Chattisgarh High Court
Ravindra Goyal vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010508212025 2026:CGHC:26857
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2073 of 2025
Viral Patel S/o Mukesh Patel Aged About 30 Years R/o Kalol, P.S. Kalol, Distt.
Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat
--- Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, Distt.
Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
--- Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. Rahul Ambast, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate
CRA No. 2099 of 2025
Ravindra Goyal S/o – Gopal Das Agrawal Aged About 46 Years R/o – Behind
Super Sweet, Ashawai Nagar, Police Station – Purani Basti, Raipur, District –
Raipur (C.G.)
— Appellant
versus
VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN State Of Chhattisgarh Through – Station House Officer, Police Station – Azad
Digitally signed
Chowk, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.)
by VED
PRAKASH
DEWANGAN — Respondent
Date:
2026.07.09
17:04:24 +0530
2For Appellant : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate along
with Mr. Navin Shukla, AdvocateFor Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate
CRA No. 2429 of 2025
Sahil Hasan S/o Mohammad Hasan Aged About 20 Years R/o Shiv Complex,
Mova, 4th Floor, P.S. Pandri, Raipur, Distt. Raipur Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Azad Chowk, Raipur, Distt. Raipur
Chhattisgarh
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate
CRA No. 2583 of 2025
Niyajuddin @ Vikky S/o Rukku Khan Aged About 28 Years R/o Raipur, C.G. In
Front Of Khajana Shop P.S.- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District : Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
— Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Chitranjay Singh Patel, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate
3CRA No. 2101 of 2025
Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Ramcharan Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o
Village Karsa, Post Andhi, P.S. Bhilai District Durg (C.G.)
—Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sho, Azad Chowk Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate
CRA No. 598 of 2026
Akash Vishwakarma S/o Lt. Kailash Vishwakarma Aged About 37 Years R/o
Trimurti Nagar Krishna Coloney Jabalpur, District- Jabalpur
—Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Its. P.S. Azad Chowk Raipur District Raipur
(C.G.)
— Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Apoorv Trivedi and Mr. Abhijeet Mishra,
AdvocatesFor Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate
CRA No. 771 of 2026
J. Bhaskar Rao S/o J. Sampat Rao, Aged About 28 Years R/o Banjari Nagar,
Near Shitla Mandir, P.S. D.D. Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.)
— Appellant
versus
4State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District-
Raipur (C.G.)
— Respondent
(Cause title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JudgeJudgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01/07/2026
1. All these appeals arise out of the same crime number and the same
Special Case No. 32/2023, and were decided by a common judgment
dated 01.09.2025; therefore, they are being heard and decided together.
2. The details of criminal appeals filed by the respective appellants are
given hereinbelow:-
Criminal Appeals Appellants/accused persons
CRA No. 2073 of 2025 Viral Patel
CRA No. 2099 of 2025 Ravindra Goyal
CRA No. 2429 of 2025 Sahil Hasan
CRA No. 2583 of 2025 Niyajuddin @ Vikky
CRA No. 2101 of 2025 Mukesh Kumar Sahu
CRA No. 598 of 2026 Akash Vishwakarma
CRA No. 771 of 2026 J. Bhaskar Rao
5
3. All these appeals have been filed under Section 415 (2) of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short ‘BNSS’) by the respective
appellants against the impugned judgments of conviction and sentence
dated 01.09.2025, passed by the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act),
Raipur in Special Case No. 32 of 2023. The said Special case is arising
out of Crime No. 306/2022, registered at Police Station Azad Chowk,
Raipur, for the offence under Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘NDPS Act‘). The
appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following
manner:-
For appellant-Viral Patel (in CRA No. 2073 of 2025)
For appellant- Akash Vishwakarma (in CRA No. 598 of 2026)Conviction Sentence
Under Section 29 read with R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.
Section 22(c) of NDPS Act 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, additional R.I. for 2 years.
For appellant- Ravindra Goyal (in CRA No. 2099 of 2025)
For appellant- Sahil Hasan (in CRA No. 2429 of 2025)
For appellant- Mukesh Kumar Sahu (in CRA No. 2101 of 2025)Conviction Sentence
Under Section 22(c) of NDPS R.I. for 15 years and fine of Rs.
Act 1,50,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, additional R.I. for 3 years.
For appellant- Niyajuddin @ Vikky (in CRA No. 2583 of 2025)
For appellant- J. Bhaskar Rao (in CRA No. 771 of 2026)
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 22(b) of NDPS R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.
Act 1,00,000/-, in default of payment of
fine, additional R.I. for 2 years.
6
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 10.10.2022, the Assistant
Sub-Inspector of Police, Rajesh Mandalesh PW-13, received secret
information that two persons on a two-wheeler were engaged in selling
intoxicating tablets near the water tank, Mukut Nagar, Lakhe Nagar,
Raipur. The secret information was reduced in writing in the rojnamcha
sanha of the Police Station, and two independent witnesses, Sunny
Vishwakarma and Ritesh Singh Thakur, were called. The independent
witnesses were apprised about secret information, and a notice under
Section 160 of Cr.P.C. was given to them and obtained their consent to
be the member of raid party. The necessity to search without warrant
panchnama was prepared and the copy of the secret information
panchnama and necessity to search without warrant panchnama were
forwarded to the CSP, Azad Chowk, Raipur through the Constable
Abhishek Pandey. The police party along with the independent
witnesses and NDPS offence investigation kit were proceeded towards
the suspected place. Two persons were intercepted who disclosed their
names as Niyajuddin @ Vikky and J. Bhaskar Rao. They were informed
about the secret information and their right to search have also been
informed that they have their right to be searched by Gazetted Officer,
Magistrate or by the Police Officer. The accused persons gave their
consent to be searched by the police officer. The police party and
independent witnesses have also gave their own search to the accused
persons, but nothing incriminating could be found on their search. On
being searched of the accused persons, from the pocket of the pant of
the accused Niyajuddin @ Vikky 120 alprazolam tablet and from the tool
kit box of his motorcycle, 72 nos. of the prohibited tramadol capsule
7have been recovered. From the accused J. Bhaskar Rao 72 nos.
tramadol capsule has been seized from his pocket of the pant and 72
nos. tramadol capsule have been seized from tool kit box of his
motorcycle. The seizure panchnama was prepared on the spot in
presence of the witnesses and it was identified to be of intoxicated
tablet.
5. The seized tablets were weighed on the spot and weighment
panchnama was prepared. 2-2 strips of the tablets seized from the
accused persons were separated and separately sealed as sample
packets. The notice under Section 91 of the CRPC. was also given to
the accused persons. But, they failed to submit any valid document or
medical prescription for its possession and then the said intoxicated
tablets have been seized from them.
6. During investigation, these two accused persons Niyajuddin @ Vikky
and J. Bhaskar Rao were interrogated and their memorandum
statements have been recorded in which accused J. Bhaskar Rao
disclosed that the intoxicated tablet was supplied to him by Niyajuddin
who purchase it from Pratham Medical Store of Ravindra Goyal. The
accused Niyajuddin @ Vikky disclosed in his memorandum statement
that he is regularly purchasing the intoxicated tablet from Pratham
Medical Store of Ravindra Goyal and sold it to J. Bhaskar Rao. He
engaged in selling the intoxicated tablet by roaming in his car. On the
basis of the memorandum statement of Niyajuddin @ Vikky, the
memorandum statement of Ravindra Goyal was recorded who disclosed
that he was purchasing the said intoxicating tablet from Mohammad
8
Hasan and when Mohammad Hasan was interrogated he disclosed the
name of Akash from whom he purchased the said prohibited intoxicating
tablet. He also disclosed the channel through which he received supply
of said intoxicating tablet from Jabalpur and payment of the price of the
said tablet and engaged in the said activity since 2022. During the
investigation name of Viral Patel was also disclosed and when his
memorandum was recorded the involvement of Mukesh Kumar Sahu
and Sahil Hasan in the said transaction of prohibited intoxicating tablet
was found. From the accused Ravindra Goyal total 14400 nos. tramadol
spasmo capsule (8.64 kg.), from the accused Mukesh Kumar Sahu
28800 nos. tramadol spasmo capsule (17.280 kg.), from the accused
Mohammad Hasan 1,15,200 nos tramadol spasmo capsule (69.120
kg.), from the accused Sahil Hasan 3744 nos. of tramadol spasmo
capsule (2.247 kg.) and 41600 nos. alprazolam tablet (4.996 kg.) were
seized. The accused persons could not produce any document of
possession of the said quantity of prohibited intoxicating tablets and
capsules and then the offence has been registered against them and
they have been arrested. The seized prohibited intoxicating capsules
were examined by the Food and Durgs Administration Department
Raipur and FSL Raipur and after completion of usual investigation
charge sheet was filed against the accused persons before the learned
trial Court for the offence under Section 22 (c) of the NDPS Act.
