Appeal
Appeal against the confirmation of conviction
1. This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as “the NDPS Act”) were affirmed.
Trial court and Hon’ble High Court convicted the appellant
2. The Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2021 in C.C. No. 15 of 2020, convicted the appellant and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running concurrently). The High Court upheld the same.
Case of the prosecution
Substances were intercepted and seized based on secret information
3. The case of the prosecution was that on 21.09.2019, PW-1 (Sub-Inspector) received secret information that ganja was being transported on a two-wheeler bearing TN-03-M-0585. PW-1 reduced this information into writing, informed PW-5 (Inspector) and proceeded with two constables, PW-2 and PW-3.
Samples were draws, sealed and marked
4. The appellant (A-2) and her husband (A-1) were intercepted. After informing them of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the police searched the vehicle and seized 23.500 kg of ganja, along with ₹21,140/-. Two samples of about 50g each were drawn, sealed and marked as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’. PW-1 also recorded the confession of A-1 at the spot.
Report submitted under section 57 NDPS
5. After reaching the police station, PW-1 submitted a report to PW-5 under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. On receiving the report, PW5 registered the F.I.R. No. 462/2019 dated 21.09.2019 for offences under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act and prepared the intimation memos. A-1 and A-2 were sent for remand and PW-5 took up the investigation.
Furnished report of chemical analysis
6. During investigation, PW-5 forwarded the seized samples to the Court along with a requisition for chemical analysis. The samples were received by PW-6 (Scientific Officer) through PW-4. PW-6 analysed the sample, detected cannabinoids and furnished the report.
Statements of raiding team members were recorded and final report filed
7. Thereafter, PW-5 recorded the statements of PW-6 and the remaining members of the raiding team under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Cr.P.C”). The seized cash was deposited to the Reserve Bank of India. After completing the investigation, PW-5 filed the final report against A-1 and A-2 for the aforesaid offences.
Trial
8. The prosecution examined 6 witnesses. A-1 and A-2 were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., during which they denied all incriminating circumstances.
Conviction
9. The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, convicted them and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running concurrently).
Criminal Appeal to Hon’ble High Court was dismissed
10. Aggrieved thereby, A-1 and A-2 approached the High Court, which held that the Trial Court has rendered proper findings on the basis of the materials placed by the prosecution to prove the case against A-1 and A-2. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by A-1 and A-2 was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Present appeal against confirmation of conviction
11. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-2) has filed the present appeal.
Analysis
19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
No independent witnesses has been examined
20. The contention of the appellant with regard to the absence of independent witnesses has been examined in detail by the High Court, noting that PWs 1-3 consistently deposed that no persons were present in the vicinity at the time of seizure, despite the presence of houses and no suggestion was made to the contrary in cross-examination. The relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment reads as under:
“para.23”
Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to prosecution
21. This Court has consistently held that the non-examination of independent witnesses is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution, particularly in prosecutions under the NDPS Act where operations often take place under challenging circumstances. In Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020 (2) SCC 563), this Court reiterated that the mere absence of independent witnesses does not lead to the conclusion that the accused has been falsely implicated. Referring to Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ((2011) 3 SCC 521), the Court underscored that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of their official status and that their evidence must be assessed on its own merits like that of any other witness.
Official witnesses stands consistent and coherent
22. In the present case, upon careful evaluation, the evidence of the official witnesses stands out as consistent and coherent. Their depositions corroborate each other on all material particulars and no material has been brought out in cross-examination to cast doubt on their credibility. The absence of independent witnesses, therefore, cannot be said to weaken the prosecution case in any manner.
Even where procedural lapse is shown oral and documentary evidence inspires confidence
23. The appellant’s primary submission is that the representative samples ought to have been drawn only before a Magistrate in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and that sampling at the spot itself renders the entire prosecution void. This contention is legally untenable. In Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452, this Court has comprehensively clarified the scope, purpose and effect of Section 52-A. Most significantly, paragraphs 56.5 and 56.6 of the said judgment make it clear that mere noncompliance or delayed compliance with Section 52-A is not fatal unless the irregularity creates discrepancies affecting the integrity of the seized substance or rendering the prosecution case doubtful. Equally, even where some procedural lapse is shown, if the remaining oral or documentary evidence inspires confidence regarding the seizure and conscious possession, the conviction may still be upheld.
27. In these circumstances, even assuming some deviation from the ideal procedure envisaged under Section 52-A, such irregularity does not go to the root of the matter nor does it create any reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the seized contraband or the identity of the samples analysed. The prosecution has demonstrated substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and the integrity of the material evidence stands fully preserved. Accordingly, the appellant’s contention founded on non-compliance with Section 52-A is rejected.
Reduction in weight in the analysis report is due to loss of moisture and broken fragments
29. The reduction in weight (from “about 50g” to 40.6g) is sufficiently explained by natural drying and loss of moisture, a fact also recorded by PW-6 in the Analysis Report, which notes that the sample contained dry, broken fragments. The High Court rightly held that minor variations in weight, particularly where the sample quantity is described as “about”, do not affect the identity or integrity of the sample. The relevant observations of the High Court read as follows:
“paras. 31 and 32”
30. This Court, in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. ((2008) 16 SCC 417), has similarly observed in paragraph 98 that a slight difference in the weight of the sample is not so material as to undermine the prosecution case, and cannot by itself justify discarding otherwise reliable evidence.
Humanitarian considerations cannot override statutory minimum punishment mandated by the legislature
32. The appellant urges this Court to consider her youth, lack of prior criminal history and responsibility towards her minor child. While we are not unmindful of the appellant’s circumstances, the NDPS Act prescribes minimum mandatory sentences for possession of commercial quantity. The Court has no discretion to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. Humanitarian considerations, though relevant for executive remission, cannot override statutory minimum punishment mandated by the legislature. Thus, no interference with sentence is permissible.
33. For the said reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court call for no interference.
Judgment cited or involved
- Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563
- Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521
- Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906
- Yusuf @ Asif v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328
- Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452
- Rojesh Jagdamba Avasthi v. State of Goa, citation referred in extracted High Court passage
- Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 417
Acts and Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 29(1), 52-A(2), 52-A(4), 57
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 161, 313(1)(b)
Party
Jothi @ Nagajothi vs. The State - Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of 2024) - 2025 INSC 1417 - 11.12.2025 - Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
