Court’s decision
The Kerala High Court set aside the conviction of the Appellant under the NDPS Act after finding that the prosecution failed to explain a critical and prolonged delay in producing the seized contraband before the Court. Observing that “the integrity of seized material is the backbone of an NDPS prosecution,” the Court held that unexplained gaps in the chain of custody undermine the very foundation of the case. The Court analysed the statutory requirements under Sections 42, 50, 57, and 52A of the NDPS Act and concluded that while some procedural compliances were satisfied, the glaring delay of several days in producing the seized contraband remained wholly unaddressed. This lapse, coupled with the absence of a specimen seal on the seizure mahazar, created serious doubt regarding the identity and authenticity of the material allegedly seized from the accused.
The Court noted that NDPS offences carry stringent punishments and therefore demand rigorous procedural fidelity. Relying on established jurisprudence, including principles from Supreme Court and High Court decisions, the Court ruled that where the prosecution cannot establish safe custody or timely production of the contraband, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence were quashed, and the accused was acquitted, with directions to refund any fine paid.
Facts
The prosecution alleged that the accused was intercepted by police officers following specific information regarding drug activity near an educational institution. Upon approach, the accused attempted to conceal himself behind a stationary lorry. Police officers restrained him and, upon inspection of a plastic kit in his possession, allegedly discovered 174 ampoules of Lupigesic and 24 unlabelled ampoules containing buprenorphine. A further 12 ampoules were allegedly recovered from his clothing during personal search.
The accused was arrested, and the seizure mahazar was prepared at the spot. He was produced before the Magistrate on the following day, but the prosecution documents revealed no clear evidence that the contraband was produced before the Court simultaneously. Much later documentation suggested that the property list was formally received only several days thereafter. During trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and relied on multiple exhibits, while the defence argued that the unexplained delay and absence of proper sealing procedures rendered the prosecution case unreliable. The Trial Court nevertheless convicted the accused, which led to the present appeal.
Issues
The High Court considered whether mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were complied with, whether the personal search met the requirements of Section 50, whether Section 52A applied in cases where the entire contraband was produced, whether reference to millilitres instead of grams affected the charge, whether there was undue delay in production of contraband, and ultimately whether the prosecution case was free of doubt.
Petitioner’s arguments
The Appellant argued that the prosecution case suffered from foundational defects. He contended that the contraband was not produced before the Magistrate contemporaneously with his arrest and that documentation proved its production only after several days. He asserted that the prosecution failed to explain where, how, and in whose custody the contraband was stored during the intervening period. He argued that delay of this nature vitiates the chain of custody and renders the case unreliable.
He further argued that there was non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act and that sampling procedures were defective. He emphasised inconsistencies in witness testimony, absence of independent witnesses, lack of identification of signatures on seizure documents, and discrepancies in measurements expressed in millilitres rather than grams. These errors, he submitted, cumulatively rendered the prosecution case improbable and legally unsustainable.
Respondent’s arguments
The State argued that the seizure was valid and properly documented. It contended that the information under Section 42 was duly recorded and forwarded to superior officers and that the arrest and seizure report under Section 57 was also submitted without delay. The prosecution maintained that Section 50 was complied with since the accused was informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and a Gazetted Officer was indeed summoned to conduct the search.
The State further submitted that Section 52A was inapplicable because the entire contraband was produced before Court and not merely representative samples. It defended the evidence regarding the substance’s quantity, arguing that conversion into grams was supported by the chemical examiner’s report. The prosecution contended that minor documentary inconsistencies should not overshadow the substantial evidence proving guilt.
Analysis of the law
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the procedural safeguards essential under the NDPS Act. It held that compliance with Sections 42 and 57 was satisfactorily established because documentary endorsements proved timely communication of information to superior officers. It then analysed Section 50 in light of authoritative precedents, clarifying that the obligation on officers is to inform the accused of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and that once the accused elects the option, the officer may choose either authority.
Regarding Section 52A, the Court emphasised that the provision concerns disposal and representative sampling and applies only when the seized substance is not produced in its entirety. Since the entire contraband was produced before Court, non-invocation of Section 52A did not affect the prosecution. However, lawful compliance with these other provisions could not salvage the fatal defect arising from delay in producing the contraband, a lapse that strikes at evidentiary integrity under NDPS jurisprudence.
Precedent analysis
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hansraj alias Hansu, which held that unexplained delay in producing seized material creates serious doubt about the prosecution’s case. It also considered Kerala High Court decisions in Faijas and Renjith, where delays of several days in producing contraband justified acquittal due to compromised custody. These decisions emphasise that NDPS cases demand strict proof of chain of custody, and absence of clarity regarding storage conditions, handling, or sealing procedures renders the case unreliable.
The Court also referred to leading authorities on Section 50, including Baldev Singh, Jarnail Singh, Than Kunwar, and Ranjan Kumar Chadha, clarifying the contours of mandatory compliance. It reaffirmed that judgments cannot be read like statutes and must be interpreted in context, citing Sathappan and Goan Real Estate.
Court’s reasoning
The Court noted that although compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 57 was largely demonstrated, the prosecution wholly failed to explain the whereabouts of the seized contraband from the date of seizure until nearly a week later. The property list bore ambiguous dates, and the remand report did not confirm production of the contraband before the Magistrate. The Court found that no witness testified to the chain of custody, nor was there clarity on storage, supervision, or sealing procedures. The absence of a specimen seal on the seizure mahazar further eroded confidence in the prosecution case.
Given that NDPS cases require stringent standards of proof, the Court held that these lapses created serious doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence. The cumulative deficiencies rendered the prosecution case unreliable, compelling an order of acquittal.
Conclusion
The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to an unexplained and substantial delay in producing the contraband before the Court, absence of evidence regarding custody, and lack of a specimen seal. These defects were fatal and entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted, with the fine ordered to be refunded.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the judiciary’s insistence on strict procedural compliance in NDPS prosecutions. It underscores that chain-of-custody lapses cannot be overlooked, especially given the severe punishments attached to drug offences. The ruling will significantly impact investigative practices, compelling law enforcement agencies to ensure immediate, documented, and transparent production of seized substances. It also strengthens defence arguments where procedural irregularities raise legitimate doubt about evidence integrity.
