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

A bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal observed thus while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act.

As per the brief facts of the case, on January 5, 2020, the accused, along with a co-accused, was apprehended by the police while transporting 217 packets of cannabis (Ganja), weighing a total of 222.800 kg.

The accused and the co-accused were unable to provide any explanation for possessing such a large quantity of cannabis in their vehicle. As a result, the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

Before the HC, his counsel argued that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and there were material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses that could not be used to convict the appellant of the alleged offence.

It was strongly argued that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act were not complied with. In fact, it was also submitted that the Standing Order of 1/89 issued by the Central Government with respect to the procedure for drawing of the samples was also not complied with.

On the other hand, the State's counsel justified the accused's conviction by submitting that the entire procedure prescribed under the NDPS Act had been followed in letter and spirit.

It was also contended that all the mandatory provisions had been duly complied with; therefore, there was no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, and thus, the appeal of the appellants was liable to be dismissed.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the division bench, having analysed the entire evidence adduced in the case during the trial, at the outset noted that Section 42 of the NDPS had no application in this case as the vehicle in question was checked on the public place and the police authority had acted under Section 43 of the NDPS Act.

“The contraband were recovered and seized while in transit. As the 10 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 the submission of the counsel for the appellant that Section 50 of NDPS Act had also not been complied with in the present case, the bench noted that Section 50 is applicable to the personal search of the accused persons, however, in the instant case, the cannabis (Ganja) was recovered from the vehicle belongs to the accused persons which cannot said to be his personal search.

“…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,” the bench remarked.

Now, regarding the argument that Section 52 of the NDPS Act, as well as Circular of 1/89 issued by Central Government, had not been complied with in the case for drawing the samples from the seized articles, the court referred to Top Court's recent ruling in the case of Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 84 wherein it has been held that mere non-compliance with Section 52A would not be fatal to the prosecution's case when other cogent evidence proves the recovery of the contraband from the accused possession.

Discussing the specifics of this case, the Court noted that the entire search and seizure proceedings were found genuine and the correct procedure have been drawn by the police persons.

The Court also considered that the independent witnesses had duly supported the prosecution case that when the vehicle was being stopped, two persons were found sitting; they disclosed their names; on being checked, the vehicle was contained with 217 packets of cannabis (Ganja) was found which was found in their possession.

“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 appellant did not able to impute any palpable to make good his case that there has been non-compliance of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act,” the bench observed.

Furthermore, the Court found no material on record to arrive at a finding that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in this case.

Against this backdrop, the HC upheld the trial Court's order as it found the same to be based on proper appreciation of evidence, and thus, the bench opined that the same needed no interference.

As such, the conviction was affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.