Non-Compliance With Section 52A NDPS Act Vitiates Prosecution’s Case: Punjab and Haryana High Court Acquits In Ganja Possession Case Due To Procedural Lapses In Sample Drawing And Inventory Certification
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has acquitted Janki Dass in a notable ganja possession case, overturning his conviction and sentence due to procedural lapses. The court emphasized the mandatory compliance with Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), particularly regarding the preparation and certification of inventory, and the drawing of samples in the presence of a Magistrate.
The case dates back to April 28, 2003, when Janki Dass was apprehended by police officers on the basis of a secret tip-off. He was found in possession of 4 kilograms of ganja. The trial court convicted him under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 25,000, with an additional year of imprisonment in case of default. Dissatisfied with the trial court’s decision, Janki Dass appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
Non-compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act: The court scrutinized the procedural requirements under Section 52A, which stipulate that an inventory of the seized narcotic substances must be prepared and certified by a Magistrate. Additionally, it mandates that samples be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate. The court underscored, “The failure to comply with this mandatory provision vitiates the prosecution’s case.”
Justice Kirti Singh emphasized, “Section 52A(2) mandates a competent officer to prepare an inventory of the seized narcotic drugs and make an application to the Magistrate for certifying the correctness of the inventory, taking photographs, and drawing representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate.” This procedural step is crucial to ensure the integrity and admissibility of evidence in NDPS cases.
Importance of Magistrate’s Supervision: The judgment pointed out that the prosecution failed to draw samples in the presence of the Magistrate, a critical step mandated by law. “The samples were not drawn in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate, which is a complete violation of mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the Act,” the court observed.
In support of this stance, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) and Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana (2024), which reaffirmed the necessity of following Section 52A procedures for the evidence to be considered valid and reliable.
Legal Reasoning: The court elaborated on the legal reasoning behind its decision, reiterating that procedural lapses cannot be overlooked in the interest of justice. The judgment stated, “The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a Gazetted Officer is not sufficient compliance with the mandate of sub-Section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.” It further clarified that the process requires the Magistrate’s certification to ensure that the samples are treated as primary evidence.
Justice Kirti Singh emphasized the broader implications of such non-compliance, noting that adherence to these procedures ensures fairness and transparency in the investigation and prosecution of narcotics cases. The court stated, “In essence, it is a case where no inventory was prepared, and the sample was not drawn in the presence of the Magistrate, which renders the evidence inadmissible.”
Justice Kirti Singh remarked, “The non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates the presence and supervision of a Magistrate during the drawing of samples, undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case and necessitates the acquittal of the appellant.”
The High Court’s decision to acquit Janki Dass sends a clear message regarding the importance of procedural compliance in narcotics cases. This landmark judgment highlights the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that convictions are based on properly obtained and verified evidence. The acquittal of the appellant due to procedural lapses underscores the critical role of adhering to statutory mandates, which safeguard the integrity of the judicial process and the rights of the accused.
Date of Decision: May 24, 2024
Janki Dass vs. State of Haryana