7. The learned trial Court framed charge against the accused Niyajuddin
@ Vikky, J. Bhaskar Rao for the offence under Section 22(b) of the
NDPS Act. Against the accused Ravindra Goyal, Mohammad Hasan,
Mukesh Kumar Sahu, Sahil Hasan, the charge for the offence under
9
Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act have been framed. Against the accused
Akash Vishwakarma and Viral Patel, the charge under Section 29 read
with Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act have been framed. The accused
persons denied the charge and claimed trial.
8. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons the
prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses. Statement of the
accused persons under Section 313 of the CRPC have been recorded
in which they denied the circumstances that appears against them,
pleaded innocence and have submitted that they have been falsely
implicated in the offence.
9. After appreciation of oral as well documentary evidence led by the
prosecution the learned trial Court convicted the appellants and
sentenced them as has been mentioned in the earlier part of this
judgment. Hence, these appeals.
10. Ms. Fouzia Mirza, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant
Ravindra Goyal in CRA No. 2099 of 2025 would submit that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of
prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the
appellant in the offence in question. There is serious lacuna on the
investigation of the alleged offence and non-compliance of the
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and therefore, the alleged
recovery cannot be considered against the appellant for their conviction.
She would further submit that there is non-compliance of the provision
of Section 42, 50, 52A and 55 of the NDPS Act. In the present case
10
there is no document showing that the provision of Section 42 of the
NDPS Act has been complied with and the secret information was
forwarded to the immediate superior officer. From the record produced
by the prosecution it is missing that the accused was given option to be
searched either by the Gazetted Officer, Magistrate or the Police Officer,
which is violative of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The appellant has
been implicated in the offence on the basis of memorandum statement
which is inadmissible in evidence. There is no independent witness of
the locality where the alleged contraband are said to have been seized.
Further, there is no clinching evidence with respect to the safe custody
of the seized intoxicating tablet and there is no malkhana register or
seal verification record produced by the prosecution. Further, there is no
cogent evidence that the same tablet which was allegedly seized from
the accused were sent for its chemical examination to the FSL. There
are material inconsistency in search, seizure and sealing proceeding
and sending the sample to the FSL and in such inconsistent evidence,
the appellant cannot be convicted for having possession of intoxicating
tablet and he is entitled for acquittal.
11. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
appellant Viral Patel in CRA No. 2073 of 2025 would submit that he has
been implicated only on the basis of the memorandum of co-accused
persons and there is no seizure of any incriminating tablet. The
appellant Viral Patel is the owner of medical store and a wholesaler of
the drugs. There are numerous procedural irregularities committed by
the Investigating Officer which makes the prosecution case doubtful.
Although the police had given 15 days notice to submit the relevant
11
document, but before 15 days, he has been arrested by the police. No
any intoxicated tablet have been seized and only the bills and vouchers
have been seized from his medical shop, but the same has also not
made as a part of the charge sheet. He would also submit that the
independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution’s case and
in absence thereof the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of the
departmental witness. There are absolutely non-compliance of
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act which makes the appellant
entitled for his acquittal.
12. Mr. Pragalbha Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant J.
Bhaskar Rao in CRA No. 771 of 2026, in addition to the submissions
made by learned counsel for the other appellants, would submit that the
prosecution has failed to prove the conscious possession of the alleged
intoxicating tablet from the appellant. There is non-compliance of the
provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act and there are material
discrepancies in the alleged recovery and documentation of the search
and seizure proceeding. Even the safe custody of the seized
intoxicating tablet have not been proved by the prosecution and there is
serious lacuna in the prosecution case and in absence thereof the
appellant cannot be convicted.
13. Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Mukesh Kumar Sahu in CRA No. 2101 of 2025 also adopted the
submissions made by learned counsel for the other accused persons
and would submit that the appellant has been convicted on conjecture
and surmises and there is lack of cogent and clinching evidence against
12
the appellant. The prosecution case is based on the sequence of
events, but the chain of events is broken as there is no conclusive
evidence about the fact the accused persons were interlinked and form
a chain of supply of the alleged intoxicating tablet. The prosecution has
to independently establish the search and seizure of incriminating tablet
in which they failed to do so. There are non-compliance of the
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and before holding conviction the
learned trial Court was required to consider the non-compliance of the
provisions of the NDPS Act, therefore, the conviction and sentence of
the appellant is bad in law and the same is liable to be set aside.
14. Mr. Apoorv Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Akash
Vishwakarma in CRA No. 598 of 2026 would also submit that the
judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court is
perverse to the evidence available on record. The learned trial Court
has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has miserably failed to
bring home the ingredients of the charge for which the appellant has
been implicated in the offence. The case of the prosecution is based on
the memorandum statement of co-accused Mohammad Hasan which is
inadmissible piece of evidence and the appellant cannot be convicted
on such evidence. The independent witnesses PW-1 and PW-2 have
not supported the prosecution’s case and turned hostile. The
prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt in which the prosecution failed and therefore, the
conviction of the appellant for the alleged offence cannot be sustained
and he is entitled for his acquittal.
13
15. Mr. Chitranjay Singh Patel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Niyajuddin @ Vikky in CRA No. 2583 of 2025 adopted the argument
advanced by the counsel for other appellants and further submitted that
there is non-compliance of the provisions of Section 42 and 50 of the
NDPS Act. There is material discrepancy in the notice under Section 50
of the NDPS Act and the personal search of the appellant which is the
mandatory provision under the NDPS Act and the non-compliance of the
provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act makes the entire prosecution
case doubtful and conviction cannot be hold. The independent
witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case
and in such facts and evidence produced by the prosecution the
conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from material illegality
and perversity and the same is liable to be set aside.
16. Mr. Syed Ishhadil Ali, learned counsel appearing for appellant Sahil
Hasan in CRA No. 2429 of 2025 would also submit that the case against
the present appellant is false, baseless and fabricated. The material
witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case.
There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW-
1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 and their evidence are shaky. They are
not consistent in their evidence. They also did not know about the
documents prepared in their presence. There is material inconsistency
in depositing the seized intoxicated tablet to the FSL for its chemical
examination. The prosecution could not produce the relevant
documents which are required to prove their case. He would also submit
that the prosecution has failed to prove the exclusive possession of the
appellant over the allegedly seized intoxicating tablet. He would also
14
submit that drawing of a sample in presence of a Gazetted Officer is not
sufficient compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The appellant
Sahil Hasan is the son of Mohammad Hasan who is one of the co-
accused in the case and only to show their anger, the police persons
involved the present appellant also in the offence. Therefore, there are
material discrepancy in the evidence against the appellant and he is
also entitled for his acquittal.
17. Replying the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective
appellants, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate would
vehemently opposes and submits that the prosecution has duly proved
the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor
omissions and contradiction the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
are fully reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction of the
appellants. He would further submit that the minor discrepancies in
search and seizure proceeding, which are trivial in nature does not
affect the entire prosecution case particularly when such a huge
quantity of intoxicating were seized. There is a chain of network framed
by the accused persons to supply the intoxicating tablet from one
accused to another and thereby they were found in possession of huge
quantity of intoxicating tablet. There is no explanation from the accused
persons as to how they are found in possession of such a huge quantity
of the intoxicating tablet which are easily not available in the open
market and their sale is prohibited and restricted only on medical
prescription. Although the independent witnesses have not supported
the prosecution’s case, but they have admitted their signatures over the
documents prepared by the investigating agency in their presence. The
15
other witnesses who were part of the raiding team have duly supported
the prosecution’s case. All the mandatory provisions of search and
seizure, sealing and sending the samples to the FSL and also the safe
custody of the seized intoxicating tablet and sample have been duly
proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence. Merely on the
ground that the witnesses are the police personnel, their evidence
cannot be discarded when they supported the case on material facts.
There is no explanation from the accused persons about the possession
of said intoxicating tablet and therefore, considering the evidence
available on record against the accused persons, the learned trial Court
convicted and sentenced them which are strictly in accordance with law
and needs no interference.
