Non-Compliance With Section 52-A NDPS Act and Standing Order No.1/89 Is Fatal to Prosecution: Supreme Court Acquits All Accused in Ganja Seizure Case

Possibility of tampering during the fifteen-day period cannot be totally ruled out and there has been no substantial compliance of the standing order - Supreme Court of India, in the case of Surepally Srinivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana), Criminal Appeal No. 1474 of 2025, acquitted all the accused persons who were previously convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court ruled that non-compliance with the statutory safeguards under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order No.1/1989 rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable, warranting acquittal.  

The appellants were convicted by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Cyberabad, in SC No.37 of 2010, for possession of 600 kg of dry ganja and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment—20 years for A-1 and 10 years for the rest. Upon appeal, the High Court acquitted two of them (A-2 and A-8) but upheld the convictions of others. Aggrieved, they approached the Supreme Court, arguing that there were serious violations of mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act.

 The primary contention before the Supreme Court was the violation of Section 42 and Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order No.1/1989 regarding the procedure for seizure, storage, and production of the contraband.

 The Court ’oted, “The date of the incident is 18^th June, 2010. The contraband was produced in court for the first time on 3^rd July, 2010. In between, the contraband was in the custody of the investigating officer, i.e., PW-3, in a separate room in his office.”

 The Court further highlighted the investigating officer’s lack of awareness of Standing Order No.1/89, stating, “It is not in dispute that PW-3 admitted his ignorance about the existence of any such standing order.”  

Critically analyzing the evidence, the Bench held, “It is difficult to accept the prosecution case that though there may not have been strict compliance of

Standing Order No.1/89, the seized contraband was not tampered at all.”  

The Court emphasized that the purpose of Standing Order No.1/89 and Section 52A is not mere technicality but to strengthen the evidentiary value and prevent any possibility of tampering. The Court cited Bharat Ambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, observing that substantial compliance is mandatory and that non-compliance directly affects the credibility of the evidence.  

The Court remarked, “Keeping of the seized contraband by PW-3 in a separate room in his office for fifteen days could give rise to an allegation that the seized contraband was by itself substituted and some other items planted to falsely implicate the accused.”  

The Supreme Court found that there was clear non-compliance with the procedural mandates. The Court categorically stated, “We are satisfied, on appreciation of the evidence on record, that the possibility of tampering during this fifteen-day period cannot be totally ruled out and that not only has there been no substantial compliance of the standing order, the departure has also not been justified.”

 Further, the Bench noted, “The onus of proving that compliance with Section 52-A did not affect the case of the prosecution has not been duly discharged by the prosecution.”  

The Court concluded, “We are inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, since affirmed by the High Court, stands set aside. The appeals stand allowed.”  

Accordingly, the appellants were directed to be released unless wanted in any other case.

 The Supreme Court reaffirmed that procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act are not mere formalities but are essential to ensure a fair trial. Any breach, unless duly justified and proven to be inconsequential, will vitiate the prosecution’s case.  

Date of Decision: 25^th March 2025