P&H HC Acquits Accused In 600-Kg Poppy-Husk Case, Citing Unexamined Sarpanch, No Magistrate-Supervised Sampling And Missing Custody Link

On 25 January 2000, police stopped a truck allegedly carrying 15 bags of poppy husk, each weighing 40 kg, and arrested Sulakhan Singh and Raj; a third occupant fled.

The prosecution alleged that the recovery followed secret information and took place in the presence of Sarpanch Kashmir Singh, who was not examined at trial.

The Special Court convicted both appellants under Section 15 of the NDPS Act and sentenced each to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000. They appealed against the conviction and sentence.

Section 42 of the NDPS Act requires compliance with the statutory procedure for recording and communicating information; relying on Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, the Court stated that total non-compliance—neither recording the information nor informing a superior officer—is impermissible.

Under Section 52A, as explained in Union of India v. Mohan Lal and Bharat Ambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, the inventory and representative sampling process is to be placed before and certified by a Magistrate; sampling before a Gazetted Officer alone is insufficient.

The Court also treated reliable link evidence establishing the identity and untampered custody of the samples as material to the prosecution case.

The prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and deficiencies are assessed cumulatively.

The Court found that the prosecution did not examine the only independent witness said to have been present, and the record did not disclose a basis for the assertion that he had been won over.

The investigating officer admitted that the secret information had not been reduced to writing or sent to a superior officer.

The prosecution also failed to establish that the case property had been produced before a Magistrate for inventory and sampling, and did not examine the store-room official to prove when the samples were deposited or that they remained untampered with.

The samples were sent to the laboratory 20 days after recovery, beyond the 72-hour period referred to in the applicable standing order.

Taken together, these deficiencies created reasonable doubt about the recovery and the integrity of the samples.

It allowed both appeals, set aside the judgment of conviction, and acquitted both appellants of the charges; pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly.