Supreme Court quashes NDPS Act convictions due to Section 52A violations and inadmissible confessions in ganja case

The SC quashed convictions under Section 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act in a ganja recovery case. The Court found fatal procedural violations including failure to follow Section 52A requirements for inventory preparation and sample collection before the jurisdictional Magistrate, rendering the FSL report inadmissible. Two accused were not arrested at the spot nor found in possession of contraband. The prosecution's case relied solely on inadmissible confessions recorded by police officers, violating Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Police witnesses provided contradictory and unconvincing testimony. The trial court and HC mechanically convicted without admissible evidence. All appellants were acquitted and the appeal was allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of search and seizure procedures.
2. Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
3. Admissibility and integrity of the evidence.
4. Conviction based on confessions and interrogation notes.

Issue-wise Summary:

1. Legitimacy of Search and Seizure Procedures:
The appellants challenged the search and seizure procedures, arguing that the independent panch witnesses were not examined, making the proceedings doubtful and vitiated. The prosecution claimed the contraband was seized from three bags containing both ganja and green chillies, but no effort was made to segregate them, raising doubts about the actual weight of the ganja. Additionally, discrepancies were noted in the number of samples collected and the condition of the seized items, which were repacked without proper documentation or seals.

2. Compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act:
The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, as no sampling procedure was undertaken before the Magistrate. The court noted that no proceedings under Section 52A were conducted, rendering the FSL report inadmissible as evidence.

3. Admissibility and Integrity of the Evidence:
The evidence presented by the prosecution was found to be full of contradictions. The Seizure Officer claimed to have handed one of the three samples to the accused, leaving only two samples, yet three samples were received by the FSL. The prosecution failed to produce any document or witness to verify the safe custody of the samples from seizure to FSL. The FSL report lacked details about panch chits, seals, and signatures, further questioning its integrity.

4. Conviction Based on Confessions and Interrogation Notes:
The appellants A-3 and A-4 were not present at the seizure spot and were arrested based on the interrogation notes of A-1 and A-2. The court highlighted that confessions recorded by a police officer are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The trial and High Court's conviction of A-3 and A-4 was found to be mechanical and unsupported by tangible evidence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused due to contradictory and unconvincing evidence. The conviction and sentence by the trial and High Court were deemed illegal and perverse. The judgment dated 10th November 2022, affirming the trial court's decision, was quashed, and the appellants were acquitted of all charges. The appeals were allowed, and the appellants were ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

---