Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeeti Sharma, delivered a significant judgment in which court set aside the appellant's conviction under Sections 15 and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), highlighting critical procedural lapses and evidentiary discrepancies.

The case stemmed from an incident on April 11, 1994, when a truck transporting 50 bags of poppy husk weighing 40 kg each was intercepted by Punjab Police. The bags were concealed under other goods, and two accused, including the appellant, Pargat Singh, were arrested at the scene. After samples were drawn from the bags, the trial court convicted Pargat Singh under the NDPS Act, sentencing him to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,00,000.

The appellant challenged the conviction on the grounds of procedural irregularities, including non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the lack of proper link evidence to establish the integrity of the seized samples.

The High Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates the preparation of an inventory, certification by a Magistrate, and the drawing of representative samples in the Magistrate's presence.

The court held: "The absence of compliance with Section 52A undermines the evidentiary value of the seized contraband. The mandatory safeguards provided under the Act are not mere formalities but are essential to ensure a fair trial and avoid misuse of power."

The seized poppy husk was not homogeneously mixed before sampling, a critical requirement under the NDPS Act. The court referred to its prior decision in Deepak Kumar v. State of Punjab (2024), which underscores the importance of ensuring the representative nature of samples through proper mixing.

The court remarked: "In the absence of homogeneous mixing, it cannot be conclusively established that the contraband recovered from each bag was identical. This procedural lapse raises serious doubts about the prosecution's case."

The court identified several contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses:

While some witnesses claimed 253 bags were recovered, others referred to 50 bags, leading to confusion about the total quantity of contraband.

The FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report failed to specify the number of seals or verify the intactness of seals on the sample parcels.

The prosecution did not produce the residue of the bulk contraband in court, further weakening its case.

The bench observed: "The absence of consistent evidence and the failure to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the contraband entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt."

The court acknowledged the prosecution's claim that the seals on the case property remained intact. However, it criticized the failure to ensure proper handling of the case property and strict adherence to statutory requirements.

It relied on the Supreme Court's rulings in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) and Gaunter Edwin Kircher v. State of Goa (1993), which mandate stringent compliance with procedural safeguards in NDPS cases.

Based on the aforementioned observations, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court set aside the appellant's conviction and ordered his release.

"The grave procedural lapses and discrepancies in evidence compel us to grant the appellant the benefit of doubt. The conviction is accordingly quashed, and the appellant is acquitted of all charges under the NDPS Act."

If the appellant had deposited the fine, it was ordered to be refunded.
The case property was directed to be disposed of in accordance with law after the expiry of the appeal period.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's insistence on strict compliance with the procedural safeguards enshrined in the NDPS Act. It reiterates that lapses in handling and documenting evidence can undermine the prosecution's case, ensuring fairness in criminal trials and upholding the rule of law.

Date of Decision: November 13, 2024