Minor Procedural Lapses U/S. 52-A NDPS Act Not Fatal When Evidence Proves Conscious Possession: Supreme Court
The Apex Court held that even if certain procedural deviations occur in drawing or handling samples under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, such irregularities are not sufficient to vitiate the prosecution when the remaining oral and documentary evidence inspires confidence.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a woman accused under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, holding that minor lapses in the sampling process do not undermine an otherwise cogent prosecution.
The Court was hearing an appeal against concurrent findings of the trial court and the Madras High Court, both of which had affirmed the appellant’s conviction for conscious possession of 23.5 kg of Ganja, a commercial quantity.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul Pancholi observed that “even where some procedural lapse is shown, if the remaining oral or documentary evidence inspires confidence regarding the seizure and conscious possession, the conviction may still be upheld.”
Advocates M.P. Srivignesh and Sabarish Subramanian, AOR, represented the appellants and the respondents, respectively.
Background
As per the prosecution, the investigating officer received secret information that ganja was being transported on a particular two-wheeler. Acting on this input, the officer, accompanied by the police team, intercepted the appellant and her husband, informed them of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and recovered 23.500 kg of ganja along with cash from the vehicle. Representative samples were drawn at the spot, sealed, and labelled, and a report of the seizure was submitted in compliance with Section 57. An FIR was thereafter registered.
The seized samples were produced before the jurisdictional court and forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, where the Scientific Officer confirmed the presence of cannabinoids. Based on the evidence adduced, the trial court convicted both accused and imposed the statutory minimum sentence for commercial quantity. The High Court affirmed the conviction on appeal, leading to the present challenge filed by the second accused alone.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court first addressed the appellant’s contention regarding the absence of independent witnesses. It noted that prosecution witnesses had consistently deposed that no members of the public were present during the seizure, and the defence had not disputed this in cross-examination. Relying on Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, the Court reaffirmed that non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal where official witnesses are credible and consistent.
The Court then considered the challenge to sampling at the spot and alleged non-compliance with Section 52-A. Referring to the principles laid down in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court observed that the mandate of Section 52-A is not inflexible and that deviations do not vitiate the prosecution unless they create reasonable doubt about the integrity of the seized substance.
The Court found that the samples were properly sealed, produced before the Magistrate, forwarded under judicial order, and received by the Forensic Laboratory with intact seals. The Court held that “even assuming some deviation from the ideal procedure… such irregularity does not go to the root of the matter nor does it create any reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the seized contraband or the identity of the samples analysed.”
Addressing the allegation regarding the absence of visible markings S-1/S-2 after labels were removed, the Court noted PW-1’s explanation that markings could fade over time but were originally present. More importantly, the Magistrate’s order recorded the sample numbers and the confirmed receipt of correctly identified and sealed samples, eliminating any doubt about identity.
On the discrepancy in the weight of the sample received by the laboratory (40.6 g as against “about 50 g”), the Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning that “minor variations in weight, particularly where the sample quantity is described as 'about', do not affect the identity or integrity of the sample”.
Considering all the evidence cumulatively, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved conscious possession beyond a reasonable doubt, that the chain of custody remained intact, and that no procedural lapse undermined the core of the case.
Finally, the Court rejected the appellant’s plea for a reduction of sentence, clarifying that offences involving commercial quantity carry a statutory minimum punishment under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), which courts cannot reduce on humanitarian considerations. Remission, if any, lies exclusively within the executive domain.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held that there was no infirmity in the concurrent judgments of the trial court and the High Court. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act were affirmed. The appeal was dismissed.
Cause Title: Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1417)
Appearances
Appellant: Advocates M.P. Srivignesh, Lakshman Raja T., Sharavena Raghul Asr, Mithun Kumaar N., Gokul Athithya R.P., Manu Srinath, AOR.
Respondents: Sabarish Subramanian, AOR.
