Once Ganja Is Seized From A Public Utility Vehicle, Procedural Delays Do Not Dismantle Conviction: Patna High Court Rejects NDPS Appeals in 550 Kg Ganja Case

“Section 43 Applies When the Vehicle Is a Public Utility Transport — Ownership Is Not the Test”, On December 2, 2025, the Patna High Court decisively affirmed the conviction of four accused persons for possessing and transporting 550 kilograms of ganja in an oil tanker, holding that “mere procedural lapses or delayed certification under Section 52A of the NDPS Act do not, by themselves, dismantle a prosecution that has otherwise proven guilt beyond reasonable doubt.” The Division Bench comprising Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Justice Sourendra Pandey dismissed the criminal appeals filed by Shankar Das and others, upholding their twenty-year rigorous imprisonment and fines under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The Court clarified a crucial legal position relating to the scope of Section 42 versus Section 43 of the NDPS Act by declaring that “an oil tanker registered as a commercial vehicle is a public utility transport vehicle, and therefore, no prior written information or magistrate's approval is required for search and seizure under Section 43.”

The ruling has significance for defence counsel navigating procedural irregularities in NDPS trials — the Court reiterated that unless serious prejudice is shown, substantial compliance with procedural mandates will suffice.

Patna High Court Discards Technical Objections on Seizure Witnesses, Delayed Certification, and Sampling Irregularities

The case stemmed from an operation by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), Patna Zonal Unit, which acted on specific intelligence about a white oil tanker bearing registration AS-17B-7231 that was suspected to be transporting ganja from Tripura to Muzaffarpur. After hours of tailing, the NCB team intercepted the tanker at Yadav Chowk on May 9, 2019, and recovered 550 kg of ganja sealed in 55 packets hidden in the tank compartment.

The accused — Shankar Das, Manoj Sah, Kuldeep Singh, and Sandeep Kumar — were arrested and later convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Muzaffarpur. On appeal, the defence focused intensely on procedural lapses.

Senior defence counsel argued that “the failure to examine independent seizure witnesses, delayed certification by the magistrate, non-compliance with Section 42, and lack of clarity in sampling and inventory procedures struck at the root of the prosecution.” The sampling, counsel submitted, was not done in the presence of a magistrate and the chain of custody was allegedly broken.

However, the High Court found these objections meritless, observing: “The sampling in duplicate was done on 09.05.2019 itself in the presence of the accused. The representative samples were sealed, properly labeled, and presented in court the very next day. Certification by the Magistrate followed with due diligence.”

“NDPS Procedural Provisions Are to Prevent Misuse — Not Tools for Acquittal of Hardened Peddlers”: Court Applies Constitutional Bench Ruling in Karnail Singh

On the argument relating to Section 42 compliance, the High Court firmly rejected the contention that the absence of written recording and transmission of prior information by the seizing officer was fatal. The Court relied on the Constitution Bench judgment in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539 to hold that “non-compliance with Section 42 may not vitiate the trial if no prejudice is shown to the accused.”

In a critical pronouncement, the Court said: “This provision should not be misused by wrongdoers as a major ground for acquittal — it is to be interpreted as a discretionary safeguard, not a loophole for technical escape.”

The Bench clarified that “the ownership of the vehicle is not the test — whether the vehicle is used for public utility service is the determining factor for invoking Section 43 NDPS Act.”

Accordingly, since the oil tanker was a registered commercial vehicle, the Court held that Section 43, not Section 42, governed the case — thus rendering the defence’s challenge on this ground moot.

Delayed Certification Under Section 52A Not Fatal — Court Applies Supreme Court’s Doctrine of ‘Substantial Compliance’

Turning to allegations of delay in inventory certification and absence of magistrate presence during sampling, the High Court adopted a pragmatic approach grounded in precedent.

It held that “mere delay in magistrate’s certification does not nullify the trial, especially when the sampling and seizure were done transparently, in presence of the accused, with due sealing, documentation and subsequent forensic testing.”

Citing the Supreme Court’s latest rulings in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) and Bharat Aambale v. State of Maharashtra (2025), the Court noted: “Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure would not, by itself, make the evidence inadmissible. The Court must ask whether any serious prejudice has been caused.”

Further, the Court affirmed the evidentiary status of the photographs, inventory, and certified samples under Section 52A(4) NDPS Act by holding: “These documents must be treated as primary evidence, even in the absence of physical production of the entire contraband before court.”

“Presumption of Conscious Possession Under Section 54 Applies — No Rebuttal Offered by the Accused”

The Court found that the accused were traveling inside the vehicle that contained the commercial quantity of ganja and had admitted their presence during seizure and signed all procedural documents.

Asserting the statutory presumption under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, the Court held: “Once possession of narcotics in a public vehicle is established and the accused offer no credible rebuttal, the presumption of conscious possession operates against them.”

The Bench found no explanation from the accused regarding their presence in the tanker or the concealed nature of the contraband, and accordingly, the conviction under Section 29 for conspiracy was also held sustainable.

Substantial Compliance is the Legal Threshold — Mere Technicalities Will Not Rescue Accused in Commercial Quantity Cases

Summarising the legal effect of its decision, the High Court noted that “the law is now well-settled that Section 52A compliance is not to be tested with mathematical rigidity. Substantial compliance, absence of prejudice, and transparency in seizure procedures are the touchstones.”

It also acknowledged the burden on defence counsel to demonstrate real prejudice, stating: “The accused in the present case failed to lay even foundational facts to show how the alleged procedural lapses prejudiced their rights under the law.”

Ultimately, the Court declared that there was “no merit in the appeals” and dismissed them, directing the continuation of the twenty-year sentence and fine.

Date of Decision: 2 December 2025