Mandatory NDPS seizure procedure and doubtful recovery evidence led to failure of proof and acquittal.

Strict compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act was treated as mandatory for evidentiary use of seized narcotic substance, and non-compliance deprived the prosecution of the statutory primary-evidence benefit. The seizure and recovery were also found doubtful because the contraband was not satisfactorily produced, no certified inventory was obtained, independent seizure witnesses turned hostile, key witnesses were not examined, and the testimony contained material inconsistencies. Taken together, these defects meant the prosecution failed to establish possession and recovery with the certainty required in NDPS cases, and an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act was warranted. The conviction could not be sustained and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained when the prosecution failed to establish compliance with the disposal and sampling procedure under Section 52A and the seizure evidence was rendered doubtful by hostile witnesses, non-production of seized contraband, and other material inconsistencies.

Analysis: Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 requires the officer to prepare an inventory, approach the Magistrate, and obtain certification of the inventory, photographs, or samples, which alone then acquire the character of primary evidence. The Court treated this procedure as mandatory and emphasized that non-compliance deprives the prosecution of the evidentiary benefit of the statutory primary evidence mechanism. The record showed no application before the Magistrate, no certified inventory, and no satisfactory explanation for the disposal or non-production of the seized contraband. Independent witnesses to the seizure and related proceedings turned hostile, key witnesses were not examined, and one prosecution witness gave testimony suggesting the contraband was already in the police station before the alleged recovery. These circumstances, viewed cumulatively, created serious doubt about the genuineness of the seizure and the prosecution version. In such a case, the burden on the prosecution under the stringent NDPS framework was not discharged, and the absence of reliable physical evidence warranted an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained. The prosecution failed to prove the recovery and possession of contraband with the certainty required in NDPS cases, and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution case was held to be unreliable for want of mandatory compliance with the statutory procedure and for want of trustworthy evidence of seizure, resulting in acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS prosecutions, strict compliance with Section 52A is mandatory for the evidentiary use of seized contraband, and where the prosecution fails to produce reliable primary evidence of seizure and recovery, conviction cannot be sustained on the basis of doubtful or merely formal evidence.

---