Non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act does not vitiate trial if seizure and possession are established.

On May 4, 2024, the Investigating Officer (PW-8) received secret information regarding a person carrying contraband under the Kashiram Nagar overbridge

A search was conducted, leading to the recovery of a black bag from the appellant containing 600 capsules of "Spasmo Proxyvon Plus" (300 grams), containing Dicyclomine, Tramadol, and Acetaminophen

The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000

The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of procedural non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52A, and 55 of the NDPS Act

The court applied Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which governs seizure and arrest in a "public place," distinguishing it from the mandates of Section 42 for "enclosed places" as established in Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan v. State of Gujarat

It applied Section 50 regarding "personal search," noting it is inapplicable to baggage searches per State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar

Procedural compliance for disposal and sampling was governed by Section 52A, with the court relying on Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh to hold that "substantial compliance" is sufficient and procedural lapses do not automatically warrant acquittal if the chain of custody is established

Statutory presumptions of "conscious possession" under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act were also invoked

The court determined that since the arrest occurred at an overbridge (a public place), Section 43 applied, rendering the strict documentation requirements of Section 42 unnecessary

Regarding Section 50, the court found no violation because the contraband was recovered from a bag, not a body search, making the "right to a Gazetted Officer" inapplicable

Addressing Section 52A, the court noted that samples were drawn before a Magistrate (Ex.P/47) and corroborated by the FSL report (Ex.P/50), thus fulfilling "substantial compliance"

It further held that the Investigating Officer was authorized via State Government notifications dated 11.11.1985

the court concluded that the prosecution established an unbroken chain of custody through testimonies of official witnesses (PW-7 and PW-8) and malkhana entries, triggering the legal presumption of guilt which the appellant failed to rebut

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Trial Court's judgment of conviction under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act