FACTS
3. On the basis of the information received by the Intelligence Officer of Narcotics Control Bureau, a lorry parked near Puzhal Central Jail, Chennai, was intercepted by NCB on 28.03.2000 early in the morning. Four persons were found in the lorry and upon search, they were found in possession of commercial quantity i.e. 20 kgs of heroin kept in two jute bags. The samples were drawn from each of the packets i.e. 14 big and 12 small polythene packets kept in the two jute bags and they were seized under a seizure memo i.e. Mahazar. All the four persons were arrested after receiving the analyst report that the seized substance was nothing else but heroin.
4. Consequently, the case crime No.113/2000 was registered. The trial court upon consideration of the evidence on record held all the four persons guilty under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and convicted them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh each, in default of which a further imprisonment of one year was ordered.
5. All the four accused persons preferred appeal before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, A4 (Ganesh Ram) died and the appeal was dismissed as abated against him vide order dated 15.07.2022. The High Court vide judgment and order dated 11.10.2022 dismissed the appeal holding that there is no error in the findings recorded by the trial court and, therefore, the accused persons were directed to serve the remaining sentence after adjusting the period of imprisonment already undergone.
xxx
PROCEDURE AND MANNER OF SEIZING – SECTION 52A NDPS ACT< /h5>
10. In order to test the above submissions, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 52A (2), (3) and (4) of the NDPS Act. The aforesaid provisions provide for the procedure and manner of seizing, preparing the inventory of the seized material, forwarding the seized material and getting inventory certified by the Magistrate concerned. It is further provided that the inventory or the photographs of the seized substance and any list of the samples in connection thereof on being certified by the Magistrate shall be recognized as the primary evidence in connection with the offences alleged under the NDPS Act.
EXPLAINING SECTION 52A AND 53 OF NDPS ACT
12. A simple reading of the aforesaid provisions, as also stated earlier, reveals that when any contraband/narcotic substance is seized and forwarded to the police or to the officer so mentioned under Section 53, the officer so referred to in sub section (1) shall prepare its inventory with details and the description of the seized substance like quality, quantity, mode of packing, numbering and identifying marks and then make an application to any Magistrate for the purposes of certifying its correctness and for allowing to draw representative samples of such substances in the presence of the Magistrate and to certify the correctness of the list of samples so drawn.
13. Notwithstanding the defence set up from the side of the respondent in the instant case, no evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate. No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate. The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of subsection (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
SEIZED SUBSTANCE IN THE PRESENSE OF GAZETTED OFFICER NOT CERTIFIED BY THE MAGISTRATE
14. It is an admitted position on record that the samples from the seized substance were drawn by the police in the presence of the gazetted officer and not in the presence of the Magistrate. There is no material on record to prove that the Magistrate had certified the inventory of the substance seized or of the list of samples so drawn.
15. In Mohanlal’s case [Union of India vs Mohanlal and Anr (2016) 3 SCC 379] , the apex court while dealing with Section 52A of the NDPS Act clearly laid down that it is manifest from the said provision that upon seizure of the contraband, it has to be forwarded either to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who is obliged to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband and then to make an application to the Magistrate for the purposes of getting its correctness certified. It has been further laid down that the samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of the trial.
16. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband and the samples drawn there from would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial. Once there is no primary evidence available, the trial as a whole stands vitiated.
17. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the failure of the concerned authorities to lead primary evidence vitiates the conviction and as such in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be set aside. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the trial court convicting the appellant and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of one year is hereby set aside.
PARTY: YUSUF @ ASIF vs. STATE – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3191 OF 2023 – OCTOBER 13, 2023.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/40032/40032_2022_11_1502_47630_Judgement_13-Oct-2023.pdf
