The Supreme Court held that under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, a prosecution’s case does not automatically fail simply because the seized contraband is not produced during trial, provided that the seizure, inventory, sample-drawing and other related formalities under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were duly complied with and the corresponding records placed on record. Non-production of the seized material is therefore not fatal to conviction if the process of seizure was properly documented, samples were drawn, sealed and submitted to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and other procedural safeguards were met.
The case arose from coordinated raids in which around 147 kilograms of ganja was seized from two locations. Two accused, including the appellant, were convicted by the trial court, while two others were acquitted. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court set aside the convictions and ordered a retrial, pointing to procedural lapses such as non-production of the bulk contraband during trial, non-examination of the Chemical Examiner, and inability to play the video recording of the raid for witnesses in court.
The Supreme Court disagreed with this approach. It ruled that when seizure has been properly documented through inventory, samples drawn in sealed condition, their submission to the Forensic Science Laboratory under seal, and forensic reports confirming both the samples and intact seals, the absence of production of the bulk seized material does not by itself undermine the prosecution’s case.
The Court emphasised that documents prepared under Section 52A, such as the seizure inventory and records of sampling, sealing, and dispatch to forensic authorities, are of critical importance. If these documents are reliable and on record, they provide sufficient basis to uphold the prosecution’s case despite non-production of the bulk substance.
The judgment referred to earlier decisions, including Jitendra & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2004) and State of Rajasthan v. Sahi Ram (2019), which had taken a similar stance regarding the sufficiency of properly drawn and recorded samples in NDPS cases. This reaffirmed the consistency in judicial interpretation of Section 52A and related provisions.
The Supreme Court also addressed issues relating to electronic evidence. It noted that evidence certified under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is admissible even if the video recording could not be played in court or furnished to every witness, provided the evidence is properly certified. It clarified that if additional evidence is needed, parties can resort to Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows recall or supplementation of evidence.
Further, the Court observed that a retrial should be ordered only in exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice. Procedural defects or absence of the entire contraband in trial proceedings do not justify a retrial if the chain of custody is otherwise clear and the forensic linkage is well established.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Gujarat High Court’s order directing a retrial, and remitted the case back to the High Court for fresh adjudication within six months, in line with the observations contained in its ruling.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.