Clubbed Recovery Without Proof of Conspiracy is Illegal: Supreme Court Sets Aside NDPS Conviction for Commercial Quantity

“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof”: Apex Court holds contraband quantities from two accused cannot be added without concrete evidence of common intention or conspiracy. Supreme Court of India decisively overturning a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) after finding that the trial court had erroneously clubbed the quantity of heroin recovered from two individuals without any proof of criminal conspiracy. The Court ruled that in the absence of affirmative evidence establishing a premeditated arrangement between the two accused, such clubbed recovery could not be used to treat the seizure as “commercial quantity”.

Justice Sandeep Mehta, speaking for the Bench also comprising Justice Aravind Kumar, categorically held: “Merely because the two accused, walking side-by-side, were apprehended simultaneously... would not give rise to an inference that either of them had the knowledge about the contraband being carried by the other.”

The appellant, Nadeem Ahamed, who was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh, was acquitted and ordered to be released forthwith, as the Court found the entire prosecution case riddled with procedural lapses, evidentiary infirmities, and a fatal misapplication of law.

“Without Legally Admissible Evidence, Conviction Cannot Be Sustained”: Flawed Sampling, Missing Signatures, No Magistrate Oversight Vitiates Entire Trial

A striking aspect of the decision is the Supreme Court’s unflinching scrutiny of the seizure and sampling process, which revealed multiple violations of statutory provisions and standing orders. The Court declared that the failure to draw duplicate samples, the absence of the accused’s signature on sample packets, and the non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act collectively rendered the entire forensic evidence inadmissible.

“These lapses strike at the very root of the prosecution case, rendering the integrity of the seizure and sampling process wholly doubtful.”

In this regard, the Court emphasized that the Standing Order No. 1/1989, issued by the Department of Revenue, is not a mere procedural formality but an essential safeguard. Clause 2.2 of the Standing Order mandates that samples must be drawn in duplicate, at the spot, in presence of the accused and witnesses. This was entirely ignored.

The judgment recorded:

“There has been a complete and unexplained failure to adhere to the requirements of Section 52A. Neither representative samples were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, nor was the inventory list prepared and certified, as required by law.”

“Even though Section 52A has not been universally interpreted as mandatory, the cumulative non-compliance in the present case makes the entire procedure of seizure and sampling a total farce, and thereby, unworthy of credence.”

The Court concluded that the FSL report, which was the linchpin of the prosecution's case, lost all evidentiary value.

“Presumption of Culpable Mental State Cannot Be Built on Coincidence”: Court Warns Against Inferring Conspiracy From Mere Physical Proximity

The case against Nadeem Ahamed revolved around the simultaneous apprehension of two men—Ahamed and co-accused Amit Dutta—from whom 125g and 130g of heroin were allegedly recovered, respectively. The trial court had clubbed the quantities and treated the total (255g) as “commercial quantity”, invoking the harshest penalty under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court called this entire approach fundamentally flawed.

“If at all the prosecution intended to bring home the charge of conspiracy... positive and tangible evidence was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s possession.”

Instead, the prosecution merely relied on the fact that the two were walking together, which the Court declared insufficient to invoke Section 29 (conspiracy):

“Suspicion, however strong, cannot take place of proof.”

Quoting from its earlier decision in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, the Court recalled:

“The appellant and [co-accused] were found together, but individually carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it was not possible for the High Court to take the view that Section 29 was attracted.”

The trial court’s presumptive reasoning was found to be wholly unsustainable:

“The trial court simply raised a presumption as to the culpable mental state... Such assumption is erroneous and absolutely unjustified on the face of the record for want of evidence.”

“Liberty Cannot Be Denied for Being Poor”: Delay of 1183 Days in Appeal by Incarcerated Appellant Condemned as Harsh and Unjustified

One of the key legal issues preceding the merits was that Nadeem Ahamed’s appeal was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court purely on the ground of delay, as the appeal was filed 1183 days late. The Supreme Court held that such a rejection violated the principles of access to justice, especially for incarcerated and financially constrained appellants.

“Given the fact that the accused-appellant was incarcerated... the rejection of the appeal on the sole ground of delay was too harsh and unjustified.”

Though the Court had the option of remanding the matter, it chose not to prolong the appellant’s incarceration:

“We could have remanded the matter... but that would cause further delay. Thus, we have proceeded to consider the merits of the matter.”

“Justice Demands Substance Over Technicality”: Supreme Court Orders Acquittal in Absence of Admissible Proof of Heroin

In its final conclusions, the Court held that there was no acceptable evidence on record to prove that the substance recovered was heroin, especially after the FSL report was rendered inadmissible due to flawed sampling. As the conviction rested entirely on inadmissible and procedurally tainted evidence, the Court ordered complete acquittal.

“We are of the firm opinion that the FSL report cannot be read in evidence and consequently, there is no acceptable evidence on record to prove that the article recovered from the accused-appellant was the narcotic drug heroin.”

“The impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the charges. He shall be released from custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.”

Supreme Court's Judgment Restores Procedural Sanctity and Reinforces Conspiracy Must Be Proved, Not Assumed

In a decision that will significantly impact NDPS trials across the country, the Supreme Court has reasserted two foundational principles:

1. “No clubbing of contraband quantities without proof of conspiracy”, and

2. “Procedural safeguards in seizure and sampling are not technicalities, but critical safeguards for ensuring fairness in criminal trials.”

The judgment ensures that liberty cannot be curtailed on assumptions, and statutory non-compliance cannot be brushed aside in cases involving severe penal consequences.

Date of Decision: 5 August 2025