Non-compliance with mandatory Section 52A safeguards rendered the NDPS conviction unsustainable.

On 15 February 2020, acting on information regarding transportation of ganja, police conducted naka-checking and intercepted a Swift Dzire vehicle allegedly occupied by Hobiqul Islam and Nijut Bormoholia.

Approximately 30 kg of suspected ganja was allegedly recovered from the vehicle. Subsequently, on the basis of information allegedly furnished by the appellants, a further 75 kg of suspected ganja was recovered from the residence of Jayanta Daimary, who was shown as an absconder.

An FIR was registered as Mazbat P.S. Case No. 12/2020, and the appellants were charge-sheeted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

The trial court convicted both appellants and sentenced each to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹1,00,000, and six months’ simple imprisonment in default.

In appeal, the record disclosed that no inventory under Section 52A was prepared, the seized contraband was not produced before the trial court, and the seizure witnesses did not support recovery in their presence.

The evidence also indicated that their signatures had been obtained at places other than the alleged seizure locations.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the recovery and conscious possession of the alleged ganja so as to sustain conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

Whether non-compliance with the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act—including failure to prepare an inventory, produce the seized contraband, and establish proper sampling and preservation—rendered the conviction unsustainable.

Whether the testimony of the seizure witnesses and the prosecution evidence sufficiently established that the contraband was seized from the appellants in accordance with law.

Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 applies to contravention involving commercial quantities of cannabis and requires the prosecution to prove the prohibited substance, its recovery, and the accused’s conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt.

Section 52A prescribes the mandatory procedure for preparing an inventory of seized narcotic substances, obtaining appropriate certification, drawing representative samples, and preserving the evidentiary chain; strict compliance is required because the NDPS Act imposes severe penal consequences.

A conviction cannot be sustained where the prosecution fails to establish the identity, seizure, custody, sampling, and forensic linkage of the alleged contraband through reliable and legally admissible evidence.

The judgment also records reliance on authorities including Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 110; Md. Manirut Jaman v. State of Assam, 2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1511; State of Rajasthan v. Gurmail Singh, (2005) 3 SCC 59; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Hansraj alias Hansu, (2018) 18 SCC 335; State of Rajasthan v. Bher Singh, (2009) 16 SCC 293; Ashok @ Dangra Jaiswal v. State of M.P., (2011) 5 SCC 123; and Jitendra v. State of M.P., (2004) 10 SCC 562.

The High Court found substantial deficiencies in the prosecution’s proof.

No inventory of the seized contraband was prepared under Section 52A, the seized material was not produced before the trial court, and the record did not explain its subsequent custody or disposal.

Although the prosecution claimed that samples were sealed in the presence of a Magistrate, the evidence indicated that sampling had occurred at the police station, and the prosecution failed to establish a reliable chain of custody or produce the test memo.

The seizure witnesses materially failed to corroborate the alleged recovery: PW-1 could not identify the contents of the documents he signed; PW-2 stated that his signatures were obtained at his residence and that he was absent during the recovery; PW-3 stated that his signatures were obtained at the police station; and PW-4 had not witnessed the seizure.

Consequently, the oral testimony of the police witnesses and the FSL report could not cure the failure to prove the foundational fact of lawful seizure and possession.

The cumulative procedural and evidentiary defects therefore created reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case.

The trial court’s judgment dated 22 December 2022 was set aside, and both appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

They were directed to be released forthwith unless required in any other case, and both appeals were allowed.

The Registry was directed to return the trial court records with a copy of the judgment.