NON-COMPLIANCE WITH SECTION 52A NDPS ACT AND QUANTITY DISCREPANCIES IN INVENTORY VITIATE PROSECUTION CASE

The Appellant was intercepted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) at the Singhu Border on 18.05.2012 based on secret information

Upon search of his vehicle at the DRI office, 1 kg of heroin was allegedly recovered from under the bonnet

Samples were drawn and the Appellant’s statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, after which he was arrested

The Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of procedural lapses, including delayed deposit of samples and non-compliance with Section 52A

1. Whether the procedure for a Sessions Trial under Chapter XVIII of the Cr.P.C. is applicable to a case initiated by a DRI complaint under the NDPS Act

2. Whether the non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act regarding inventory and sampling in the presence of a Magistrate vitiates the trial

3. Whether the prosecution proved the conscious possession and recovery of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt despite discrepancies in quantity and storage

The Court applied Section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act, clarifying that Special Courts take cognizance via authorized complaints without committal, following Chapter XVIII Cr.P.C.

It relied on Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu to hold that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible

Regarding Section 52A, it applied Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, which holds that while non-compliance is not automatically fatal, it requires the court to scrutinize remaining evidence with "heightened scrutiny"

It further noted the mandate of Section 52(3) for the immediate forwarding of seized articles to a designated officer

The Court observed that although Section 52A is not mandatory for a conviction if other evidence is robust, the DRI's failures here were cumulative and severe. There was an unexplained five-month delay in moving the Section 52A application

Crucially, the prosecution failed to provide documentary proof (such as a malkhana register or deposit receipts) that the samples were handed over to the authorized officer (PW10) on the day of seizure, creating a three-day gap during which tampering could occur

Furthermore, a major discrepancy existed in the records: while 10 grams were allegedly removed for sampling, subsequent inventory entries (Ext. PW2/A) still listed the total weight as 1 kg instead of 990 grams

Since the Section 67 confession was inadmissible per Tofan Singh, the prosecution's case rested solely on a recovery process riddled with "extreme carelessness" and lack of inventory verified by a Magistrate

On the merits, the Court held that the prosecution failed to meet the onerous burden of "proof beyond all reasonable doubt" required for stringent NDPS offences

The Court set aside the judgment dated 27.02.2016 and the order on sentence dated 10.03.2016, acquitting the Appellant under Section 238(1) Cr.P.C.

The Court also directed the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of Delhi to address the "callous and laidback attitude" of the DRI officials that led to this miscarriage of justice