The Gauhati High Court has acquitted two persons who were convicted and sentenced by the trial court under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The conviction was based on the alleged recovery of approximately 30 kg of ganja from a vehicle and another 75 kg from a residence following information provided by the accused. The trial court had sentenced each accused to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.
The High Court, while allowing the criminal appeal, examined the evidence of the seizure witnesses and found significant procedural irregularities. One seizure witness stated that he was unable to say what was written in the papers on which his signatures were obtained. Another witness stated that his signatures on the seizure lists were obtained at his residence and that he had not gone to the place from where the ganja was allegedly recovered. A third witness admitted that his signatures were obtained at the police station and not at the place of seizure. Yet another witness had also not gone to the place of seizure.
The Court observed that none of the seizure witnesses had been able to prove the fact of recovery and seizure of the contraband from the possession of the appellants. This directly contradicted the trial court’s finding on the same issue. The High Court emphasized that the testimony of seizure witnesses must establish that they personally witnessed the seizure, which was absent in this case.
Further, the Court found that no inventory of the seized contraband had been prepared in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The record showed no indication that samples were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate. On the contrary, the materials on record indicated that the samples were drawn at the police station itself. The Court noted that neither the inventory had been prepared nor the seized contraband was produced before the court during trial. It added that what happened to the seized contraband could not be comprehended from the perusal of the records.
The High Court stated that it appears that in the instant case, the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 has not at all been followed by the investigating agency. It reiterated that the NDPS Act prescribes harsh punishment and that the mandatory procedural requirements must be strictly adhered to. The Court observed that any lapse on that count would dent the prosecution case and the accused will get an advantage due to such procedural lapses.
Accordingly, the Court held that under such circumstances, the conviction of the appellants and the sentence imposed on them by the trial court, in the considered opinion of this court, is not sustainable. The High Court consequently held that the trial court had erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. It set aside the impugned judgment and acquitted both appellants.
The judgment underscores the necessity of strict compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly regarding the role of seizure witnesses and the preparation of inventory and sample drawing in the presence of a Magistrate. The Court’s decision reinforces that procedural lapses, especially in cases attracting stringent punishment, cannot be overlooked and must result in the benefit of doubt accruing to the accused.