18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
19. PW-13 Rajesh Mandle is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and was
posted at Azad Chowk, Police Station Raipur. On 10.10.2022, at 14:10
Hrs. He received a secret information that two persons are roaming in
two wheeler an engaged in selling intoxicating tablets. He reduced it in
writing in rojnamcha sanha (exhibit P-89). He sent the constable Yogesh
Verma to call the independent witness and departure was also reduced
in writing in rojnamcha (exhibit P-90). Two independent witness Sunny
Vishwakarma and Ritesh Singh Thakur came to police station and then
a notice under Section 160 of CRPC (exhibit P-1) was given to them
after informing them about secret information. The secret information
panchnama (exhibit P-2) was prepared and necessity to search without
16
warrant panchnama (exhibit P-3) was also prepared. The copies of both
these documents were forwarded to CSP, Azad Chowk, Raipur through
the constable Abhishek Pandey and his departure was also reduced in
rojnamcha, which is exhibit P-92. The arrival rojnamcha of the constable
is exhibit P-93. He along with police party and independent witnesses
and NDPS investigation kit proceeded towards the informed place and
their departure were recorded in rojnamcha (exhibit P-94). Two persons
were intercepted, who disclosed their names as Niyajuddin @ Vikky and
J. Bhaskar Rao. They informed them about secret information and right
to their search by any gazetted officer, magistrate or the police officer
and the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act is exhibit P-14. The
aforesaid two accused persons gave their consent to be searched by
the police officers, which is exhibit P-19 and consent panchnama is
exhibit P-20. He, police party and the independent witness were
searched by the accused persons and the search panchnama (exhibit
P-4 and P-8) was prepared and on their search, nothing incriminating
could be found. On being search of the accused persons, from the
pocket of the pant of the accused Niyajuddin, 120 nos. of alprazolam
tablets were seized and from the tool kit box of his motorcycle, 72 nos.
of tramadol capsules were seized. From the accused J. Bhaskar Rao,
72 nos. tramadol capsules have been seized from the pocket of his pant
and 72 nos. of tramadol capsule have also been seized from the took kit
box of his motorcycle. The seizure memo (exhibit P-25) was prepared.
******* The recovery panchnama of intoxicating tablets from the accused
persons was prepared, which is exhibit P-28. The intoxicating tablets
were physically identified by him and identification panchnama (exhibit
17
P-32) was prepared. The weighment witness were called and the
physical verification panchnama of weighing machine (exhibit P-45) was
prepared and after weighment of the seized intoxicating tablets,
weighment panchnama (exhibit P-38) was prepared. Two strips of
intoxicating tablets were separated for sample and its weighment
panchnama (exhibit P-37) was prepared. The specimen seal
panchnama (exhibit P-50) was also prepared after sealing the seized
articles. A notice under Section 91 of CRPC (exhibit P-95) was also
given to the accused persons, but they failed to submit any valid
document of possession of the intoxicating tablets. He recorded the
memorandum statement of the accused persons J. Bhaskar Rao and
Niyajuddin (exhibit P-53 and P-54, respectively) and the seizure memo
(exhibit P-59 and P-60) were prepared.
******* On the basis of the memorandum statement of these two
accused persons, the police intercepted the accused Ravindra Goyal,
who was the owner of Pratham Medical Stores, Lakhenagar, Raipur and
found him in a car. A notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act (exhibit P-13)
was also given to him and his right to be searched by gazetted officer,
magistrate or police officer have been informed and then he gave his
consent that he is ready to be searched by the police officer and his
consent memo (exhibit P-21) was prepared. He and the police party
gave their search to the accused Ravindra Goyal and search
panchnama (exhibit P-5 and P-9) was prepared. On being search of the
car of the accused Ravindra Goyal, 14400 nos. of prohibited tramadol
tablets were recovered, which was kept in a cartoon. Recovery
panchnama (exhibit P-22) was prepared and a notice under Section 91
18
(exhibit P-96) was issued to him, but he failed to furnish any valid
document of its possession. The said intoxicating tablets were seized
from him vide exhibit P-61. The memorandum statement of accused
Ravindra Goyal (exhibit P-57) was recorded, in which he disclosed the
name of other accused Mukesh Sahu.
******* Based on the memorandum statement of Ravindra Goyal, he
proceeded to village Karsa and gave their own search to the accused
Mukesh Sahu and panchnama (exhibit P-6 and P-10) was prepared.
Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act (exhibit P-15) was also served to
him and he gave his consent to be searched by the police officers and
consent panchnama (exhibit P-18) was prepared. On being search of
the house of the accused Mukesh Sahu, total 28,800 nos of tramadol
spasmo plus tablets were recovered, which were kept in two cartoons
and Talashi panchnama (exhibit P-27), identification panchnama (exhibit
P-34) and weighment panchnama (exhibit P-40) were prepared. Two-
two strips were separated for samples from the seized tablets and
relevant panchnama exhibit P-53 was prepared. The weighing machine
verification panchnama exhibit P-47) was also prepared. The sample
separated from the seized tablets were separately sealed and
specimen seal panchnama (exhibit P-51) was prepared. A notice under
Section 91 of CRPC (exhibit P-97) was also given to the accused
Mukesh Sahu, but he also failed to produce any valid document of its
possession. Memorandum statement of accused Mukesh Sahu (exhibit
P-56) was recorded, in which he disclosed that he purchased the
intoxicating tablets from Mohammad Hasan and then the intoxicating
tablets have been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-62).
19
******* Thereafter, he proceeded to Shiv Complex, Mowa, Raipur and
taken Mohammad Hasan and Sahil Hasan into custody and the search
party gave their own search to them and panchnama (exhibit P-11) was
prepared. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was also given to
them, which is (exhibit P-13) and these accused persons gave their
consent to be searched by the police officer, which is exhibit P-16 and
their consent panchnama is exhibit P-54. On being search of the house
of the accused persons Mohammad Hasan and Sahil Hasan, he
prohibited intoxicating tablets have been recovered and Talashi
Panchnama (exhibit P-26) was prepared and recovery panchnama
(exhibit P-31) was also prepared. The identification panchnama of the
seized tablets (exhibit P-35 and P-36) were also prepared. The weighing
machine was physically verified and verification panchnama (exhibit P-
48) and weighment panchnama (exhibit P-41) were prepared. Two-two
strips of intoxicating tablets were separated from the tablets seized from
the accused persons Mohammad Hasan and Sahil Hasan and its
weighment panchnama (exhibit P-44) was prepared, specimen seal
panchnama (exhibit P-52) was also prepared. Notice under Section 91
of CRPC (exhibit P-98) was also given to them, but they failed to
produce any valid document of its possession. Their memorandum
statement (exhibit P-55) was recorded and the intoxicating tablets were
seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-63 and P-64).
******* Based on the memorandum statement of Mohammad Hasan and
Sahil Hasan, they apprehended Akash Vishwakarma at Trimurti Nagar,
Jabalpur, where was running his medical wholesale business in the
name of ‘Narmada Pharma’. His memorandum statement (exhibit P-77)
20
was recorded and based on his memorandum statement, the another
accused Viral Mukesh Bhai Patel was apprehended and a notice under
Section 91 of CRPC (exhibit P-99) was given to him. The memorandum
statement of Viral Mukesh Bhai Patel (exhibit P-58) was recorded and
the bills and vouchers have been seized from him vide seizure memo
(exhibit P-65). He arrested the accused persons and prepared their
seizure memos (exhibit P-66 to P-72 and P-78). Their arrest has been
informed to their family members through the document (exhibit P-100
to P-107). After conducting the search, he returned to the police station
and his arrival was recorded in rojnamcha (exhibit P-108). He handed
over the seized articles and intoxicating tablets to Malkhana Moharrir for
keeping it in a safe custody and obtained acknowledgment. He
registered the FIR against the accused persons, which is exhibit P-112
and Dehati Nalishi is exhibit P-113. He prepared the spot map (exhibit
P-73) and forwarded the details of the proceedings to his senior officer,
which is exhibit P-80. He also wrote a letter (exhibit P-82) to the Drug
Inspector for physical examination of seized intoxicating tablets and
then obtained the examination report (exhibit P-109). The panchnama of
shop No. 74 and 26 are exhibit P-110 and P-111. Along with the memo
of Senior Superintendent of Police, Raipur, he sent the seized
intoxicating tablets/capsules for its chemical examination to FSL Raipur
through the lady constable Hemin Dhruw and the draft memo is exhibit
P-85. The FSL report is exhibit P-114 and P-115. Statement of the
witnesses have been recorded and after completion of investigation,
charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons before the
learned trial Court.
