LI Network
Published on: October 15, 2023 at 11:48 IST
The Supreme Court, overturned a High Court order that had sentenced a man to 10 years in prison for possessing a substantial quantity of heroin.
The Apex Court’s decision was based on the failure of the NCB authorities to demonstrate that the seized contraband followed the proper procedures outlined in Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985.
The NDPS Act Section 50 sets the stage for this case. The Act mandates that the seized contraband must be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, and the inventory of the seized contraband should be duly certified by the Magistrate.
In this case, the absence of evidence supporting these requirements led the Supreme Court to declare the seized contraband and associated samples as invalid primary evidence in the trial. Consequently, the entire trial was deemed vitiated.
Background of the Case:
In the case at hand, the appellant and three others faced a 10-year prison sentence due to the discovery of 20 kgs of heroin in their possession. The Trial Court convicted them, and the High Court upheld the conviction.
The Appellant’s Argument:
The Appellant contended that the seizure and sampling of the alleged contraband violated the mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. This section outlines the procedure for seizing, preparing the inventory, forwarding the seized material, and obtaining certification from the Magistrate, which is crucial for using the material as primary evidence in a trial.
Supreme Court’s Findings:
The Supreme Court confirmed that the samples from the seized substance were indeed drawn by the police but not in the presence of a Magistrate, which is a requirement under Section 52A. Furthermore, there was no evidence to support that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate, and the list of these samples was certified by the Magistrate.
The Court clarified that merely having the samples drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer did not meet the mandates of Section 52A.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Appellant’s conviction, emphasizing that the failure to present primary evidence had vitiated the conviction.
Case Title: Yusuf @ Asif V. State
