September 2023 concerning compliance with Sections 42(2) and 52A(2) of the NDPS Act.

Whether the alleged delay in producing the seized contraband before the Magistrate and the related objections concerning sampling, inventory, and chain of custody created a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?

Whether the prosecution established the appellant’s unlawful possession of 66 grams of heroin so as to sustain his conviction under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act?

Whether the trial court’s conviction and sentence required interference in appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.?

The Court applied Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., governing appeals against convictions by a High Court; Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act, prescribing punishment for contravention involving manufactured drugs or preparations in the relevant quantity range; Section 42(2), concerning communication of information received by an empowered officer; and Section 52A(2), concerning preparation of inventory, certification of correctness, and representative sampling of seized narcotic substances.

The Court considered the principle that the prosecution must establish the identity and continuity of the seized contraband, including its linkage with the material produced before the Court.

In this context, it considered the Supreme Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 923 of 2016, relied upon by the appellant, which held that absence of evidence showing that the parcel produced in Court was retrieved from the Malkhana could undermine the prosecution case.

The State relied on Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627, Gurmail Chand v. State of Punjab, (2021) 14 SCC 334, and State of Haryana v. Jarnail Singh, (2004) 5 SCC 188.

The High Court held that the appellant had failed to establish any material procedural lapse.

It relied on the letter dated 20 September 2023 communicating the information under Section 42(2), and the two letters dated 30 September 2023 concerning production of the six soap-cage packets, preparation of inventory, and collection of representative samples before the Magistrate under Section 52A(2).

The Court also noted that an Inspector was present during seizure and had prepared the inventory of the seized narcotic substance.

On that basis, it concluded that the statutory procedure had been followed and that the Supreme Court authority cited by the appellant was distinguishable on the facts.

The Court therefore accepted the prosecution case that the appellant was found driving the vehicle while unlawfully possessing 66 grams of heroin, and found no ground to disturb the trial court’s assessment of the evidence or sentence.

It held that the alleged delay and objections regarding production and custody of the contraband did not establish a procedural infirmity or create reasonable doubt, and that the conviction under Section 21(b) of the NDPS Act was sustainable.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction dated 10 March 2026 and order of sentence dated 12 March 2026 were affirmed.

The sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment, fine of ₹25,000, default imprisonment of five months, and set-off of 62 days’ custody remained operative.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were closed.