Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-000259-000259 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 52102/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI (concurring) |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Criminal law (NDPS Act) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that non-examination of independent witnesses does not, by itself, undermine a seizure where official witnesses’ testimony is consistent. It reaffirmed that minor or delayed compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is not fatal unless discrepancies affect sample integrity. Substantial compliance through sealed packets, magistrate orders and laboratory confirmation preserves the chain of custody. Minor weight variations due to natural drying do not compromise sample identity. Finally, mandatory minimum sentences under the NDPS Act cannot be reduced on humanitarian grounds. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Police intercepted a two-wheeler on secret information, seized 23.500 kg ganja, drew two 50 g samples on spot, produced them before a Magistrate, sent one to the laboratory (intact seals, identified as S-1/S-2), obtained a chemical report detecting cannabinoids, and the appellant was convicted under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) & 29(1) NDPS Act. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Distinguishes | Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (spot sampling infirmities); Yusuf @ Asif v. State (broken seals/explained discrepancies) |
| Follows | Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh; Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that minor procedural deviations from Section 52-A of the NDPS Act do not vitiate prosecution absent discrepancies affecting sample integrity.
- Confirms non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal where official witnesses’ evidence is consistent and unchallenged.
- Affirms that minor weight variations due to natural drying do not undermine sample identity or integrity.
- Emphasizes that mandatory minimum sentences under the NDPS Act cannot be reduced on humanitarian grounds by the Court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Independent Witnesses: Rejected as a ground to doubt seizure where official witnesses (PWs 1–3) gave consistent, unshaken evidence (citing Surinder Kumar; Jarnail Singh).
- Section 52-A Sampling: Adopted the substantial compliance approach from Bharat Aambale — procedural lapses alone are not fatal unless they create real doubt on sample integrity.
- Chain of Custody: Upheld by record of spot sealing, magistrate’s forwarding order, and laboratory confirmation of intact seals.
- Weight Discrepancy: Explained by natural drying over 40 days; minor variation acceptable (citing Noor Aga).
- Mandatory Sentencing: Held that Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act prescribes non-derogable minimum term that cannot be reduced on grounds of youth or caregiving responsibilities.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- Seizure took place in a populated area without independent witnesses, casting doubt on genuineness.
- Representative samples drawn at the spot in breach of Section 52-A’s requirement for a magistrate’s presence.
- Markings “S-1”/“S-2” not visible after label removal, questioning sample identity.
- Non-compliance with Sections 52-A(2) & (4) vitiates evidentiary value of samples.
- Mitigating factors: 24 years old, first offender, sole caregiver of a minor.
Respondent (State)
- Alleged discrepancies were minor, explained and incapable of discrediting prosecution.
- Official witnesses’ testimonies were consistent; sample integrity never compromised.
- High Court correctly upheld conviction and sentence.
Factual Background
On 21.09.2019, police received secret information and intercepted a two-wheeler carrying the appellant and co-accused. They seized 23.500 kg of ganja, drew two samples (about 50 g each) on the spot, and sealed them as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’. The samples were produced before a Magistrate and one was sent to a forensic lab, which confirmed the presence of cannabinoids. The appellant was tried under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, convicted and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 50 NDPS Act: Rights of accused before search explained.
- Section 52-A NDPS Act: Procedure for drawing representative samples; Court held substantial compliance sufficient absent material discrepancies.
- Section 57 NDPS Act: Report to officer-in-charge leading to FIR registration under Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 & 29(1).
- Section 161 CrPC: Recording of statements by investigating officer.
- Section 313 CrPC: Court’s questioning of accused to explain incriminating evidence.
- Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act: Mandatory minimum sentence for commercial quantity; non-derogable.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- Justice Vipul M. Pancholi concurred fully with reasoning provided by Justice Sanjay Karol.
Procedural Innovations
None beyond reaffirmation of substantial compliance standard under Section 52-A and clear chain-of-custody requirements.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed