Appeal
Appeal against the confirmation of the offences by High Court
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.
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.
Secret information about contraband (Ganja)
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.
Procedures under section 50 NDPS followed
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 under section 57 NDPS followed: FIR registered
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.
Investigation
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.
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.
Trial court found appellant guilty
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).
High court confirmed the conviction and sentence
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 the 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.
Non-examination of independent witnesses by itself not fatal to the 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.
Evidence of 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.
Mere non-compliance or delayed compliance with section 52-A is not fatal unless irregularity affecting the integrity of the seized substance
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.
Accused failed to lay foundational material to suggest the integrity of the samples stood compromised
24. Applying these principles to the present case, the appellant has failed to lay any foundational material to suggest that the sampling process was unreliable or that the integrity of the samples stood compromised. On the contrary, the record demonstrates a clear and unimpeached sequence of events: (i) the samples were drawn at the spot in the presence of PWs 1 to 3, (ii) the sample packets were duly sealed with signatures and seizure details, (iii) the seized material, along with the samples, was produced before the Magistrate, and (iv) pursuant to the judicial order dated 20.10.2019, sample ‘S-1’ was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory while ‘S-2’ was retained in judicial custody. The Scientific Officer (PW-6) affirmed that the seal on the packet received for analysis was intact and bore the correct identifying particulars.
Chain of custody of substance is clear and continuous
26. In addition, the chain of custody in the present case remains clear and continuous. At no stage has any evidence been brought out to indicate tampering, substitution or mishandling. The forensic report confirms the presence of cannabinoids in the sample, which stands in complete harmony with the seizure.
Deviation from the ideal procedure under section 52-A does not go to the root of the matter
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.
Slight difference in weight of sample not fatal
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.
31. Therefore, upon careful evaluation, the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in conscious possession of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity. The minor procedural irregularities pointed out do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The chain of custody remains intact and sampling and sealing have been sufficiently established.
Conclusion
34. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal dismissed
35. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, as imposed by the Trial Court in C.C. No. 15 of 2020 and affirmed by the High Court in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, are hereby upheld.
Judgments Involved or Cited
- Union of India v. Mohanlal ((2016) 3 SCC 379)
- Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh ((2025) 8 SCC 452)
- Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab (2023 SCC OnLine SC 906)
- Yusuf @ Asif v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328)
- Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab ((2020) 2 SCC 563)
- Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ((2011) 3 SCC 521)
- Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. ((2008) 16 SCC 417)
- Rojesh Jagdamba Avasthi v. State of Maharashtra
Acts and Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act)
- Section 8(c) r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(C): This is the main offense of conviction for the possession of a commercial quantity of a narcotic drug (ganja). Section 8(c) prohibits the possession of narcotic drugs, and Section 20(b)(ii)(C) prescribes the mandatory minimum punishment for offenses involving a commercial quantity.
- Section 8(c) r/w Section 29(1): This section relates to the conviction for criminal conspiracy/abetment to commit an offense punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
- Section 52-A: This procedural section, dealing with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, was a key point of contention and discussion in the judgment.
- Section 50: This section, which deals with the conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted, was mentioned in the arguments.
- Section 52: This section pertains to the procedure when an arrested person is produced before a Magistrate or officer in charge of a police station.
- Section 57: This section mandates a report of arrest and seizure to be submitted to a superior officer.
Party
Jothi @ Nagajothi versus The State, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of 2024) - 2025 INSC 1417 - December 11, 2025 -Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
