Procedural lapses under Section 52A do not vitiate conviction absent doubt about physical evidence.

On 15 January 2023, the police received information that five persons had checked into Tourist Lodge, Badarpur, and were transporting suspected ganja.

The police team proceeded to Room No. 8 and recovered 34 packets containing approximately 72.671 kg of ganja from nine bags allegedly in the possession of the appellant and four co-accused.

The seizure was witnessed by two employees of the lodge, and the accused were arrested.

The appellant was charged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The Sessions Judge, Karimganj, convicted him and imposed ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,00,000.

1. Whether the search and seizure were vitiated by non-compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, particularly because the search was conducted in a hotel room and the authority letter was issued or produced after the police team had proceeded to the hotel.

2. Whether the failure to issue notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act invalidated the recovery from the bags carried or possessed by the accused.

3. Whether the preparation of the inventory, photographing, certification and drawing of samples complied with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022.

4. Whether the prosecution case failed because only one sample was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the forensic expert was not examined as a witness.

5. Whether the evidence established recovery and conscious possession of commercial quantity ganja by the appellant, warranting conviction under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act.

The Court applied Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act concerning possession of commercial quantity of cannabis and criminal conspiracy; Section 42 concerning recording and communication of prior information relating to search of a private place; and Section 43 concerning seizure in a public place.

Relying on Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539, and Darshan Singh v. State of Haryana, (2016) 14 SCC 358, the Court recognised the requirement of substantial compliance with Section 42 where applicable.

Section 50 was held applicable to personal searches, not ordinarily to searches of bags or articles, consistent with State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar, (2005) 4 SCC 350, and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 9 SCC 172.

Section 52A requires preparation and certification of the inventory, photographs and representative samples in the presence and under the supervision of a Magistrate; the Court relied on Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2024) 14 SCC 222, and Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452, for the principles of representative sampling, substantial compliance and holistic assessment of procedural lapses.

Under Section 293 of the CrPC, a government scientific expert’s report is admissible without mandatory examination of the expert, as affirmed in Kailas v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1977.

The Court also considered Directorate of Revenue v. Mohammed Nisar Holia, (2016) 11 SCC 687, on privacy in a hotel room, but distinguished it on the facts.

The Court found the evidence of the two lodge employees and the police officials consistent regarding the appellant’s presence in Room No. 8, possession of the nine bags and recovery of 34 packets of ganja; minor differences in the timing of the search were treated as immaterial.

It held that the authority letter and the information received demonstrated sufficient authorisation, and that the delay or later production of the letter did not vitiate the search, particularly because the hotel was treated as a public place under Section 43 and the search concerned bags rather than the appellant’s body.

Section 50 was therefore held inapplicable.

The Court further relied on the Magistrate’s order dated 16 January 2023, which recorded division of the 34 packets into lots, collection of equal quantities, preparation of a homogeneous mixture, and drawing of three samples—D1, S1 and R1—in the Magistrate’s presence.

Sending only sample D1 to the FSL did not create a reasonable doubt because the remaining samples and remnant were preserved, and the FSL report confirmed cannabis.

The report was admissible under Section 293 CrPC, and no objection had been raised when it was exhibited.

Although non-supply of the authority letter could implicate the accused’s fair-trial rights under Sections 207–208 CrPC and Article 21, the Court held that no actual prejudice was demonstrated and that the document was not decisive to the conviction.

On the cumulative evidence, the Court concluded that recovery and conscious possession were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The conviction of the appellant under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the NDPS Act was upheld, as was the sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000.

The default sentence was modified to three months’ rigorous imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

The period already undergone in detention during investigation and trial was directed to be set off against the custodial sentence.