Pranav B Prem

The Supreme Court , in its judgment dated December 20, 2024, in the case of Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kashif (2024 INSC 1045), provided significant clarity regarding procedural irregularities in the investigation of narcotics cases under the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court elaborated on the implications of any procedural lapses during the search and seizure of contraband substances, emphasizing the distinction between procedural irregularities and the admissibility of evidence. The court held, "Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused."

Background of the Case

The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) apprehended the accused, Kashif, along with others, in connection with the illegal possession and trafficking of psychotropic substances, including Tramadol and Zolpidem tablets. The NCB alleged that substantial contraband was seized, and the procedural requirements under Section 52A of the NDPS Act for disposal and sampling were duly followed. However, the High Court granted bail to Kashif, citing procedural lapses in compliance with Section 52A, raising concerns about the integrity of the seized contraband.

Path to the Supreme Court

The NCB challenged the High Court's order granting bail to Kashif on the grounds that it was based solely on procedural lapses without considering the substantive evidence. The NCB argued that the High Court had overlooked the mandatory conditions stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which govern bail in narcotics cases. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and took up the matter, scrutinizing the High Court's reasoning and examining whether the procedural irregularities justified granting bail. After hearing extensive arguments, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, remanding the case for fresh consideration while extending the respondent's bail for four weeks.

Key Issues Addressed by the Supreme Court

The central issue in the appeal was whether procedural irregularities or delays in compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act rendered the entire evidence inadmissible, thereby warranting the release of the accused on bail. The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's decision, holding that:

1. The Court clarified that procedural lapses or irregularities in search and seizure do not automatically render evidence inadmissible. It emphasized that procedural compliance is crucial but not absolute in determining the evidentiary value of materials collected during the investigation. The Court stated that it must assess whether such irregularities caused serious prejudice to the accused.

2. The provision aims to facilitate the timely disposal of seized contraband to mitigate hazards such as theft, substitution, or storage constraints. It provides an alternative mechanism for preparing inventories, drawing samples, and obtaining certification from a Magistrate, thereby preserving the probative value of evidence.

3. The Court reiterated that, as per Section 54 of the NDPS Act, there exists a statutory presumption of guilt unless satisfactorily rebutted by the accused. Non-compliance with procedural mandates under Section 52A does not negate this presumption, especially when sufficient evidence supports the prosecution's claims.

Precedents and Legal Interpretations

The judgment drew extensively on established legal principles, including the Constitution Bench decisions in Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection and State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh. The Court observed that evidence obtained through procedural irregularities remains admissible unless it violates mandatory provisions or results in serious prejudice. Procedural lapses, such as delays in seeking a Magistrate’s approval for inventory certification or sample collection, do not vitiate the prosecution’s case unless evidence tampering is evident.

Impact on Bail Applications

The Court criticized the High Court for granting bail without adequately considering the mandatory provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It held that granting bail in narcotics cases requires strict adherence to statutory conditions, including a finding that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit offenses while on bail. Procedural irregularities alone cannot satisfy these requirements.

Cause Title: Narcotics Control Bureau V/S Kashif

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024

Date: December-20-2024

Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

[Read/Download order]