Seizure Memo Prepared at Distant Office After 101 KM Transport Casts Doubt on Entire Recovery: Rajasthan High Court Suspends NDPS Conviction Sentence

“Law requires that seizure memo be prepared at the place of recovery, not in the safe confines of a police office — such practice raises serious concerns about fairness, genuineness and legality” —  Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur suspended the sentence awarded to three individuals convicted under the NDPS Act. The Court sharply criticized the irregular seizure procedure, where the contraband-laden vehicle was taken 101 km away from the site of interception, and seizure formalities were conducted not at the scene, but at the office of the Narcotics Bureau in Neemach (M.P.). Justice Farjand Ali held that such deviation undermines the sanctity and legality of the entire recovery process.

The appellants — Panna Ram, Dhanna Ram, and Devendra Kumar Siyag — were convicted by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Pratapgarh, on December 12, 2024, and sentenced to 12 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1,20,000/- under Section 8/15(g) and Section 8/29 of the NDPS Act.

The applicants challenged the judgment on multiple legal and procedural grounds and moved for suspension of sentence pending appeal. The Court’s order is a detailed indictment of procedural violations, particularly in how search and seizure were conducted.

The High Court made scathing remarks on the manner of recovery, observing: “The vehicle allegedly carrying the contraband was intercepted near the office of CMHO, Peepalkunt, District Pratapgarh… no search or seizure was conducted at the spot. Instead, the vehicle was taken approximately 101 kilometers away… and the entire proceeding of search, seizure and arrest was made there.”

Justice Ali warned against such deviations, stating: “If anything or any incriminating material is collected or recovered from a particular place… the seizure memo should have been prepared at the same place and that too in the presence of the witnesses of the same locality.”

He emphasized the legal sanctity and transparency required in seizure operations:

“The moment this kind of practice is permitted, the day is not far when police officers will routinely claim seizure at one place but document it at another.”

The Court also noted non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order 1/89, which mandates that samples must be taken in the presence of a Magistrate. Here, the samples were taken by the Seizing Officer alone.

Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana (Criminal Appeal No. 1610/2023), the Court observed: “Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A… were undertaken… the FSL report is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence.”

Furthermore, Justice Ali stressed that the prosecution failed to justify why the recovery procedure was not followed at the place of interception: “Why was the seizure conducted 101 kilometers away in an official building? There is no reasonable explanation for abandoning the crime scene and choosing a more ‘convenient’ location.”

The Court cited its own previous decisions and emphasized how independent witnesses had turned hostile, and the Seizing Officer admitted in cross-examination that all memos were prepared at the CBN office. The Court remarked: “The purity, originality, genuineness and virtuousness would be lost… if memos are not prepared where the actual recovery occurred.”

On this basis, the Court found that: “The credibility of the seizure memo loses significance… and serious aspersions arise regarding fairness and genuineness of factum of seizure.”

Justice Ali ruled that: “In an application for suspension of sentence, whenever a strong arguable case is shown harping on the very sustainability of judgment of conviction, the appellate court should be liberal to extend the benefit of bail.”

Acknowledging that appeal hearings were unlikely to conclude soon and that substantial procedural irregularities had been demonstrated, the Court ordered: “The sentence passed… shall remain suspended till final disposal of the appeal.”

Each convict was directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of ₹25,000/- each.

This judgment marks a strong reinforcement of fair trial standards under the NDPS Act, underscoring that strict compliance with seizure and sampling procedures is not optional. Deviations, especially those lacking transparency, cannot form the basis of a lawful conviction.

“Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done — and no seizure conducted 100 kilometers away from the crime scene can inspire that confidence.”

Date of Decision: 05 May 2025