Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – Non-compliance with – Narcotic drug, suspected to be heroin, weighing about 125gms and 130gms were recovered from the appellant and the co-accused, respectively – Since the gross weight of narcotic substance was 255gms thus, the seized contraband was treated to be of commercial quantity – Conviction u/ss.21(c), 29 and sentenced accordingly – Appeal, dismissed by High Court – Interference with:
Held: View taken by the trial Court that the contraband recovered was more than the commercial quantity is unjustified and illegal – It committed grave factual error in concluding that the contraband heroin recovered from two distinct individuals could be clubbed together, so as to be covered under the commercial quantity (above
250 gms) – Apart from the bald allegation that both the accused were seen walking together and were searched one after the other, no evidence was led by the prosecution, to substantiate the charge of prior conspiracy between them giving rise to an inference that either of them had the knowledge about the contraband being carried by the other – There is no positive proof to support the charge of conspiracy – Such proof could not be substituted with mere inferences or conjectures – Positive and tangible evidence was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s possession – Furthermore, there are glaring infirmities and discrepancies in the process of seizure, and collection of samples undertaken by the seizure officer (PW-2) – There has been a complete and unexplained failure to adhere to the requirements of s.52A rendering the integrity of the seizure and sampling process wholly doubtful – Though the procedure u/s.52A has not been considered to be mandatory, but the non-drawing of the samples in light of the Standing Order no.1 of 1989, and the complete noncompliance of s.52A, made the entire procedure of seizure and sampling a total farce, and thereby, unworthy of credence – Thus, the FSL report cannot be read in evidence and therefore, there is no evidence on record to prove that the article recovered from the appellant was the narcotic drug heroin, as defined under the Schedule to the NDPS Act – Moreover, the rejection of the appeal filed by the appellant by the High Court, simply on the ground of delay was unjustified – Impugned judgments quashed and set aside – Appellant acquitted – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.374(2). [Paras 21-23, 25, 29-33]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.