NDPS Act, Section 52A – Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Trial; Irregularity Distinguished from Illegality
Case Name: Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14420 of 2024); 2025 INSC 78
Date of Judgment: 6 January 2025
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan (DB)
Held: The Supreme Court held that non-compliance or delayed compliance of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, which provides for the disposal of seized contraband, cannot by itself vitiate a criminal trial. Such non-compliance constitutes an irregularity and not an illegality, unless it results in serious prejudice to the accused. The conviction of the appellant for possession of commercial quantity of cannabis was upheld, as the evidence of seizure, sampling, and chain of custody was otherwise cogent and consistent.
Summary: The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act for possession of 81 kg of cannabis and sentenced to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1 lakh by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mahasamund. The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction on 08.07.2024. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant challenged the conviction solely on the ground that the procedure under Section 52A NDPS Act was not followed, citing Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) 3 SCC 379.
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of Section 52A, its legislative history, and earlier precedents including Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417, Union of India v. Jarooparam (2018) 4 SCC 334, Yusuf @ Asif v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328), Mangilal v. State of M.P. (2023 SCC OnLine SC 862), and Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana (2024) 5 SCC 393. It distinguished these cases on facts, holding that they involved total non-compliance or serious contradictions in sampling and storage, whereas in the present case, the prosecution produced samples, FSL reports, and seizure witnesses without material discrepancies.
The Court emphasized that Section 52A was inserted to provide a framework for safe custody and early disposal of narcotics, but its violation cannot automatically invalidate a prosecution when the seizure and sampling are otherwise proved in accordance with law. The Court also referred to Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024 SCC OnLine SC 3848), clarifying that irregularities in Section 52A procedure cannot override statutory presumptions under Section 54 NDPS Act unless the accused rebuts them.
Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant, and clarified that Section 52A ensures procedural safeguards but non-compliance alone, absent prejudice, does not vitiate NDPS trials.