2023 (5) TMI 1389 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction Overturned Due to Improper Sampling in Drug Case; Prosecution Fails to Prove Beyond Doubt.

SIMARNJIT SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

The HC set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence under the NDPS Act due to non-compliance with statutory sampling procedures. The Court found that ... Conviction under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) - seizure of poppy husk from a tempo following a patrolling operation - sampling procedure conducted by PW-7 was not in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT:- The act of PW-7 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time seizure is not in conformity with the law laid down by this Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS MOHANLAL [2016 (5) TMI 500 - SUPREME COURT]. This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case that substance recovered was a contraband. Hence, the case of the prosecution is not free from suspicion and the same has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt - the impugned judgments insofar as the present appellant is concerned is set aside - the conviction and sentence set aside - appeal allowed. Issues: Conviction under NDPS Act based on improper sampling procedure.In this case, the appellant was convicted under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) for an offense under Section 15 of the Act. The prosecution's case involved the seizure of poppy husk from a tempo following a patrolling operation. The key contention raised by the appellant was that the sampling procedure conducted by PW-7 was not in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Section 52-A(2). The appellant argued that the samples were drawn immediately after the seizure without following the prescribed procedure, as outlined in the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Mohanlal & Anr. (2016) 3 SCC 379. The Court examined the evidence presented, particularly the testimony of PW-7, which confirmed that the samples were indeed drawn immediately after the seizure, contrary to the requirements of the law. The Court referred to paragraphs 15 to 17 of the Mohanlal case, emphasizing the necessity of drawing representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate as per the statutory provisions. The Court concluded that the sampling procedure conducted by PW-7 was not in compliance with the law laid down in the Mohanlal case, casting doubt on the prosecution's case regarding the nature of the recovered substance. Consequently, the Court held that the prosecution's case was not free from suspicion and had not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned judgments, quashed the appellant's conviction and sentence, and allowed the appeal.