21
******* In cross-examination, he admitted that he had given notice
(exhibit D-2) to the accused Viral Patel on 14.02.2023, in which 15 days
time was given to show cause, but he was arrested before 15 days. He
admitted that from Viral Patel no any intoxicating tablet or psychotropic
drug has been seized. The documents, which have been seized from
Viral Patel are annexed with the charge sheet. With respect to search
and seizure from the accused Ravindra Goyal, he stated in his cross-
examination that he could not remember as to at what time, he
proceeded for conducting raid. He admitted that in the document (exhibit
D-1), there is overwriting in the name of police station, but there is no
initial of the person concerned, who made overwriting there. He
admitted that the independent witnesses had came on the spot when
the raid team reached on the spot. The secret information panchnama
(exhibit P-2) was prepared on the spot and the panchnama (exhibit P-3)
under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act was prepared after arrest of the
accused. The entire documentation was done at Mukut Nagar on one
instance. He also admitted that the place, from where the intoxicating
tablets have been seized from Ravindra Goyal, other shops were also
there. He has not collected the CCTV footage from the spot. He
admitted that in the document (exhibit P-49), there is no impression of
seal. He has not mentioned the number of strips, which he seized from
the accused Ravindra Goyal, but has mentioned the separation of two
strips for sampling, which has been mentioned in exhibit P-61. He
further admitted that the marka by which the samples were sealed, have
not been mentioned. He also admitted in para 40 of his cross-
examination that, the inventory under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act was
22
not done with respect to the intoxicating tablets seized from the accused
Ravindra Goyal.
******* With respect to accused Mukesh Sahu, he stated that he has not
received secret information against the accused Mukesh Sahu and the
proceedings against him was conducted on the basis of the
memorandum statement of accused Ravindra Goyal. He has not
conducted investigation about ownership of the house of Mukesh Sahu.
He admitted that the intoxicating tablets have been seized from his
house.
******* With respect to the accused Akash Vishwakarma, he stated that
he has not annexed any document in the charge sheet regarding his
mobile number. Though he disclosed his bank account number, but he
has not seized any document of the same, which proves that the said
bank account number belongs to the accused Akash Vishwakarma. He
further admitted that he has not seized any intoxicating tablet from the
accused Akash Vishwakarma and even no any call details report
regarding conversation with other accused persons have been collected
during investigation. He also admitted that Akash Vishwakarma is
having license in the name of Maa Namada firm, which was in his
knowledge, but he has not filed any document of the same.
******* With respect to Mohammad Hasan and Sahil Hasan, he admitted
that these two accused persons have given their consent orally that they
are ready to be searched by him. He further admitted that sampling in
the case is not done in presence of any Magistrate and has not
collected any CDR of these accused persons.
23
******* For accused J. Bhaskar Rao, he stated in his evidence that the
document (exhibit P-3) prepared on 10.10.2022, at 16:00 hrs. and the
receiving at CSP office is endorsed at 15:25 hrs. He seized the
intoxicating tablets from this accused and seizure panchnama (exhibit
P-28) was prepared, but in the document (exhibit P-28), there is no
signature of the accused J. Bhaskar Rao. He further admitted that in the
document (exhibit P-50), there is no specimen seal and signature of the
accused J. Bhaskar Rao. He also admitted that sampling from the
intoxicating tablet seized from the accused J. Bhaskar Rao was not
done by the Magistrate. Before sending the sample packets to the FSL,
it was sent to Drug Inspector for its examination. He admitted in para 55
of his cross-examination that, from the intoxicating tablets seized from J.
Bhaskar Rao two strips of tablets have been separated for sample and
in each strips, 8 tablets were there. He further admitted that as per the
FSL report (exhibit P-115), in the sample packet (article-B), 24 capsules
in each strip is mentioned. He could not tell about this discrepancy.
******* Regarding the accused Niyajuddin, he stated that he has not
recorded any statement of the employee of Municipal Corporation. He
also has not seized any document about ownership of the bullet vehicle
seized from the accused Niyajuddin. He denied that no intoxicating
tablets have been seized from the bullet motorcycle. He also admitted
that in the specimen seal panchnama, he has not impressed the seal
impression. He also admitted that in his memorandum statement
(exhibit P-54), the accused Niyajuddin have not disclosed anything
about alprazolam and tramadol tablets.
24
20. PW-14, Gajendra Sahu is the constable posted at the office of Additional
Superintendent of Police, West Raipur. When they had gone to Azad
chowk police station on the instance of Additional Superintendent of
Police and they were informed about secret information and was the
member of search party. They conducted search of Bhaskar Rao and
Niyajuddin and the tramadol intoxicating tablets has been seized from
them. The tramadol and spasmo proxyvon intoxicating tablets have
been seized in huge quantity from all the 8 accused persons, but they
could not produce any document of its possession. In cross-
examination, he admitted that he has not heard about the option given
by the raiding officer to the accused persons in informing their rights to
search by any gazetted officer, magistrate or by himself.
21. PW-15, Kishore Singh Rajput is another constable posted at police
station Azad chowk, Raipur and was a member of raid team. On being
secret information, they apprehended two persons at Mukut Nagar, who
disclosed their name as Vikky Khan and Bhaskar Rao. After having
initial formality of their search, the accused persons were ready to be
searched by raiding officer and on being search of accused Vikky Khan,
8 strips of intoxicating tablets and from accused Bhaskar Rao, 10 strips
of intoxicating tablets have been seized, but they could not produce any
document.
******* In cross-examination he admitted that, he could not tell the
weight of the intoxicating tablets seized on the spot. He could not see
the brand name of the tablets, but they have physically identified that it
25
was the intoxicating tablets. The raiding officer informed about the
intoxicating tablets.
22. PW-17, Parmanand Verma is the Drug Inspector. He stated in his
evidence that, he received the memo (exhibit P-82) for giving
information about the seized Spas Trancane Plus and Spasmo
Proxyvon Plus tablets and along with the memo 6 sample packets were
received, which were marked as sample packet A, B, C, D, E and F. He
physically examined the said tablets as per the information available in
its label. In the sample of Article-A (spas trancane plus), 50 mg of
tramadol hydrochloride and 0.5 mg of alprazolam were found present. In
the sample packet of Article-B (Spas trancane Plus) and 50 mg of
tramadol hydrochloride were found present. In the sample of Article-C
(spasmo proxyvon plus), 50 mg of tramadol hydrochloride were found
present. In the sample of Article-D (spas trancane plus), 50 mg of
tramadol hydrochloride was found present. In the sample of Article-E
(Spas Trancane Plus), 50 mg of tramadol hydrochloride was found
present. In the sample of Article-F (Spas trancane plus), 50 mg of
tramadol hydrochloride and 0.5 mg of alprazolam were found present.
After its examination, the sample packets were resealed and sent back
to the Station House Officer, Azad chowk, Raipur along with his report
(exhibit P-109).
******* In cross-examination, he admitted that in the report (exhibit P-
109), how many strips of tables have been examined by him, has not
been mentioned. He admitted that he has not chemically analyzed the
tablets of the strips, but the report is prepared on the basis of
information given in its label.
26
23. PW-18, Deepak Singh Thakur is a constable and member of raiding
party. He is also a witness of search and seizure from the accused Vikky
Khan and Bhaskar Rao. He also stated that intoxicating tablets have
been seized from Vikky Khan and Bhaskar Rao, but they could not
produce any document of its possession. The seized tablets were
sealed and weighed. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion
given by the defence that he was not the member of raid party and no
any intoxicating tablet has been seized from the accused persons.
24. PW-19, Amrit Prajapati is the resident of District Mehsana, Gujarat and
he stated that on 14.03.2023, the Raipur police prepared the
panchnama of shop No. 26 situated at Pyke Plot Godown Small
Industries Budasan, Mehsana, Gujarat, which was the shop of M/s.
Maheshar Health Care. The said shop was closed since last 6 months
and the panchnama is exhibit P-111.
25. PW-20, Pankaj Kumar Kantilal Patel and PW-21, Sanjay Bhai Darji are
the witness of panchnama (exhibit P-112) with respect to closure of
shop No. F-131, Radhanpur road, Mehsana, Gujarat.
