Section 52A NDPS | Representative Samples Must Be Drawn Before Magistrate — Not Doing So Violates Accused’s Right to Fair Trial : Punjab & Haryana High Court

“Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act Is Fatal to Prosecution”, In a landmark ruling reinforcing procedural safeguards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on January 8, 2026, set aside a two-decade-old conviction in a poppy husk recovery case after finding total non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

Justice Yashvir Singh Rathor held that the failure to produce the seized narcotics and representative samples before the Magistrate for certification, as mandated under Section 52A, fatally undermined the prosecution’s case.

“There is total non-compliance of the provisions contained in Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and its benefit has to go to the accused,” the Court categorically observed, acquitting the appellants who had earlier been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh each.

Court Emphasizes That Section 52A Is Not a Mere Formality — It Safeguards Article 21 Rights

Justice Rathor reaffirmed that compliance with Section 52A — which requires drawing of representative samples before a Magistrate and certification of inventory by the Magistrate — is not a dispensable or procedural nicety, but a constitutional safeguard grounded in Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing a fair trial.

The Court placed reliance on the judgment of a Coordinate Bench in Jasvir Singh @ Vicky v. State of Punjab (Law Finder Doc ID #2506152), which had held:

“The safeguard provided under Section 52-A is in furtherance of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees fair and impartial investigation… This lapse on the part of the investigation team makes the prosecution case untenable.”

The Court further noted that the samples in this case were those drawn at the spot of recovery — not by or in the presence of a Magistrate — and no inventory of the case property was ever certified by a judicial officer.

Supreme Court Precedents Support the View That Section 52A Compliance Is Mandatory

Justice Rathor also drew strength from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Mangilal v. State of M.P., 2023 (3) RCR (Criminal) 703, where the apex court had held that:

“The mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has to be duly complied with… One has to remember that the provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution.”

Similarly, in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 62, the Supreme Court had held that oral evidence of police officers regarding production of seized narcotics is insufficient unless supported by documents or a Magistrate’s certification under Section 52A.

“In the absence of any order of the Magistrate showing that the contraband seized was produced before him, oral evidence… cannot form the basis for recording conviction,” the High Court quoted.

“Samples Sent to FSL Were Not Certified or Sealed by Magistrate — Sanctity of Evidence Compromised”: Court Notes Serious Investigative Lapse

The High Court pointed out that the entire case property and samples were handled exclusively by the police, without any judicial supervision. This, it held, compromised the chain of custody and rendered the sanctity of the samples questionable.

“Neither any oral nor documentary evidence has been led to establish that the contraband was ever produced before the Magistrate,” the Court noted, adding that such lapses are not curable under law in prosecutions under the NDPS Act.

Conviction Under NDPS Act Cannot Be Sustained Without Procedural Sanctity

Allowing the appeals and acquitting the accused, the Court reiterated that NDPS cases demand strict adherence to procedural safeguards due to the harsh punishments involved. In the present case, the total absence of compliance with Section 52A, along with other procedural defects, made it unsafe to sustain the conviction.

“This is not merely a lapse — it is a violation that goes to the foundation of a fair trial. The conviction cannot be upheld,” Justice Rathor concluded.

The Court directed that the case property be confiscated and destroyed as per rules and ordered the release of the jeep involved to the registered owner.

Date of Decision: January 8, 2026