P&H HC Acquits Dula Khan In Poppy-Husk Case, Citing Unexamined Independent Witness, Section 52A Lapse And Police Contradictions

The appellant was convicted under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 for possessing a gunny bag of poppy husk.

The prosecution alleged that the recovery occurred during a police patrol in the presence of an Ex-Sarpanch, Surjit Singh, who was not examined at trial; the prosecution stated that he had been won over.

The trial court convicted the appellant on the prosecution evidence, including testimony from police witnesses. The appellant appealed, challenging, among other matters, the reliability of that evidence, compliance with Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act, and the delay in sending samples to the forensic laboratory.

Section 52A of the NDPS Act provides for preparation and certification of an inventory and for representative samples to be drawn in the presence of, and under the supervision of, a Magistrate.

Relying on Union of India v. Mohan Lal, (2016) 3 SCC 379, the Court stated that the seized contraband must be produced before the appropriate officer and an application made to the Magistrate for the statutory certifications and supervised sampling.

It also relied on Bharat Ambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452, for the proposition that sampling in the presence of a Gazetted Officer alone is insufficient, and Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P., 2026 Law Finder (SC) 5679, concerning the effect of non-compliance with Section 52A and breaks in the chain of custody.

The Court further treated the failure to send samples to the FSL within 72 hours as a procedural lapse.

It considered the search options under Section 50 defective because the appellant was offered the investigating officer as an option, in addition to a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.

The Court found that the prosecution had not explained the basis for its assertion that the sole independent witness was won over, and regarded his non-examination as a serious lapse.

No evidence showed that the case property had been produced before a Magistrate for inventory certification and supervised sampling, contrary to the procedure described under Section 52A.

The Court also noted that the samples were sent to the FSL after five days, rather than within the stated 72-hour period, and found the search-option procedure deficient.

Although the two material police witnesses supported the recovery in chief, their accounts differed on the timing of events, efforts to join passersby, the return of the seal, and the weights used. In the absence of independent corroboration, the Court considered these contradictions material and the prosecution evidence insufficiently reliable.

It allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the charges.