26. The question which arises for consideration is whether the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the search, seizure,
sampling, sealing, safe custody and chemical examination of the
alleged psychotropic substances were conducted in strict compliance
with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Since the NDPS Act
prescribes stringent punishment and raises statutory presumptions
against an accused under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the
prosecution is first required to establish by demonstrating strict
27
compliance to the mandatory procedural safeguards. It is well settled
that the safeguards incorporated under Sections 42, 50, 52-A and 55 of
the NDPS Act are intended to ensure fairness, transparency and
credibility of the investigation, and any substantial deviation therefrom
goes to the root of the prosecution case.
27. There is material inconsistencies and procedural irregularities, which
remain unexplained by the prosecution. With respect to the compliance
of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, although PW-13 stated that he had
reduced the secret information into writing and forwarded the same to
the superior officer, his cross-examination creates a serious doubt
regarding the authenticity of such compliance. He admitted that the
document under Section 42(2) (Exhibit P-3), which is shown to have
been prepared at 16:00 hours, bears the receiving endorsement of the
office of the CSP at 15:25 hours. Thus, according to the prosecution’s
own documents, the superior officer is shown to have received the
communication thirty-five minutes prior to its preparation. Such an
inherent impossibility has remained wholly unexplained. This
contradiction strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and creates
a serious doubt whether the mandatory requirement of reducing the
information into writing and forwarding it to the immediate superior
officer was actually complied with before conducting the search.
28. The prosecution case further becomes doubtful because PW-13
admitted that the secret information panchnama (Exhibit P-2) was
prepared on the spot after reaching the place of occurrence and that the
proceedings under Section 42(2) were also prepared after the arrest of
28
the accused. These admissions directly contradict the statutory
requirement that the information should be recorded and communicated
before conducting the search.
29. The notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act themselves disclose that
the accused persons were simultaneously informed that they could be
searched either by a Gazetted Officer, a Magistrate or by the police
officer himself. Such an option is not contemplated under Section 50.
The statutory right conferred upon the accused is to be searched before
a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and not by the searching officer
himself. Consequently, the option offered was neither clear nor in
conformity with the mandate of law. Therefore, the alleged consent
obtained from the accused persons loses its legal sanctity.
30. Even otherwise, substantial part of the alleged recovery was effected
from houses, vehicles and tool boxes. Nevertheless, the prosecution
itself alleges recovery from the pockets of the accused persons. Once
personal search formed part of the recovery proceedings, strict
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act became imperative. In view
of the doubtful evidence regarding communication of the statutory right,
the prosecution cannot claim valid compliance of Section 50 of the
NDPS Act.
31. The evidence relating to sampling also suffers from serious legal
infirmities. PW-13 categorically admitted that the samples were not
drawn before any Magistrate. He further admitted that no inventory
under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act was prepared in respect of the
seizure from accused Ravindra Goyal. Similar admissions have also
29
been made regarding other accused persons. The prosecution has
therefore failed to establish that inventory, sampling and certification
were undertaken in accordance with the mandatory procedure
contemplated under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
32. The specimen seal proceedings also suffer from serious deficiencies.
PW-13 admitted that in Exhibit P-49 no seal impression was available.
He further admitted that the specimen seal panchnamas did not contain
the seal impression and that the mark by which the samples were
sealed had not been mentioned. In respect of accused J. Bhaskar Rao,
PW-13 further admitted that Exhibit P-50 neither bears the specimen
seal nor the signature of the accused. These deficiencies assume
considerable significance because the prosecution was required to
establish beyond doubt that the very samples drawn from the seized
contraband ultimately reached the forensic laboratory without any
possibility of tampering.
33. The prosecution evidence regarding sampling is further contradicted by
the FSL report itself. PW-13 admitted that from accused J. Bhaskar Rao
two strips consisting of eight capsules each were separated as samples,
whereas the FSL report mentions twenty-four capsules in each strip of
Article-B. He admitted that he could not explain this discrepancy. This
inconsistency directly affects the identity of the sample and creates a
serious doubt regarding the chain of custody. Further, there is no
evidence about marking of samples as A, B, C, D, E and F. It is also
relevant here that all the seizures of intoxicating tablets have been
30
made on different time and at different places, but a common
proceeding has been drawn by the police.
34. The prosecution has also failed to establish safe custody of the seized
contraband in accordance with Section 55 of the NDPS Act. Although
PW-13 stated that the seized articles were deposited with the Malkhana
Moharrir, no Malkhana Register, seal register or record proving the
condition of the seals at the time of deposit and dispatch has been
produced. There is also no independent evidence demonstrating that
the seized articles remained intact till their dispatch to the forensic
laboratory. In the absence of cogent evidence regarding safe custody,
the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out.
35. Another circumstance creating doubt is that the samples were first sent
to the Drug Inspector instead of the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-
17, the Drug Inspector, admitted that he merely examined the labels
affixed on the strips and did not chemically analyse the tablets. He also
admitted that his report does not mention the number of strips
examined. Thus, the report of the Drug Inspector cannot establish the
chemical composition of the seized tablets. Rather, the unnecessary
intermediate handling of the samples before dispatch to the FSL
weakens the integrity of the chain of custody.
36. The evidence regarding seizure proceedings is also not free from doubt.
PW-13 admitted that the seizure panchnama relating to accused J.
Bhaskar Rao does not bear the signature of the accused. He further
admitted that he had not mentioned the number of strips seized from
accused Ravindra Goyal. He also admitted overwriting in material
31
documents without initials. These are not insignificant omissions,
particularly in a prosecution under the NDPS Act where every stage of
search and seizure must inspire complete confidence.
37. The prosecution has also failed to associate any independent witness
from the localities where huge quantities of alleged contraband were
seized from commercial establishments and residential houses. PW-13
admitted that several shops existed near the place of seizure from
Ravindra Goyal, yet no independent witness from the locality was
associated. He also admitted that CCTV footage from the locality was
not collected. The two independent witnesses cited by the prosecution
did not support the prosecution case on material particulars.
Consequently, the prosecution case rests substantially upon official
witnesses whose evidence itself suffers from material contradictions.
38. PW-8, Reena Padmawar, who took the samples to the office of Drug
Inspector, Raipur has proved the acknowledgment (exhibit P-82). She
took the sample packets of A, B, C, D, E and F, which was the subject
matter of crime No. 306/2022 for the offence under Sections 22 (b) and
22 (c) of the NDPS Act. In cross-examination, she admitted her duty
certificate (exhibit D-2) for taking the samples to the office of Drug
Inspector. From perusal of the document (exhibit D-2), there is no
mention about the sample packets of the crime No. 306/2022 of Azad
Chowk, Police Station Raipur, but exhibit D-2 is with respect to the
articles of crime No. 310/2022, which relates to the offence under the
Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, which this witness has
admitted in the cross-examination also and therefore, the authority
32
under which the sample packets were sent to the office of Drug
Inspector is highly doubtful.
39. So far as accused Viral Patel and Akash Vishwakarma are concerned,
PW-13 admitted that no psychotropic substance whatsoever was
recovered from either of them. Their implication rests primarily upon
disclosure statements of co-accused persons. PW-13 further admitted
that no call detail records, banking documents or other independent
material connecting them with the alleged transaction were collected
during investigation. It is equally admitted that Viral Patel was arrested
even before expiry of the fifteen days’ period granted to him under the
notice issued by the Investigating Officer. These admissions
substantially weaken the prosecution case against them.
40. It is also significant that no contraband whatsoever was recovered from
appellants Viral Patel and Akash Vishwakarma. Their implication rests
principally upon the disclosure statements allegedly made by the co-
accused during investigation. Such statements, recorded after the
accused had already been apprehended and were under the complete
control of the investigating agency, cannot by themselves constitute
substantive evidence of guilt. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 4 SCC 1
has categorically held that confessional statements recorded under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessions against the
maker and cannot be made the foundation of conviction. Furthermore,
the disclosure statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence
and can at best lend assurance to other independent evidence already
33
available on record. In the present case, apart from these alleged
disclosures, the prosecution has failed to produce any legally admissible
material such as recovery, call detail records, banking transactions,
documentary evidence of supply, electronic evidence or any other
independent circumstance connecting the said appellants with the
alleged offence. Consequently, the alleged disclosures lose all probative
value and cannot sustain their conviction.
41. The prosecution further relies heavily upon statements allegedly
recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, admittedly such
statements were recorded after the accused had been apprehended
and were in the custody and complete control of DRI officers. In view of
the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Tofan Singh (supra) statements recorded under Section 67
from persons accused of offences under the NDPS Act are inadmissible
as confessional statements and cannot form the basis of conviction.
Consequently, the alleged disclosures made by the accused lose all
evidentiary value.
