Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, has held that mere non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) does not automatically render a trial invalid unless such non-compliance results in discrepancies in the physical evidence that cast doubt on the prosecution's case. This judgment was delivered in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, where the appellant had challenged his conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

Bench Observations

The two-judge bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan emphasized that while Section 52A primarily provides a mechanism for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband, it also serves to introduce procedural safeguards in the handling of narcotic substances.

The Court clarified: “Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Orders/Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution’s case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies in the evidence adduced by the prosecution.”

Legislative History and Purpose of Section 52A

Section 52A was inserted in the NDPS Act in 1989 to address practical challenges faced in managing seized contraband. Before its introduction, seized substances were often stored for years, risking degradation, theft, or misuse. The provision introduced safeguards like inventory preparation, photographing of seized substances, and sample collection in the presence of a Magistrate, thereby enhancing the evidentiary value of the prosecution’s case.

Facts of the Case

The appellant in this case was convicted under the NDPS Act and sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. The conviction was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. The sole argument advanced by the appellant’s counsel was that the conviction was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, relying on the precedent set in Union of India v. Mohan Lal & Anr. (2016).

Supreme Court’s Reasoning

After examining the records, the Court concluded that procedural lapses under Section 52A should not be viewed in isolation but in the context of the overall evidence on record. It observed:

1. Role of Procedural Lapses: Courts must scrutinize the discrepancies in prosecution evidence stringently when there is non-compliance with Section 52A.

2. Substantial Compliance: What is required is substantial compliance with the procedures laid down under Section 52A and the Standing Orders. Procedural errors that do not undermine the reliability of the physical evidence may not necessarily vitiate the trial.

3. Burden of Proof: The accused bears the initial burden of establishing non-compliance with Section 52A through foundational facts, after which the prosecution must demonstrate either substantial compliance or prove beyond reasonable doubt that such non-compliance does not prejudice its case.

The Court summarized its findings in the following points:

1. Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2) of the NDPS Act.

2. Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure, yet the process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure.

3. Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is actually produced before the court or not.

4. The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein.

5. Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence.

6. If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the Court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the Courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

7. Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder may lead the Court to drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

8. Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the Court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the Court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record.

9. The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities.

10. Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the Court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the present case, the Supreme Court found that the procedural lapses alleged by the appellant did not affect the reliability of the physical evidence. The seized contraband, inventory, and witness testimonies adequately established the prosecution’s case. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant’s conviction.

Cause Title: Bharat Aambale v. The State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 INSC 78

Date: January-06-2025

Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala, Justice R. Mahadevan

[Read/Download order]