The Delhi High Court opined that the Standing Orders have a specific purpose. As a result, the Court believed that investigating agencies should strictly abide by the Standing Orders.
Failure to do so could give rise to reasonable doubts about the integrity of the critical sampling process used to ascertain the characteristics and amount of the substance.
Consequently, the High Court held the view that investigating agencies should adhere to the Standing Orders, and failure to comply could raise reasonable doubts concerning the critical sampling process used to determine the nature and quantity of the substance.
Brief Facts:
The Appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1 lakh for violating sections 22 (c) and 23 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS”).
According to confidential information received on April 2, 2018, Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as “NCB”) team was formed. They apprehended a Zimbabwean lady at Terminal 1D, IGI Airport, New Delhi. Upon searching her luggage, they discovered two polyethene bags in each compartment containing a crystalline substance. The material's appearance, texture, and characteristics in both concealments were identical.
Following the testing, the illegal substance was combined and transferred into a transparent polythene bag, weighing a total of 3 kg. Two samples of 5 gm each were extracted from the mixed substance.
Subsequently, the Appellant's statement was recorded under section 67 of the NDPS. On April 18, 2018, the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (hereinafter referred to as “CRCL”) report confirmed that the crystalline substance was indeed Methamphetamine..
A Petition was filed before the High Court seeking regular suspension of sentence ordered by the Additional Session Judge, New Delhi.
Contentions of the Appellants:
It was argued that the sample collection by the Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter referred to as “NCB”) was not conducted in accordance with the established standing order.
Contentions of the Respondents:
It was asserted that since the search was conducted on the appellant's suitcase and not her person, there was no requirement to comply with section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Observations of the Court:
It was observed that the procedure for drawing a sample of narcotics has been defined in Standing Order 1/88, issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau. The High Court regarded the Standing Orders as serving a specific purpose, being issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Government of India, and deemed them non-optional for compliance by investigating agencies. These orders' prescribed procedures were based on logical reasoning and were expected to be respected; otherwise, they would be rendered meaningless. It was opined that Section 52 and Section 57 of the NDPS Act are directories and further, investigating officers could not completely disregard these provisions. Non-compliance did not invalidate the trial, but the officers were not allowed to ignore the provisions.
Consequently, the Delhi High Court held the view that investigating agencies should adhere to the Standing Orders, and failure to comply could raise reasonable doubts concerning the critical sampling process used to determine the nature and quantity of the substance.
It was expounded that adhering to the stringent process outlined in the NDPS Act fulfilled an important function and purpose. The High Court cited the Hon’ble Supreme Court's opinions that investigating agencies must ensure precise compliance, rather than ad hoc, half-hearted, or truncated measures, considering the Act's stringent provisions, which set twin conditions as a prerequisite for granting bail under Section 37.
The absence of compliance with these provisions introduced an element of doubt, specifically a reasonable doubt. This doubt extended to the burden of proving guilt, as the guilt of any Accused needed to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The Prosecution's argument that issues of non-compliance should be addressed during the trial and that any prejudice suffered by the Accused should be demonstrated was deemed insufficient.
The decision of the Court:
The Delhi High Court suspended the sentence of the Appellant and granted bail.
Case Title: Ms. Betty Rame v Narcotics Control Bureau
Case No.: Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application 1324 of 2022
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anish Dayal
Advocates for Petitioner: Advs.Mr. Shiv Chopra, Ms. Aadhyaa Khanna, Mr. Siddharth Arora and Mr. Nikhil Srivastava
Advocates for Respondent: Advs.Mr. Utkarsh Singh Bains, SPP with Mr. Sunil Kumar
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com:
Picture Source : https://assets.sentinelassam.com/h-upload/2020/10/19/167224-ncb.webp?w=940&dpr=1.0