42. It is trite law that offences under the NDPS Act prescribe stringent
punishments and also contain statutory presumptions under Sections 35
and 54 of the NDPS Act. Consequently, strict and substantial
compliance of the mandatory safeguards incorporated under the Act
becomes indispensable. The burden shifts upon the accused only after
the prosecution first establishes a lawful search, seizure and conscious
possession through cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh,
34
(1999) 6 SCC 172, has held in paragraph 26 that-:
“26. The safeguard or protection to be searched
in the presence of a gazetted officer or a
Magistrate has been incorporated in Section 50
to ensure that persons are only searched with a
good cause and also with a view to maintain the
veracity of evidence derived from such search.
We have already noticed that severe
punishments have been provided under the Act
for mere possession of illicit drugs and narcotic
substances. Personal search, more particularly
for offences under the NDPS Act, are critical
means of obtaining evidence of possession and it
is, therefore, necessary that the safeguards
provided in Section 50 of the Act are observed
scrupulously. The duty to inform the suspect of
his right to be searched in the presence of a
gazetted officer or a Magistrate is a necessary
sequence for enabling the person concerned to
exercise that right under Section 50 because
after Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India it is no
longer permissible to contend that the right to
personal liberty can be curtailed even temporarily,
by a procedure which is not “reasonable, fair and
just” and when a statute itself provides for a “just”
procedure, it must be honoured. Conducting a
search under Section 50, without intimating to the
suspect that he has a right to be searched before
a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, would be
violative of the “reasonable, fair and just
procedure” and the safeguard contained in
Section 50 would be rendered illusory, otiose and
meaningless. Procedure based on systematic
and unconscionable violation of law by the
35
officials responsible for the enforcement of law,
cannot be considered to be a “fair”, just or
reasonable procedure. We are not persuaded to
agree that reading into Section 50, the existence
of a duty on the part of the empowered officer, to
intimate to the suspect, about the existence of his
right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted
officer or a Magistrate, if he so requires, would
place any premium on ignorance of the law. The
argument loses sight of a clear distinction
between ignorance of the law and ignorance of
the right to a “reasonable, fair and just
procedure”.
43. Similarly, in “Noor Aga v. State of Punjab“, (2008) 16 SCC 417, the
Supreme Court has categorically held that because of the severe
punishment prescribed under the Act, the procedural safeguards must
receive strict interpretation and the prosecution has to prove
foundational facts before the statutory presumption can operate, as held
in the following paragraphs-:
“58. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt,
raise presumptions with regard to the culpable
mental state on the part of the accused as also
place the burden of proof in this behalf on the
accused; but a bare perusal of the said provision
would clearly show that presumption would
operate in the trial of the accused only in the
event the circumstances contained therein are
fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the
prosecution and only when it stands satisfied,
would the legal burden shift. Even then, the
standard of proof required for the accused to
prove his innocence is not as high as that of the
36prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof
required to prove the guilt of the accused on the
prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but
it is “preponderance of probability” on the
accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the
foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of
Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is
possession of contraband by the accused
cannot be said to have been established.
91.The logical corollary of these discussions is
that the guidelines such as those present in the
Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and
substantial compliance therewith must be
insisted upon for so that sanctity of physical
evidence in such cases remains intact. Clearly,
there has been no substantial compliance with
these guidelines by the investigating authority
which leads to drawing of an adverse inference
against them to the effect that had such
evidence been produced, the same would have
gone against the prosecution.
113. Justness and fairness of a trial is also
implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution. A fair trial
is again a human right. Every action of the
authorities under the Act must be construed
having regard to the provisions of the Act as also
the right of an accused to have a fair trial. The
courts, in order to do justice between the parties,
must examine the materials brought on record in
each case on its own merits. Marshalling and
appreciation of evidence must be done strictly in
accordance with the well-known legal principles
governing the same; wherefore the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
37Evidence Act must be followed. Appreciation of
evidence must be done on the basis of materials
on record and not on the basis of some reports
which have nothing to do with the occurrence in
question.”
44. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ashok v. State of Madhya Pradesh,
(2011) 5 SCC 123, observed that failure to establish safe custody and
an unbroken chain of possession of contraband materially affects the
prosecution case.
45. The evidence further discloses substantial non-compliance of the
mandatory provisions contained in Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the
NDPS Act. Though the prosecution asserts that secret information was
reduced into writing, there is no satisfactory evidence regarding its
proper communication in the manner contemplated under Section 42.
There is no endorsement regarding urgency or impossibility of obtaining
warrant. The place of interception was admittedly not mentioned in the
secret information. In the case of “Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana“
2009 (8) SCC 539, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:-
“35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that
Abdul Rashid (2000) 2 SCC 513 did not require
literal compliance with the requirements of
Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham
(2001) 6 SCC 692 hold that the requirements of
Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at
all. The effect of the two decisions was as
follows:
(a) The officer on receiving the information [of
the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of
38Section 42] from any person had to record it in
writing in the register concerned and forthwith
send a copy to his immediate official superior,
before proceeding to take action in terms of
clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the
officer was not in the police station, but while he
was on the move either on patrol duty or
otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other
means, and the information calls for immediate
action and any delay would have resulted in the
goods or evidence being removed or destroyed,
it would not be feasible or practical to take down
in writing the information given to him, in such a
situation, he could take action as per clauses (a)
to (d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as
it is practical, record the information in writing
and forthwith inform the same to the official
superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the
requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in
regard to writing down the information received
and sending a copy thereof to the superior
officer, should normally precede the entry,
search and seizure by the officer. But in special
circumstances involving emergent situations, the
recording of the information in writing and
sending a copy thereof to the official superior
may get postponed by a reasonable period, that
is, after the search, entry and seizure. The
question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance with
requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of
Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance
39with satisfactory explanation about the delay will
be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To
illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused
escaping or the goods or evidence being
destroyed or removed, not recording in writing
the information received, before initiating action,
or non-sending of a copy of such information to
the official superior forthwith, may not be treated
as violation of Section 42. But if the information
was received when the police officer was in the
police station with sufficient time to take action,
and if the police officer fails to record in writing
the information received, or fails to send a copy
thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a
suspicious circumstance being a clear violation
of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the
police officer does not record the information at
all, and does not inform the official superior at
all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section
42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or
substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is
a question of fact to be decided in each case.
The above position got strengthened with the
amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001.”
46. Even assuming Section 50 may not strictly apply to search of a vehicle,
the procedural safeguards embodied in Sections 42 and 52-A continue
to remain mandatory. In “Union of India v. Mohanlal“, (2016) 3 SCC
379, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphatically held that preparation of
inventory, certification by Magistrate and sampling under Section 52-A
constitute mandatory safeguards intended to preserve the sanctity of
seized narcotic substances and held that:-
“15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2)(c)
40(supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the
same has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-
charge of the nearest police station or to the
officer empowered under Section 53 who shall
prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said
provision and make an application to the
Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the
correctness of the inventory, (b) certifying
photographs of such drugs or substances taken
before the Magistrate as true, and (c) to draw
representative samples in the presence of the
Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the
list of samples so drawn.
16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that
the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the
application. This implies that no sooner the
seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded
to the officer-in-charge of the police station or
the officer empowered, the officer concerned is
in law duty-bound to approach the Magistrate for
the purposes mentioned above including grant of
permission to draw representative samples in his
presence, which samples will then be enlisted
and the correctness of the list of samples so
drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words,
the process of drawing of samples has to be in
the presence and under the supervision of the
Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be
certified by him to be correct.
17. The question of drawing of samples at the
time of seizure which, more often than not, takes
place in the absence of the Magistrate does not
in the above scheme of things arise. This is so
especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of
41
the Act, samples drawn and certified by the
Magistrate in compliance with sub-sections (2)
and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary
evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to
say that there is no provision in the Act that
mandates taking of samples at the time of
seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States
claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure.
xxxxx
19. Mr Sinha, learned Amicus Curiae, argues
that if an amendment of the Act stipulating that
the samples be taken at the time of seizure is
not possible, the least that ought to be dor it
obligatory for the officer conducting the seizure
to apply to the Magistrate for samples and
certification, etc. without any loss of time. The
officer conducting the seizure is also obliged to
report the act of seizure and the making of the
application to the superior officer in writing so
that there is a certain amount of accountability in
the entire exercise, which as at present gets
neglected for a variety of reasons. There is in
our opinion no manner of doubt that the seizure
of the contraband must be followed by an
application for drawing of samples and
certification as contemplated under the Act.
