Possibility Of Tampering Can’t Be Ruled Out: Supreme Court Grants Acquittal In NDPS Case Where Seized Contraband Was Kept In Separate Room In IO's Office For 15 Days
|The Apex Court also highlighted the importance of following the Standing Orders and held that any departure from the same must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds.
While granting acquittal in an NDPS case, the Supreme Court has held that the fact that the seized contraband was kept by the Investigating Officer in a separate room in his office for fifteen days could give rise to an allegation that the seized contraband was by itself substituted and some other items were planted to falsely implicate the accused.
The Apex Court also highlighted the importance of following the Standing Orders and held that any departure from the same must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds.
The Apex Court was considering three appeals against a common judgment of the Telangana High Court, disposing of a criminal appeal and dismissing two other criminal appeals. Such appeals had been carried to the High Court from the judgment whereby the appellants were convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan held, “To avoid suspicious circumstances and to ensure fair procedure in respect of search and seizure, it is always desirable to follow the standing order which provides suitable guidance for the officers investigating crimes under the NDPS Act. Should there be any departure, the same must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds. We are, satisfied, on appreciation of the evidence on record, that the possibility of tampering during this fifteen-day period cannot be totally ruled out and that not only has there been no substantial compliance of the standing order, the departure has also not been justified.”
Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta represented the Appellant while Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw represented the Respondent.
Arguments
It was the case of the appellants that their conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge, since affirmed by the High Court, was indefensible having regard to patent violations of the provisions of Sections 42 and 52A, NDPS Act. They further contended that the Standing Order No.1/89 issued by the Central Government, as notified vide a notification dated June 13, 1989 had also been breached.
On the contrary, the Counsel for the Respondent argued that even if there were violations of Sections 42 and 52A, NDPS Act, the same were not so significant as to vitiate the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge.
Reasoning
The Bench found that the date of the incident was June 18, 2010, but the contraband was produced in court for the first time on July 3, 2010. In between, the contraband was in the custody of the investigating officer, i.e., PW-3, in a separate room in his office. Standing Order No.1/89 laid down the procedure for sampling, storage and disposal of seized contraband. “It is not in dispute that PW-3 admitted his ignorance about the existence of any such standing order”, it said while also adding, “We do not propose to hold that a conviction should be interdicted for any minor breach of Standing Order No.1/89. What is required is a substantial compliance of the statutory provisions and the procedure laid down in such standing order.”
It was further noticed that the seized contraband was not correctly sealed and the seized contraband was not produced before the trial court before July 3, 2010.
The Apex Court stated, “Keeping of the seized contraband by PW-3 in a separate room in his office for fifteen days could give rise to an allegation that the seized contraband was by itself substituted and some other items planted to falsely implicate the accused.”
As per the Bench, there had been a clear non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act either due to lack of experience of the investigating officer or his lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act. The lapses were duly noted by the Sessions Judge. “Thus, we are unable to hold that there was primary and reliable evidence before the trial court in respect of the offence committed. The onus of proving that compliance with Section 52-A did not affect the case of the prosecution has not been duly discharged by the prosecution”, the Bench held.
Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellants and set aside the judgment of conviction passed by the Sessions Judge. “The appellants are in custody, since their applications for exemption from surrendering were dismissed by the Court. They shall now be set free provided they are not wanted in any other case”, it concluded.
Cause Title: Surepally Srinivas v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 414)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate Gagan Gupta, AOR Divyanshu Rai, Advocates K. Dayakar Reddy, Vishal Sharma, Taruna, Bina Madhavan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Tushar Singh, S. Tridev Sagar, M/S. Lawyer S Knit & Co
Respondent: Advocate Kumar Vaibhaw, AOR Devina Sehgal, Advocates S. Uday Bhanu, Dhananjay Yadav, Yatharth Kansal