Non-compliance with Section 52-A NDPS Act is not fatal where evidence independently establishes recovery and possession.

On November 11, 2020, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received secret information regarding the illegal transportation of approximately 800 kg of Ganja in a container truck (CG 08 L 3166) traveling from Odisha to Allahabad

The truck was intercepted at Abhanpur-Raipur Highway with three occupants: Pankaj Kumar Ray (deceased), Vikash Kumar Ray (driver), and Amrit Kumar Sahu

A search of the cabin revealed a specially constructed secret chamber behind the helper's seat, concealed by plywood and screws, containing 155 packets totaling 697.255 kg of Ganja

Registration documents identified Sajan Yadav as the owner, and two sets of false number plates (CG 08 AH 1783) were recovered from the cabin

Sajan Yadav and his brother Pawan Yadav were implicated via statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act

The Trial Court convicted Vikash and Amrit under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act, and Sajan under Sections 25 and 29

Pawan Yadav was acquitted due to a lack of substantive evidence

The Court primarily applied Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which governs seizure and arrest in public places or transit, noting that the procedural requirements of Section 42 (private places) do not apply to such interceptions

It relied on the "substantial compliance" doctrine for Section 52-A as established in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, holding that procedural errors do not vitiate a trial if recovery is otherwise proved

The Court invoked the statutory presumptions of "culpable mental state" and "conscious possession" under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act

Regarding the appeal against acquittal, it followed the principle from State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, which restricts interference unless the trial court's view is perverse or impossible

The Court determined that since the interception occurred on a public highway, Section 43 applied, exempting the DRI from recording grounds of belief as required by Section 42

Regarding Section 52-A, the Court reasoned that the testimonies of the Investigating Officer (PW-2) and the independent witness (PW-1) were consistent and inspired confidence regarding the recovery, rendering minor sampling discrepancies irrelevant

The Court rejected the driver’s (Vikash) plea of ignorance, stating it was impossible for a driver to be unaware of a massive modification (700 kg capacity chamber) in the cabin he occupied

The owner’s (Sajan) liability was affirmed as the vehicle was specifically modified for smuggling and contained false number plates to evade detection, proving a conspiracy

However, the Court upheld Pawan Yadav’s acquittal because he was not at the spot, no contraband was found at his premises, and his implication relied solely on inadmissible co-accused statements under Section 67 without corroboration

The Court also dismissed the DRI's appeal against the acquittal of Pawan Yadav (ACQA No. 247/2025), finding the Trial Court’s view plausible and supported by a lack of substantive evidence

The appellants were granted the benefit of set-off for time served