There is equally no doubt that the process of
making any such application and resultant
sampling and certification cannot be left to the
whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of
the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular,
does not brook any delay in the matter of making
of an application or the drawing of samples and
certification. While we see no room for
42
prescribing or reading a time-frame into the
provision, we are of the view that an application
for sampling and certification ought to be made
without undue delay and the Magistrate on
receipt of any such application will be expected
to attend to the application and do the needful,
within a reasonable period and without any
undue delay or procrastination as is mandated
by sub-section (3) of Section 52-A (supra). We
hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a
close watch on the performance of the
Magistrates in this regard and through the
Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing
with the menace of drugs which has taken
alarming dimensions in this country partly
because of the ineffective and lackadaisical
enforcement of the laws and procedures and
cavalier manner in which the agencies and at
times Magistracy in this country addresses a
problem of such serious dimensions.
xxxx
31. To sum up we direct as under:
31.1. No sooner the seizure of any narcotic
drugs and psychotropic and controlled
substances and conveyances is effected, the
same shall be forwarded to the officer in charge
of the nearest police station or to the officer
empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The
officer concerned shall then approach the
Magistrate with an application under Section 52-
A(2) of the shall be allowed by the Magistrate as
soon as may be required under sub-section (52-
A, as discussed by us in the body of this
judgment under the heading “seizure and
43
sampling”. The sampling shall be done under the
supervision of the Magistrate as discussed in
Paras 15 to 19 of this order.
31.2. The Central Government and its agencies
and so also the State Governments shall within
six months from today take appropriate steps to
set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage
of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic and
controlled substances and conveyances duly
equipped with vaults and double-locking system
to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the
seized drugs. The Central Government and the
State Governments shall also designate an
officer each for their respective storage facility
and provide for other steps, measures as
stipulated in Standing Order No. 1 of 1989 to
ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or
replacement of the seized drugs.
31.3. The Central Government and the State
Governments shall be free to set up a storage
facility for each district in the States and
depending upon the extent of seizure and store
required, one storage facility for more than one
districts.
31.4. Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying
in the Police Malkhanas and other places used
for storage shall be carried out by the DDCs
concerned in terms of the directions issued by
us in the body of this judgment under the
heading “disposal of drugs”.
47. Similarly, in Yusuf @ Asif v. State, (2023) 13 SCC 1, the Supreme
Court reiterated that compliance with Section 52-A is not an empty
44
formality and substantial deviation from the prescribed procedure
seriously affects the prosecution case.
48. In the case of “Surepally Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (now
State of Telangana)” 2025 SCC Online SC 683, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held that:-
“13. In Bharat Aambale (supra), this Court held
that the purport of Section 52-A, NDPS Act read
with Standing Order No. 1/89 extends beyond
mere disposal and destruction of seized
contraband and serves a broader purpose of
strengthening the evidentiary framework under
the NDPS Act. This decision stresses upon the
fact that what is to be seen is whether there has
been substantial compliance with the mandate of
Section 52-A and if not, the prosecution must
satisfy the court that such non-compliance does
not affect its case against the accused. This is
also what has been held in Kashif (supra).”
49. The cumulative effect of the aforesaid deficiencies cannot be ignored by
treating each irregularity in isolation. The law is well settled that where
several suspicious circumstances cumulatively create reasonable doubt
regarding the fairness of search and seizure, benefit thereof must
necessarily enure to the accused. In Noor Aga (supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the higher degree of proof expected from the
prosecution. Likewise, in Tofan Singh (supra), it has been
authoritatively held that statements recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act are inadmissible as confessional statements against an
accused and cannot by themselves sustain conviction. Once such
45
statements are excluded from consideration, the remaining evidence
suffers from serious procedural defects and fails to establish conscious
possession or conspiracy beyond reasonable doubt.
50. Relying the judgment of Tofan Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of “Balwinder Singh (Binda) v. Narcotics Control
Bureau” 2024 (13) SCC 734 has held that:
“(a) Significance of Toffan Singh (supra) decision
16. We have perused the impugned judgment
and the records and given our thoughtful
consideration to the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the parties.
17. When the present matter was considered by
the High Court in the year 2013, it had accepted
the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the respondent NCB that officers of the
Department of Revenue Intelligence who are
vested with the powers of an officer in charge of
the police station under Section 53 of the Act,
are not “police officers” within the meaning of
Section 25 of the Evidence Act and therefore
held that a confessional statement of a person
accused of an offence under the NDPS Act
recorded by such an officer in the course of
investigation, is admissible against him. The said
argument had found favour with the High Court
in the light of the decisions of this Court in
Kanhaiyalal and Raj Kumar Karwal wherein it
was held that a confession made by the accused
before an officer of the NCB, is admissible in
evidence because the said officer cannot be
treated as a “police officer” within the meaning of
46Section 25 of the Evidence Act. It was further
held that a conviction can be maintained on the
sole confession made by an accused under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act. A similar view taken
by this Court in Ram Singh, was cited by the
High Court to fortify its decision that the
confessions made by the appellants herein
before the officers of the NCB were admissible in
evidence, being of voluntary nature.
18. However, much water has flown under the
bridge since the year 2013. In the year 2020, a
three-Judge Bench of this Court answered a
reference order of a Division Bench in Tofan
Singh v. State of T.N. and re-examined the ratio
of Kanhaiyalal 20 and Raj Kumar Karwal to
decide as to whether the officer investigating a
matter under the NDPS Act would qualify as a
“police officer” or not. The other related issue
which was examined by the larger Bench in
Tofan Singh was whether the statement
recorded by the investigating officer under
Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be treated as a
confessional statement or not even if the officer
is not treated as a “police officer”.
19. After a detailed examination of the legal
position in the light of the provisions of the
NDPS Act, vis-Ã -vis revenue statutes like the
Customs Act. 1962 and the Central Excise Act,
1944 as also the CrPC and Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, the majority decision authored by
Nariman, J., arrived at the following conclusion:
(Tofan Singh case, SCC p. 141, paras 155-58)
“155. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a
confessional statement made before an officer
47designated under Section 42 or Section 53 can
be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS
Act, without any non obstante clause doing away
with Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and without
any safeguards, would be a direct infringement
of the constitutional guarantees contained in
Articles 14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of
India.
156. The judgment in Kanhaiyalal then goes on
to follow Raj Kumar Karwal in paras 44 and 45.
For the reasons stated by us hereinabove, both
these judgments do not state the law correctly,
and are thus overruled by us. Other judgments
that expressly refer to and rely upon these
judgments, or upon the principles laid down by
these judgments, also stand overruled for the
reasons given by us.
157. On the other hand, for the reasons given by
us in this judgment. the judgments of Noor Aga
and Nirmal Singh Pehlwan v. Inspector, Customs
are correct in law.
158. We answer the reference by stating:
158.1. That the officers who are invested with
powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are
“police officers” within the meaning of Section 25
of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any
confessional statement made to them would be
barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the
Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account
in order to convict an accused under the NDPS
Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section
67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a
48confessional statement in the trial of an offence
under the NDPS Act.” (emphasis supplied)
20. In view of the aforesaid decision that
declares that any confessional statement made
by an accused to an officer invested with the
powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, is
barred for the reason that such officers are
“police officers” within the meaning of Section 25
of the Evidence Act, a statement made by an
accused and recorded under Section 67 of the
NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional
statement in the trial of an offence under the
NDPS Act.
(b) Effect of Tofan Singh (supra) verdict on
Balwinder Singh’s case
21. Now that it has been declared in Tofan Singh
case that the judgments in Kanhaiyalal v. Union
of India, (2008) 4 SCC 668 and Raj Kumar
Karwal did not state the correct legal position
and they stand overruled, the entire case set up
by the prosecution against Balwinder Singh,
collapses like a house of cards. It is not in
dispute that Balwinder Singh was not
apprehended by the NCB officials from the spot
where the naka was laid and that Satnam Singh
alone was apprehended in the Indica car. The
version of the prosecution is that after Satnam
Singh was arrested, his statement was recorded
under Section 67 of the NDPS Act wherein he
ascribed a specific role to the co-accused-
Balwinder Singh and the Sarpanch. The NCB
officers claimed that they were on the lookout for
both of them since they had managed to run
away from the spot. While Sarpanch could not
49
be apprehended, the NCB officers learnt from
reports in the newspaper that Balwinder had
been arrested by Amritsar Police in an NDPS
case and was lodged in Central Jail, Amritsar.
