The Chhattisgarh High Court at Bilaspur has ruled that even if there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), a conviction can still be sustained if the evidence on record independently inspires confidence regarding recovery and possession of the contraband.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered this judgment on July 14, 2025, while deciding Criminal Appeal Nos. 383 and 358 of 2024 filed by Mohammad Kalut Mansuli and Mahesh Kumar Paswan, respectively. The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,00,000 each, imposed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund, in January 2024 for transporting 913 kilograms of cannabis (ganja).
Background of the Case
According to the prosecution, on September 10, 2020, Inspector Pradeep Minj of Police Station Komakhan received secret information that a 12-wheeled truck was transporting ganja from Odisha to Bihar. Acting on this tip, the police intercepted the truck at Temri forest barrier, Komakhan, and apprehended the appellants.
A total of 183 packets of ganja concealed in 34 sacks were recovered, weighing 913 kg. Samples were drawn at the spot, and the contraband was sent for forensic testing, which confirmed it was ganja. Both accused were arrested on-site, and a charge sheet was filed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
Arguments by the Appellants
The appellants contended that:
- There was non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act;
- There were contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence;
- The mandatory procedures for drawing samples under the Central Government Standing Order 1/89 were violated, particularly by mixing all packets before sampling, rendering the entire process illegal.
State’s Response
The State argued that all procedural requirements under the NDPS Act were complied with, the contraband was recovered from the appellants’ possession, and the trial court had rightly convicted them based on credible evidence.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined whether non-compliance with Section 52-A and the guidelines under Standing Order 1/89 would vitiate the conviction. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 250 of 2025, decided on January 6, 2025), the bench observed that:
“Irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the Court regarding both recovery and possession of the contraband from the accused, then even in such cases the Courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural defect.”
The Court noted that while the independent witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) and the weighing assistant (PW 12) turned hostile, the evidence of the investigating officer (PW 14) was consistent, reliable, and corroborated by official records.
Further, the bench held that Section 43 of the NDPS Act, which deals with seizure in public places, applied to the case since the truck was intercepted on a public road. Therefore, Section 42 requirements did not apply. The Court also clarified that Section 50, concerning the personal search of an individual, does not extend to vehicle searches.
The Court emphasized that mere procedural lapses in sampling or the absence of a judicial magistrate under Section 52-A (as applicable before the 2022 amendment) do not necessarily vitiate the entire prosecution, especially when the chain of evidence is otherwise intact.
Decision
Finding no merit in the appeals, the High Court dismissed both, affirming the trial court’s conviction and sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,00,000 for each appellant, with an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment in case of default.
