In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that non-compliance with NDPS Rules 10 & 11 and delay in following Section 52-A of the NDPS Act does not vitiate the trial if the recovery of contraband is clearly established. The High Court, in Criminal Appeal No. 217 of 2022, upheld the conviction and 20-year rigorous imprisonment of Shahbaz Ahmad Seikh for illegally transporting 222.8 kg of cannabis (Ganja).
Case Background
The case originated from an incident on January 5, 2020, when a police team led by ASI H.N. Tamrakar was conducting routine vehicle checks at Pamgarh, Janjgir-Champa. A Scorpio vehicle (OD-02BC-7409), coming from Shivrinarayan, was signaled to stop but sped away, raising suspicion. The police pursued the vehicle and intercepted it in front of the State Bank of India, Pamgarh branch.
Upon search, the police found 217 packets of cannabis (Ganja) weighing 222.8 kg hidden under a black blanket. The driver of the vehicle, Shahbaz Ahmad Seikh, was arrested, while his co-passenger, Ajay Singh Baghel, managed to escape. Following the seizure, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Janjgir-Champa, in NDPS Case No. 04/2020, convicted the accused under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,00,000/-. The present appeal challenged this conviction.
Important Legal Issues
The appeal raised the following legal issues:
1. Non-compliance with NDPS Rules 10 & 11 – The appellant argued that the procedural requirements regarding the handling and sealing of seized contraband were not strictly followed, making the seizure unreliable.
2. Delay in Compliance with Section 52-A of NDPS Act – The accused contended that there was an unjustified delay in producing the seized contraband before a magistrate for sampling and inventory, which, according to the defense, should invalidate the prosecution’s case.
3. Violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act – It was argued that the accused was not informed of his right to be searched in the presence of a magistrate or a gazetted officer, rendering the search illegal.
4. Presumption Under Section 54 of NDPS Act – The prosecution invoked the presumption of guilt under Section 54, arguing that the accused failed to provide a reasonable explanation for possessing a large quantity of contraband.
Important Observations of the Court
1. On Non-Compliance with NDPS Rules 10 & 11:
The court held that mere procedural lapses do not vitiate the trial if the substantive evidence establishes the offense. The judgment cited Supreme Court precedents, affirming:
“Procedural safeguards ensure fairness but do not override substantial proof of crime. The prosecution successfully proved possession, seizure, and chemical verification of the contraband.”
2. On Delay in Section 52-A Compliance:
The appellant argued that the delay in producing the seized contraband before the magistrate violated Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. However, the court, relying on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, observed:
“A delay in following Section 52-A does not nullify the trial if the seizure and chain of custody remain intact and are corroborated by evidence.”
3. On Section 50 Violation:
The court clarified that Section 50 applies only to personal searches, not vehicle searches. Since the cannabis was found inside a vehicle, the court ruled:
“The requirement under Section 50 NDPS Act applies only when a person is searched, not when contraband is recovered from a vehicle.”
4. On Presumption Under Section 54:
The court invoked the statutory presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, stating:
“When a person is found in possession of a commercial quantity of contraband, the burden shifts to the accused to explain lawful possession. The appellant failed to offer any satisfactory explanation.”
Decision of the Court
After analyzing the legal and factual issues, the Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the 20-year rigorous imprisonment and ₹2,00,000 fine imposed by the trial court. The court reaffirmed that procedural infractions do not negate conviction when the contraband recovery is legally conducted and corroborated by solid evidence.
