NDPS Act Section 52-A Compliance Explained: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Despite Sampling at Spot Where Chain of Custody Is Intact
Case Name: Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 INSC 1417
Date of Judgment/Order: 11 December 2025
Bench: Sanjay Karol, Vipul M. Pancholi
Held: The Supreme Court held that non-drawing of samples before a Magistrate or minor procedural deviations under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act do not invalidate a prosecution when the integrity of samples, sealing procedure, forensic analysis, and chain of custody are clearly established.
Summary: The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act for conscious possession of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity. The Trial Court imposed the statutory minimum sentence of ten years’ rigorous imprisonment, which was affirmed by the High Court.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conviction on multiple grounds, including absence of independent witnesses, drawing of samples at the spot instead of before a Magistrate, alleged discrepancies in sample markings and weight, and non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The appellant also sought leniency on humanitarian grounds.
The Supreme Court examined the evidentiary record and reiterated that non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal when official witnesses are consistent and reliable. On the issue of sampling, the Court relied on recent authoritative precedent to clarify that Section 52-A is directory in nature and that deviations are fatal only when they cast serious doubt on the identity or integrity of the samples.
The Court found that the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody: samples were drawn, sealed, produced before the Magistrate, forwarded pursuant to judicial orders, and received by the forensic laboratory with seals intact. Minor reduction in sample weight was explained by natural drying and did not undermine the prosecution case. The Court also held that humanitarian considerations cannot override the mandatory minimum sentence prescribed under the NDPS Act.
Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court. The appellant was granted liberty to pursue statutory remission before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.