Procedural Irregularity Under Section 52-A Does Not Vitiate Trial If Recovery Is Factually Proven

On January 30, 2021, the NCB received secret information regarding the transportation of Ganja from Odisha in a truck (JH09J4421) escorted by a Scorpio (JH09M7100)

On February 2, 2021, the team intercepted the truck at Ara-Chapra More. Appellants Shankar Yadav and Pritam Lakra were on the truck and admitted to carrying contraband

A search at Koilwar Police Station led to the recovery of 96 packets (909.2 kgs) of Ganja

Appellant Nav Kumar Ojha, the owner of both vehicles, was apprehended at Chhapra by a second team

The Trial Court convicted all three under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellants challenged the conviction on grounds of procedural lapses in search, seizure, and the hostility of independent witnesses

1. Whether non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Sections 42, 52-A, and 67 of the NDPS Act and the hostility of independent witnesses vitiates the conviction

2. Whether the recovery and conscious possession were established beyond reasonable doubt despite discrepancies in the place of seizure and lack of production of physical contraband in court

The court primarily applied Section 20(b)(ii)(c) (punishment for commercial quantity), Section 25 (allowing premises/vehicle for commission of offence), and Section 29 (punishment for abetment/conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, 1985

It relied on Section 52-A regarding the disposal and certification of seized narcotics

The court followed the precedents of Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) and Bharat Aambale v. State of Maharashtra (2025), which established that substantial compliance with Section 52-A serves as primary evidence even if original contraband is not produced, and that procedural irregularities do not automatically vitiate a trial unless serious prejudice is proved

The High Court found that the prosecution proved the search, seizure, and sampling through reliable official witnesses (PW-1, PW-4, PW-5, and PW-6) whose testimonies remained consistent during cross-examination

The court noted that while independent witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) turned hostile, they admitted their signatures on the seizure list, and the defense failed to challenge the sanctity of the seizure process effectively

Relying on Bharat Aambale, the court held that since inventory, photography, and sampling were conducted before a Judicial Magistrate as per Section 52-A (Exhibits P-14, P-42, P-43), these documents constitute primary evidence, negating the need for physical production of the bulk contraband

The court dismissed arguments regarding the place of seizure, noting that moving the vehicle to a police station due to a gathering crowd was a reasonable administrative action that did not prejudice the accused

Conviction under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act is maintained; the order of sentence is modified from 15 years to 11 years of rigorous imprisonment, keeping the fine and default sentences intact. Appeals partly allowed