The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that minor procedural lapses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act do not invalidate prosecution cases where the recovery of contraband is otherwise proven by credible evidence. The Court made this observation while dismissing CRA No. 98 of 2024, an appeal filed by Jay Singh, who was convicted for possession of 117.100 kilograms of ganja.
The appeal was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal. The appellant, Jay Singh, a 32-year-old resident of Hasanpur Kasar, Fatehpur district, Uttar Pradesh, was convicted by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kawardha, on December 13, 2023, in Special Criminal Case No. 492/2022. He was sentenced to 11 years rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
Background of the Case
On September 17, 2022, Sub-Inspector Narendra Singh (PW-11) received a tip-off that a man was sitting with five bags of ganja near Jain Dharmshala, Kawardha, after unloading them from a white car that had fled toward Bilaspur. The information was duly recorded and conveyed to superiors, and a police team, along with two independent witnesses — Birendra Jhariya and Jahur @ Gabbar — proceeded to the location.
Jay Singh was found at the spot with five bags containing 25 plastic-wrapped packets. After being informed of his rights under Section 50, he consented to a search, during which the contraband was recovered. The total weight of ganja was 117.100 kg, confirmed by a weighment witness and further certified through homogenization and sampling by Executive Magistrate Mordhwaj Sahu (PW-3). The seized samples were later confirmed to contain ganja by the State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur.
Legal Issues and Arguments
Defense counsel Mr. Vikas Pradhan argued that the conviction was unsustainable due to procedural violations under Sections 42, 50, 52, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act, as well as non-compliance with Standing Order No. 1/89 regarding proper sample handling and documentation. He pointed to discrepancies in the Malkhana register and the lack of proof that samples were legally taken out for FSL testing.
The prosecution, represented by Government Advocate Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, countered that all essential steps were followed and that the recovery was made from a public place, invoking Section 43, which does not require pre-authorization or a written record of the search like Section 42.
Court’s Observations & Ruling
The Court agreed with the prosecution, holding that:
“As the contraband was recovered and seized from the public place… Section 43 of the NDPS Act is applicable and, as such, recording of reason or taking down of information before conducting search and seizure is not required.”
Regarding the non-compliance with Section 50, the bench clarified that the section applies strictly to the personal search of the accused, not to search of bags or containers.
Importantly, the Court drew heavily from the Supreme Court’s 2025 judgment in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, reiterating that:
“Irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record inspires confidence and satisfies the court regarding both recovery and possession of the contraband, then conviction can be upheld.”
The High Court emphasized that procedural requirements are intended to ensure fair investigation but are not absolute mandates. What matters is whether the evidence as a whole establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court noted that the defense failed to demonstrate any tampering or prejudice due to the alleged lapses. Independent documentation, witness testimony, and forensic analysis all corroborated the prosecution’s case.
The appeal was dismissed, and Jay Singh’s conviction and sentence were upheld. The Court directed the Superintendent of Jail to inform the appellant of his right to challenge the judgment before the Supreme Court.
