The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that 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.
This decision came while allowing an appeal against the judgment dated 10.04.2024, passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act), in which the accused was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Brief Facts:
The Investigating Officer had received information from an informer that illegal drugs were going to be transported from Odisha to Komakhan. As per the information given by the informer, a truck was stopped. There were two persons in the vehicle. They said that they were carrying narcotics in the vehicle. On searching the truck, 165 small and big packets of psychotropic substances like ganja wrapped in khaki-coloured polythene were found inside the container of the truck. The accused were arrested on the spot under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and arrest panchnamas were prepared. The Trial Court convicted the appellants for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, perverse, and contrary to the evidence available on record; hence, it is liable to be set aside. He argued that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of investigating officer Pradeep Minj (PW-5), which cannot be relied upon.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record and evidence adduced by the prosecution has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, in which no interference is called for.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that when any contraband/narcotic substance is seized and forwarded to the police or to the officer so mentioned under Section 53, the officer shall prepare its inventory with details 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.
The Court observed that 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 was certified by the Magistrate. The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance with the mandate of subsection (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 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.
The decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2024 passed by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) in N.D.P.S. Act Case is set aside.
Case Title: Khalid vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ramesh Sinha and Hon’ble Chief Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Case No.:CRA No. 1125 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Vikash Pradhan
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Malay Jain
Picture Source :
