-
by sayum
09 May 2026 2:28 PM
"The NDPS Act imposes a strict standard of procedural compliance to safeguard against misuse and ensure justice. Any lapses could have far-reaching implications, but in this case, the prosecution has met its burden beyond reasonable doubt," observed the Gauhati High Court.
Gauhati High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction of Rajkumar Mandal under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Mandal had been sentenced to three years and six months of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 20,000 for possession of over 40 kg of cannabis. The Court upheld the trial court's ruling, citing adequate compliance with statutory requirements and a lack of credible defense from the accused.
The case arose from a police operation on September 24, 2022, in Chirang district, Assam, where two motorcycles carrying gunny bags were intercepted based on prior information. While one rider escaped, the appellant, Rajkumar Mandal, was apprehended with the contraband. After a detailed investigation, charges were framed under the NDPS Act, and the appellant was convicted in July 2024. Mandal appealed, alleging procedural lapses and challenging the integrity of the chain of custody.
The appellant's counsel, Mr. M. Biswas, argued that the prosecution failed to meet the strict procedural safeguards mandated under Sections 42, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act. The counsel pointed to discrepancies in the chain of custody, lack of independent witness corroboration, and alleged non-compliance with legal provisions for sample sealing and submission to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).
However, Justice Mitali Thakuria, writing for the High Court, rejected these arguments, observing:
"The prosecution demonstrated adherence to procedural requirements, including the preparation of an inventory certified by the Magistrate and prompt forwarding of samples to the FSL. Minor lapses, such as discrepancies in the Malkhana register date, do not vitiate the integrity of the investigation or the evidence."
The appellant contended that the chain of custody was broken due to incomplete documentation. The Court found that while the Malkhana register was not produced, other evidence, including a receipt issued by the in-charge and timely delivery of sealed samples to the FSL, ensured the integrity of the process.
The judgment emphasized: "The receipt issued by the Malkhana in-charge, corroborated by the testimony of witnesses, sufficiently establishes safe custody of the contraband. A single-day delay in sample dispatch does not undermine the prosecution's case."
The defense highlighted that independent witnesses did not implicate the appellant. One witness stated, "I signed the document as directed by police without knowledge of the contents." However, the Court observed:
"While independent witnesses may not be fully aware of the details, their presence during the seizure corroborates the recovery. Their statements do not negate the evidence provided by official witnesses."
Addressing the reverse burden provisions under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the Court held:
"The NDPS Act places a rebuttable presumption on the accused once the prosecution establishes a prima facie case. Here, the prosecution has successfully demonstrated possession, seizure, and chemical analysis of the contraband, shifting the burden to the accused, who failed to provide any plausible explanation."
The Gauhati High Court concluded that the prosecution had met its burden of proof, and the trial court's judgment was sound. The appeal was dismissed, with the Court affirming:
"The appellant's conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act is based on credible evidence and procedural compliance. The allegations of lapses are insufficient to overturn the judgment."
This ruling underscores the stringent requirements under the NDPS Act while recognizing that minor procedural inconsistencies do not invalidate otherwise robust evidence.
Date of Judgment: November 20, 2024
