NDPS Act | Standing Order Non-Compliance Not Fatal To Prosecution's Case If Recovery Proved From Other Evidence: Chhattisgarh HC

Post By 24law
February 18, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that non-compliance with Standing Orders or Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) will not be fatal to the prosecution if the recovery and seizure of contraband from the accused are proved through other cogent evidence. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal made this observation while dismissing an appeal challenging the conviction of an accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The accused was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the trial court for possessing and transporting 222.800 kg of cannabis (Ganja) in a vehicle.

Case Background

On January 5, 2020, a police team intercepted a Scorpio vehicle that was speeding past a checkpoint in Pamgarh, Chhattisgarh. Upon stopping the vehicle and conducting a search, the officers discovered 217 packets of cannabis weighing 222.800 kg. The accused, along with his co-accused, failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for possessing such a large quantity of contraband. The trial court found the accused guilty and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years with a fine. The conviction was challenged before the High Court on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to comply with several mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, including Sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55, and 57, as well as the Standing Order 1/89 issued by the Central Government.

Key Observations by the Court

The Court, after a detailed analysis of the case, noted that Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case, as the vehicle was intercepted in a public place, and the police authorities acted under Section 43 of the NDPS Act.

"The contraband were recovered and seized while in transit. As the contraband were recovered and seized during transit in the Scorpio vehicle, as contemplated in Section 43(a) i.e. 'Seize in any public place or in transit', this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 43 of the NDPS Act is applicable and as such, recording for reason for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the Commission of offence before conducting search and seizure, is not required to be complied with under Section 43 of NDPS Act," the bench observed. Regarding compliance with Section 50, the Court clarified that "…the search of a vehicle does not come under the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and search of a person is distinguished from search of any vehicle, etc."

Validity of Seizure and Sampling Procedure

One of the primary arguments raised by the defense was that the sampling procedure did not adhere to the guidelines prescribed under the Standing Order 1/89 and Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The Court, however, referred to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh, emphasizing that non-compliance with Section 52-A does not automatically vitiate the prosecution’s case if other substantial evidence establishes the recovery beyond doubt.

The Court noted that the independent witnesses, including the Executive Magistrate, had testified to the genuineness of the seizure and sampling process. "The seizure of cannabis (Ganja) and its weight and sampling were proved by the Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate, and nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve their evidence, which further proves that the appellant was found in possession of such a huge quantity of cannabis (Ganja) in his vehicle," the Court observed. Furthermore, the Court found no material on record to suggest that the accused had been falsely implicated in the case. The testimony of independent witnesses and forensic analysis of the contraband reinforced the prosecution’s case.

Verdict

Based on the cumulative assessment of the evidence, the High Court upheld the trial court’s judgment, affirming the accused’s conviction. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment remained unchanged.