Section 52A NDPS compliance requires action by a competent officer before inventory and sample certification can validly proceed.

Section 52A of the NDPS Act requires seized narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances to be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or an officer empowered under Section 53, after which the competent officer may seek Magistrate certification of the inventory, photographs and samples. The applicable notifications dated 10.05.2007 and 16.01.2015 similarly contemplate action by that competent officer and prescribe the manner of inventory and certification. Where the application was moved by an officer who was neither shown to be the officer in-charge of the police station nor established to be an officer empowered under Section 53, the application was contrary to the statutory scheme and notifications, and the consequential orders were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was competent when it was moved by an officer who was neither the officer in-charge of the police station nor an officer empowered under Section 53 of that Act, and whether the consequential orders of the Magistrate and revisional court were sustainable.

Analysis: The scheme of Section 52A requires that seized narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances be forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to an officer empowered under Section 53, and that the competent officer then move the Magistrate for certification of inventory, photographs and samples. The notifications dated 10.05.2007 and 16.01.2015 also contemplate action by the competent officer and prescribe the manner of inventory and certification. On the facts, the application was moved by an officer who was not shown to be the officer in-charge of the police station and was not established to be the officer empowered under Section 53. The action was therefore contrary to the statutory scheme and the applicable notifications.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were unsustainable and the challenge succeeded.

---