In a significant interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, the Supreme Court has clarified that drawing of samples from seized narcotics must be done in the accused’s presence wherever feasible, but not necessarily at the site of seizure. The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, provides crucial guidance on the procedural requirements for handling seized contraband to ensure evidence integrity.
The judgment was issued in Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2025), where the appellant challenged his conviction on grounds of non-compliance with Section 52A. The Court upheld the conviction while emphasizing that procedural lapses, unless prejudicial to the accused, do not automatically vitiate trials.
Case Background
Bharat Aambale was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for possessing a substantial quantity of cannabis. The trial court sentenced him to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh, a decision affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The appellant contended that the procedures mandated under Section 52A for sampling and inventory of the seized contraband were not followed. Relying on earlier judgments, including Union of India v. Mohan Lal & Anr. (2016), the defense argued that the evidence lacked reliability due to procedural non-compliance.
Key Legal Issues
1. Timing and Presence of Sampling: Whether samples must be drawn at the seizure site and in the accused’s presence to comply with Section 52A.
2. Effect of Procedural Deviations: Whether non-compliance with procedural safeguards affects the admissibility of evidence and the fairness of the trial.
Court’s Observations
The bench emphasized the purpose of Section 52A, which ensures safe disposal of seized narcotics while preserving their evidentiary value. It clarified that while sampling in the accused’s presence is ideal, the absence of such a procedure does not automatically compromise the evidence if it is otherwise reliable.
Justice Pardiwala and Justice Mahadevan observed:
“Section 52A does not mandate that samples must be drawn at the site of seizure. What is essential is that the process ensures fairness and safeguards evidence integrity, including, where possible, the accused’s presence during sampling.”
The Court further noted that magistrate-certified inventories, photographs, and representative samples constitute primary evidence under Section 52A(4), provided the procedures ensure transparency and accuracy.
Verdict
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld Aambale’s conviction. The bench stated that while procedural deviations were observed, there was no evidence of tampering or prejudice against the accused.
