The Supreme Court overturned the convictions of the appellants under the NDPS Act due to procedural lapses in search, seizure, sampling, and chain of custody. The Court found that the prosecution failed to ensure the integrity of the evidence, leading to serious doubts about the validity of the charges.

Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985:
  • Section 8(c): Prohibition of certain operations related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
  • Section 20(b)(ii)(c): Punishment for contravention involving the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, etc., of cannabis.
  • Section 43: Power of seizure and arrest in public places.
  • Section 50: Conditions under which searches of persons must be conducted.
  • Section 52A: Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

1. Introduction & Background (Para 1-4):
The appellants were convicted by the trial court for offenses under the NDPS Act and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment. The High Court upheld this conviction.

2. Seizure and Arrest (Para 5-7):
The police intercepted a vehicle and recovered three bundles of ganja (80 kg) after receiving a tip-off. The appellants were arrested at the scene, and samples were taken for forensic examination.

3. Prosecution’s Case (Para 8-12):
Based on the police investigation, four accused, including the appellants, were charged under the NDPS Act. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies and forensic reports.

4. Defense’s Submissions (Para 13-14):
The defense raised critical issues including:

• Non-examination of key independent witnesses.
• Failure to segregate the ganja from other substances.
• Flaws in the sampling process, casting doubt on the authenticity of the evidence.
• Procedural lapses, particularly regarding Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

5. State’s Arguments (Para 15):
The State contended that both the trial court and the High Court's concurrent findings were sufficient to convict the appellants, arguing that procedural gaps were immaterial.

6. Court's Discussion (Para 16-24):
The Supreme Court examined the evidence and noted the following:

• The presence of chillies mixed with the contraband led to doubts about the actual weight of the ganja.
• Discrepancies in the sampling process, where only two samples should have remained, but three were submitted to the FSL.
• Independent witnesses were not examined, and no documentation supported the chain of custody for the samples.
• The prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A NDPS Act requirements.

7. Judgment (Para 25-27):
The Supreme Court found the prosecution's case riddled with procedural errors, including violations of evidence handling protocols. Consequently, it quashed the conviction and ordered the release of the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi:

The prosecution’s failure to adhere to mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the integrity of the evidence and the sampling process, made the conviction unsustainable.

Subjects:
Quashing of conviction under the NDPS Act due to procedural violations.

#NDPSAct #SupremeCourt #GanjaSeizure #EvidenceHandling #ProceduralFlaws #CriminalAppeal