Permission was taken from the court concerned
to take Balwinder Singh into custody in the
instant case and he was arrested. A notice was
served on him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
and his statement was recorded. Treating his
statement as a confessional statement,
Balwinder Singh was arrested.
22. Once the confessional statement of the co-
accused, Satnam Singh recorded by the NCB
officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, who
had attributed a role to Balwinder Singh and the
subsequently recorded statement of Balwinder
Singh himself under Section 67 of the NDPS Act
are rejected in the light of the law laid down in
Tofan Singh, there is no other independent
incriminating evidence that has been brought to
the fore by the prosecution for convicting
Balwinder Singh under the NDPS Act. On
ignoring the said confessional statements (Exts.
PW-1/B and P-17) recorded before the officers
of the NCB in the course of the investigation, the
vital link between Balwinder Singh and the
offence for which he has been charged snaps
conclusively and his conviction order cannot be
sustained.
23. As a result of the above discussion, we are
of the opinion that Balwinder Singh deserves to
be acquitted of the charge of being in conscious
possession of commercial quantity of heroin
under the NDPS Act. Ordered accordingly.”
50
51. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however
grave, can never substitute proof. Where the prosecution evidence itself
gives rise to substantial doubts regarding the legality of search,
genuineness of seizure, integrity of sampling, preservation of seized
material and compliance with mandatory statutory safeguards, the
accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt. Reference may also be
made to “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra“, (1984)
4 SCC 116, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that where
two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be
adopted.
52. The prosecution has not produced any satisfactory evidence
demonstrating an unbroken chain of custody from seizure till forensic
examination. In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, the prosecution must
establish that the sample analysed by the FSL was the very same
sample drawn from the seized contraband. The inconsistencies
regarding seal impression, absence of specimen seal, discrepancy in
number of capsules, absence of Malkhana records and non-compliance
of Section 52-A collectively create a serious dent in the prosecution
case. The contradictions relating to compliance of Section 42 of the
NDPS Act, doubtful communication of the right under Section 50,
admitted non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, absence of
reliable evidence regarding safe custody under Section 55 of the NDPS
Act, unexplained discrepancies in the sampling process, defective
specimen seal proceedings and the broken chain of custody collectively
render the prosecution case highly doubtful.
51
53. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution
has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the mandatory
procedural safeguards prescribed under the NDPS Act were complied
with in their true letter and spirit. Consequently, the alleged recovery
loses its evidentiary value, and the appellants are entitled to the benefit
of doubt.
54. Upon an overall appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has failed to establish the foundational facts necessary for
recording the conviction of the appellants under the provisions of the
NDPS Act. The evidence on record suffers from serious procedural
infirmities and material inconsistencies touching the very root of the
prosecution case. The admitted contradictions regarding compliance of
Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the defective communication of the
statutory right under Section 50, the admitted non-compliance of the
mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 52-A, the absence of
reliable evidence regarding safe custody under Section 55, the
unexplained discrepancies in the sampling process, the defective
specimen seal proceedings, the absence of Malkhana records, and the
broken chain of custody cumulatively create a serious doubt about the
genuineness of the alleged recovery and the identity of the samples
examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory. These are not mere
procedural irregularities but go to the very substratum of the prosecution
case.
52
55. So far as appellants Viral Patel and Akash Vishwakarma are concerned,
admittedly no contraband was recovered from either of them and their
implication rests substantially upon the disclosure statements of co-
accused persons. In view of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh (supra), such statements
cannot be treated as substantive evidence to sustain conviction. Apart
from those inadmissible disclosures, no independent incriminating
material such as call detail records, banking transactions, documentary
evidence of supply, or any other legally admissible evidence has been
brought on record to establish their alleged involvement in the
conspiracy. Even with respect to the remaining appellants, the
prosecution has failed to prove conscious possession through a search
and seizure conducted strictly in accordance with the mandatory
safeguards of the NDPS Act. Since the prosecution has failed to prove
the foundational facts, the statutory presumptions contained under
Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act do not arise against the appellants.
56. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that suspicion, however
strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. In prosecutions under the
NDPS Act, where stringent punishments are prescribed and statutory
presumptions operate against an accused, the prosecution is under a
corresponding obligation to demonstrate scrupulous compliance with
the mandatory procedural safeguards enacted by the legislature. Once
serious doubts arise regarding the legality of the search, seizure,
sampling, sealing, safe custody and forensic examination, the benefit
thereof must necessarily enure to the accused. In the present case, the
cumulative effect of the aforesaid infirmities renders the prosecution
53
story wholly unreliable and creates a reasonable doubt regarding the
guilt of the appellants.
57. Consequently, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 01.09.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
(NDPS Act), Raipur, in Special Case No. 32 of 2023 cannot be
sustained in law and deserve to be set aside.
58. Accordingly, all the criminal appeals are allowed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 01.09.2025 passed against the
appellants in Special Case No. 32 of 2023 are hereby set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by
extending the benefit of doubt.
59. The appellants who are in custody shall be released forthwith, if not
required in connection with any other case.
60. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants- Viral Patel (in CRA No. 2073
of 2025), Ravindra Goyal (in CRA No. 2099 of 2025), Sahil Hasan (in
CRA No. 2429 of 2025), Niyajuddin @ Vikky (in CRA No. 2583 of
2025), Mukesh Kumar Sahu (in CRA No. 2101 of 2025), Akash
Vishwakarma (in CRA No. 598 of 2026) and J. Bhaskar Rao (in CRA
No. 771 of 2026) are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety in the like amount before the Court
concerned, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with
an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition
against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid
54
appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
61. Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it necessary to
record its grave concern and dissatisfaction over the manner in which
the investigation has been conducted by the state police. The present
case pertains to seizure of a huge quantity of intoxicating tablets,
constituting a grave offence under the NDPS Act, where strict
compliance with the statutory safeguards is not merely desirable but
mandatory. However, the evidence on record reveals glaring lapses at
almost every stage of the investigation, including serious deficiencies in
search, seizure, sampling, sealing, preservation of seized articles,
maintenance of the chain of custody and compliance with the
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. These are not isolated
procedural irregularities but substantial violations having a direct
bearing on the fairness and credibility of the prosecution. What is even
more disturbing is that the present matter is the second case taken up
by this Court on the same day wherein similar glaring lapses in the
investigation under the NDPS Act have been noticed by the officers of
the Department of Revenue Intelligence in the CRA No. 1883 of 2024
(Dorilal v. Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence Raipur) and other
batch of criminal appeals. Such failures cannot be dismissed as mere
coincidence or inadvertent omissions. They disclose a disturbing pattern
of negligence, lack of professional competence and complete
indifference towards the mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act.
Such an approach inevitably weakens otherwise serious prosecutions
and creates a legitimate apprehension that investigations are being
55
conducted in a manner which ultimately facilitates the accused in
securing the benefit of procedural lapses, thereby frustrating the very
object of the NDPS Act.
62. This Court is of the considered opinion that unless immediate corrective
measures are undertaken at the highest level, such recurring lapses will
continue to erode public confidence in the criminal justice delivery
system and seriously impair the effectiveness of enforcement against
narcotic offences. The Director General of Police, State of Chhattisgarh,
being the head of the State Police Force, is expected to ensure that
investigations under the NDPS Act are conducted with accountability
and strict compliance with the statutory mandate and the law declared
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
63. Accordingly, the Registry is directed to forthwith forward a copy of this
judgment to the Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, for his
personal attention. The Director General shall examine the lapses
noticed by this Court in the present case, identify the officers
responsible for such lapses, and take appropriate action against the
erring officials, if warranted in accordance with law. The Director
General shall further issue comprehensive instructions and Standard
Operating Procedures to all investigating officers dealing with offences
under the NDPS Act, ensure periodic training and effective supervisory
mechanisms, and impress upon all concerned that any future deviation
from the mandatory statutory safeguards will be viewed seriously. The
object of the NDPS Act can be achieved only when investigations are
conducted with fairness, integrity and strict fidelity to law, and not in a
56
manner that enables offenders to escape on account of avoidable and
inexcusable lapses committed by the investigating agency.
64. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to
the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
ved
57
HEAD NOTE
******* The mandatory provisions relating to search and seizure
under the NDPS Act must be strictly followed. Since the Act
prescribes severe punishments and gives wide powers to the
investigating officers, any non-compliance with these mandatory
safeguards affects the fairness of the investigation, prejudices the
rights of the accused, and weakens the prosecution case.
