Non-Compliance Of Sections 42, 50 & 52A NDPS Act Do Not Vitiate Prosecution If Recovery & Chain Of Custody Established With Cogent Evidence: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Court noted that procedural safeguards cannot override substantive proof, where prejudice is shown or the recovery itself becomes doubtful.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that procedural safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, cannot override substantive proof of recovery and conscious possession. The Court held that non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 52A NDPS does not automatically invalidate a conviction unless the accused demonstrates that such lapses resulted in prejudice or rendered the recovery itself doubtful.
Consequently, it noted that minor administrative delays or errors in sampling do not suffice to discard an otherwise robust prosecution case if the identity of the seized substance is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal in the headnote highlighted, “Non-compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by itself does not vitiate the prosecution case unless prejudice is shown or the recovery itself becomes doubtful. Procedural safeguards cannot override substantive proof, and where recovery, possession and chain of custody stand duly established through cogent evidence, conviction can be sustained notwithstanding such lapses”.
Advocate Ali Afzaal Mirza appeared for the appellant and Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate appeared for the respondent.
In the matter, a police raid was conducted by the Station House Officer of Telibandha, Raipur, where acting on secret information, the police intercepted the appellant, Sheikh Rehman Qureshi, near the Kashiram Nagar overbridge. Upon searching a black bag in his possession, the authorities recovered 25 strips of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus capsules containing Tramadol, a psychotropic substance. The total weight of the seized contraband was 300 grams, which falls under the category of commercial quantity.
The Trial Court (Special Judge, NDPS Act, Raipur) convicted the appellant on September 15, 2025, for offences under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. He was sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1.5 lakh.
The appellant challenged this conviction before the High Court, arguing that the investigation was marred by procedural illegalities, specifically regarding the lack of independent witnesses and failures in following the sampling procedure prescribed under Section 52A.
The High Court, however, rejected the appellant's contentions, noting that the testimony of official witnesses was consistent and reliable despite the absence of independent corroboration. The Bench observed that Section 50 compliance was not required as the contraband was recovered from a bag, not a personal search.
“…this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was in conscious and unlawful possession of the contraband substance, namely 600 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus containing psychotropic substance weighing 300 grams, and that the recovery, seizure and forensic confirmation thereof stand duly established in accordance with law. The conviction of the appellant recorded by the learned Trial Court under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act is therefore found to be well-founded and legally sustainable”, it noted.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Trial Court’s judgment of conviction and the 15-year sentence. The Bench directed the Registry to communicate the judgment to the concerned Jail Superintendent and informed the appellant of his liberty to approach the Supreme Court with the assistance of the Legal Services Committee.
Cause Title: Sheikh Rehman Qureshi v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:19266-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate.
Respondent: Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate.