Court affirms dismissal of Narcotics Control Bureau's application for confiscation. Proper disposal procedure specified.

The court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the Narcotics Control Bureau's application under Section 63(2) of the NDPS Act for confiscation and disposal of narcotic substances. It was determined that the proper procedure for disposal should follow guidelines under Section 52A, as the seized parcels were linked to identifiable individuals. The court clarified that Section 63(2) applies to unclaimed articles where no claimant can be found, which was not the situation in this case. The petition was dismissed, affirming the lower court's order.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Section 63(2) of the NDPS Act for confiscation and disposal of narcotic drugs.
2. Applicability of Sections 52A and 63(2) of the NDPS Act.
3. Identification of persons involved in the narcotic drug parcels.
4. Legal procedures for the disposal of narcotic substances.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Section 63(2) of the NDPS Act for confiscation and disposal of narcotic drugs:
The petitioner, Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 15.07.2015 by the Special Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi, which dismissed their application under Section 63(2) of the NDPS Act for the confiscation and disposal of seized narcotic substances (45gm Cocaine, 555gm Heroin, and 320gm Hashish). The NCB argued that Section 63(2) allows for the confiscation of narcotics when the offender is not known or cannot be found.

2. Applicability of Sections 52A and 63(2) of the NDPS Act:
The NCB contended that Section 63(2) should be applied for the confiscation and disposal of narcotic substances when the offender is unknown. They argued that Section 52A deals with pre-trial disposal and does not mention 'confiscation'. The Amicus Curiae, however, pointed out that Section 52A is designed to avoid pilferage and ensure evidence collection, allowing for the destruction of narcotics while keeping samples for future trials if the accused is identified.

3. Identification of persons involved in the narcotic drug parcels:
The NCB listed the senders and recipients of the nine seized parcels, identifying several individuals with addresses. The court noted that the onus was on the NCB to prove under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, that these individuals did not exist. The presence of identifiable persons meant that the seized property should be treated as case property and handled according to Section 52A, not Section 63(2).

4. Legal procedures for the disposal of narcotic substances:
The court examined previous orders and the Supreme Court's guidelines in Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Another, which outlined procedures for the disposal of seized narcotics. The court concluded that the proper procedure for the confiscation and disposal of the case property should be under Section 52A, not Section 63(2), since the seized parcels were linked to identifiable individuals.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the NCB's application under Section 63(2) and confirmed that the disposal of the narcotic substances should follow the guidelines under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The court emphasized that Section 63(2) applies only to unclaimed articles where no claimant can be found, which was not the case here. The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order dated 15.07.2015 was deemed appropriate.

---