### TOTAL NON-COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY SAFEGUARDS AND UNEXPLAINED DELAY IN SAMPLING VITIATES CONVICTION UNDER NDPS ACT

On July 5, 2023, the Officer-in-Charge of Ramgarhwa P.S. (PW-4) intercepted two motorcycles near Semar Chowk

A search of bags carried by Manoj Yadav and Sheikh Amirullah (the appellant) allegedly led to the recovery of 3.782 kg of Charas

The police alleged the contraband was brought from Nepal for sale in Delhi

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 23, and 25 of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to 14 years of rigorous imprisonment

The conviction was challenged on grounds of non-compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards and gaps in the chain of custody

1. Whether the prosecution complied with the mandatory requirements of Sections 42, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act

2. Whether a reliable chain of custody was established from the stage of seizure until forensic examination

3. Whether the non-production of seized contraband as material evidence and non-examination of independent witnesses vitiated the trial

The court applied Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which mandates recording and communicating secret information to superiors, as interpreted in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana

State of Rajasthan v. Jag Raj Singh @ Hansa

It further relied on Section 52A regarding mandatory inventory certification and sampling before a Magistrate

Precedents like Vijay Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Jitendra v. State of M.P. were applied to underscore that the physical production of seized contraband is primary evidence.

Section 23 of the NDPS Act was applied regarding the burden of proving illegal import/export

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the information leading to the search was reduced to writing or sent to a superior officer, violating Section 42

Crucially, the Investigating Officer (PW-6) admitted that samples were not drawn at the spot but three months later, on October 15, 2023, with no evidence of safe custody or "seal integrity" in the interim

The court noted the total absence of a Malkhana register or testimony from the Malkhana in-charge

Furthermore, the mandatory procedure under Section 52A (sampling before a Magistrate) was ignored

The court highlighted that since the actual Charas was never produced in court as a material exhibit, the oral testimony could not be verified

the charge under Section 23 failed because the police admitted they never verified if the accused had actually crossed the Nepal border

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment dated May 14, 2025. The appellant, Sheikh Amirullah, was acquitted by being extended the "benefit of doubt" and ordered to be released forthwith.