Court’s Decision: The Gauhati High Court set aside the conviction of the appellant, originally sentenced by the Special Judge, Udalguri, to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The Court found serious procedural lapses in the investigation, notably the non-compliance with Sections 42, 52, and 52A of the NDPS Act. These lapses cast significant doubt on the legitimacy of the seizure and the prosecution’s case. The Court concluded that the accused is entitled to benefit from the doubt, leading to his acquittal and immediate release.
Facts: The prosecution alleged that on March 8, 2020, the police intercepted a white Maruti car based on specific information regarding narcotic transportation. The appellant, who was the driver, was allegedly found with three bags containing 22 kg of cannabis. Following this, a case was registered, and the appellant was arrested. During trial, the prosecution produced six witnesses, while the appellant contended his innocence, arguing he had been falsely implicated.
Issues: The core issue was whether the seizure of cannabis from the appellant was conducted in compliance with mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, thus supporting a valid conviction.
Petitioner’s Arguments: The appellant argued that the seizure was dubious as no independent witnesses corroborated the seizure. Witnesses stated they were not shown the seized items when signing the seizure list. Additionally, the appellant’s counsel emphasized non-compliance with Sections 42, 52, and 52A, contending these violations rendered the seizure legally unsustainable.
Respondent’s Arguments: The state argued that once possession of contraband is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove he did not possess it knowingly. The state contended that police testimony alone is sufficient to convict, provided it is credible and reliable.
Analysis of the Law: Sections 42 and 52A of the NDPS Act mandate certain procedural safeguards, such as timely reporting of information to senior officials and inventory preparation with magistrate certification. The Court noted that non-compliance with these sections can undermine the prosecution’s case, especially given the NDPS Act’s stringent provisions.
Precedent Analysis: The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s rulings in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and Union of India v. Mohanlal, which stress the necessity of magistrate-supervised inventory and physical evidence production under the NDPS Act. These rulings underscore that procedural lapses in narcotics cases may lead to adverse inferences against the prosecution.
Court’s Reasoning: The Court found no evidence that the investigating officers informed senior authorities or prepared an inventory of the seized cannabis, as mandated. The seized items were not produced in court during the trial, further weakening the prosecution’s case. The Court held that these procedural deficiencies and the lack of corroboration from independent witnesses created significant doubt about the seizure’s authenticity.
Conclusion: The High Court ruled that the procedural non-compliance and absence of proper evidence production required an acquittal. The appellant was released immediately.
Implications: This judgment highlights the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act. It reiterates that failure to comply with mandatory provisions can nullify a conviction, emphasizing the judiciary’s vigilance in upholding due process in narcotic-related cases.
Pingback: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Revision Petition in Criminal Trespass and Intimidation Case, Citing Inconsistent Testimonies, Unexplained FIR Delay, and Lack of Evidence for Unauthorized Entry and Theft - Raw Law