Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not automatically warrant acquittal.

On 05.04.2018, the appellants were intercepted by police personnel near the old goods godown at Mahasamund while carrying backpacks. The prosecution alleged that the bags contained ganja purchased in Odisha for illegal sale.

On search, 15 kg, 10 kg and 15 kg of ganja were allegedly recovered from Appellants 1, 2 and 3 respectively, later recorded as 15 kg, 9.9 kg and 15 kg, totalling 39.9 kg.

Samples were drawn, sealed and deposited in the malkhana; three samples marked A-1, B-1 and C-1 were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which confirmed that the substance was ganja.

The appellants were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and sentenced to four years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹10,000 each, and three months’ additional rigorous imprisonment in default.

In appeal, they challenged the conviction on grounds including hostile independent witnesses, discrepancy in seals and sample markings, non-compliance with Section 52A, missing malkhana entries, non-production of bulk contraband, and sought reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.

1. Whether the conviction of the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act suffered from perversity, illegality or material irregularity warranting appellate interference?

2. Whether the alleged discrepancy in the seals, sample markings and malkhana records broke the chain of custody or created reasonable doubt regarding the identity of the samples examined by the FSL?

3. Whether the alleged non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act invalidated the sampling, inventory and FSL proceedings?

4. Whether non-production of the bulk contraband before the trial Court vitiated the prosecution case?

5. Whether the sentence should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants?

The Court applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes punishment for possession of cannabis involving a quantity greater than small quantity but less than commercial quantity, with imprisonment that may extend to ten years and fine.

It considered the procedural requirements relating to seizure, sampling, inventory and certification under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, holding, on the basis of Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452, that non-compliance with Section 52A does not automatically vitiate the trial or require acquittal where the prosecution otherwise proves recovery, credibility of witnesses and chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt.

Relying on Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2020) 9 SCC 627, the Court held that clerical discrepancies in the numbering or marking of samples are not fatal where the evidence establishes that the seized and sealed samples were sent to and examined by the FSL.

The principles in Vijay Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 3569, concerning non-production of contraband, were distinguished on the facts.

The Court also relied on Rizwan Khan to reject the plea for a lenient sentence under the NDPS Act.

The Court found that the seized contraband and six samples were deposited in the malkhana, and that samples were sent to the FSL on 07.04.2018 through a identified constable and received by the laboratory on the same day, thereby establishing continuity in the chain of custody.

The different references to the samples as A, B and C in the laboratory acknowledgment and A-1, B-1 and C-1 in the FSL report were treated as clerical or administrative discrepancies, not evidence of substitution or tampering, particularly because the seizure and sample documents connected the samples to the appellants’ respective recoveries.

The Court accepted the evidence of the Executive Magistrate and investigating officer that inventory, physical verification and sampling proceedings had been conducted, and held that the defence failed to demonstrate any procedural lapse causing prejudice or undermining the authenticity of the samples.

Although the independent witnesses turned hostile, they admitted their signatures on the relevant documents, and the Court considered the investigating officer’s evidence sufficient when read with the documentary record and FSL report.

Non-production of the bulk contraband was also held non-fatal because the tested samples were adequately correlated with the seized articles.

Finally, considering the quantity recovered and the statutory object of the NDPS Act, the Court held that the trial Court had already taken a lenient view by imposing four years’ imprisonment against the permissible maximum of ten years.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentence of four years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000 each, together with three months’ additional rigorous imprisonment in default, were affirmed.

The prayer to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone was rejected.

As the appellants were on bail, their bail bonds were cancelled and they were directed to surrender before the trial Court on 08.10.2026 to serve the remaining sentence, with entitlement to statutory set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. or Section 468 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.