NDPS Act | 'Spot' Means Place Where Search Is Conducted & Recovery Is Made, Not Where Suspected Vehicle Or Person Is Intercepted: Madhya Pradesh HC

Justice Sanjay Dwivedi was essentially dealing with the bail applications moved by the Applicants accused U/S 8/20, 25, 27(a)/28 R/W Section 29 NDPS Act.

As per the prosecution story, the Applicants alongwith co-accused were travelling from Andhra Pradesh to Shahjapur in a car. Based on an information from some reliable informant that the Applicants were transporting exceedingly large quantity of contraband, the Police intercepted their car after making a superficial enquiry. The said vehicle was then conducted to the nearest police station where it was ransacked and found to be carrying 80.351kgs of ganja. Thereafter, a panchnama and other formalities were carried out and offences under the aforesaid sections were registered against the Applicants and co-accused.

The Applicants submitted that as per prosecution's own version, the vehicle was intercepted by the Police during the peak hours of traffic at a congested location. But the inspection of the vehicle and other formalities were carried out at the nearest police station, where extensive search was made and seizure memo was prepared. They contended that all the formalities according to the procedure should have been done on spot. 

It was further submitted that the Police indulged in procedural flaws and violated the provisions laid out under Section 52A NDPS Act, and instructions issued by way of notification dated 16.01.2015.

To support their contentions, the Applicants argued that firstly, the seizure memo and other formalities were not done on spot, but were done in the police station premises. Secondly, the procedure prescribed for destroying the seized contraband was not followed. Hence, they were entitled to be released on bail for the reason that the prosecution had failed to observe the mandatory provisions. To support their assertions, they placed their reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts, one of them being of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohanlal and Anr.

Per contra, the State submitted that there was no violation of any of the mandatory procedures and that the submissions made by Applicants deserved outright rejection as they were factually incorrect. Opposing the bail applications, the State further submitted that considering the huge quantity of ganja, and the fact that some of the accused have criminal antecedents, the Applicants were not entitled to be released on bail.

Noting the arguments put forth by the Applicants that the inspection and formalities, according to the procedure, should've been carried out on spot, the Court observed –

Prima facie, on the basis of meticulous scrutiny, I find nothing illegal on the part of the respondent inasmuch as 'spot' does not mean a place where suspected vehicle or person is intercepted, but it means a place where search is conducted and recovery of articles is made. Inevitably, it crystallizes from the charge-sheet that at a place where the vehicle was intercepted, search or recovery was not done, but the accused persons and the vehicle were conducted to nearest police station where seizure memo and other procedural investigation was done. The charge-sheet also bespeaks that after the recovery and seizure was done, the sample was taken in presence of the Magistrate.

The Court further noted that on perusal of charge-sheet, it was confirmed that there was no procedural flaw in seeking the permission from the court for destroying the seized contraband. Making reference to the Mohanlal case, the Court opined that the Apex Court in the said case has elucidated that the seizure and all other proceedings of seized contraband shall be made on the spot at the time of recovery itself. Coming to the case at hand, the Court noted that the recovery and relatable procedure was done in the police station premises and that was the spot where all these proceedings were to be done and not at the location where the vehicle was intercepted.

Taking a note of the limitations with regard to bail postulated U/S 37 NDPS Act, the Court declined to release the Applicants on bail since the seized contraband was more than the commercial quantity. Accordingly, the bail applications were dismissed.

Case Title: Kamruddin v. Union of India, with connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 41

Click Here To Read/Download Order