2025 (9) TMI 1263 - SC - Indian Laws

Substantial compliance with Section 52-A NDPS Act and Standing Order No.1/89 required; non-compliance in sealing and custody led to acquittal.

SUREPALLY SRINIVAS Versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

SC held that substantial compliance with Section 52-A, NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1/89 is required, but found clear non-compliance here: seized ... Non-compliance with Section 52-A, NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1/89 (procedure for sampling, storage and disposal of seized contraband) - departures from Section 52-A/Standing Order No. 1/89 require strict compliance or whether 'substantial compliance' suffices - HELD THAT:- The date of the incident is 18th June, 2010. The contraband was produced in Court for the first time on 3rd July, 2010. In between, the contraband was in the custody of the investigating officer, i.e., PW-3, in a separate room in his office. Standing Order No. 1/89 laid down the procedure for sampling, storage and disposal of seized contraband. It is not in dispute that PW-3 admitted his ignorance about the existence of any such standing order. It is not proposed to hold that a conviction should be interdicted for any minor breach of Standing Order No. 1/89. What is required is a substantial compliance of the statutory provisions and the procedure laid down in such standing order. In Bharat Aambale [2025 (1) TMI 1614 - SUPREME COURT], this Court held that the purport of Section 52-A, NDPS Act read with Standing Order No. 1/89 extends beyond mere disposal and destruction of seized contraband and serves a broader purpose of strengthening the evidentiary framework under the NDPS Act. This decision stresses upon the fact that what is to be seen is whether there has been substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52-A and if not, the prosecution must satisfy the Court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused - In the present case, from the evidence on record, it can be seen and it is clear that the seized contraband was not properly sealed. Coupled with this is the fact of the seized contraband not being produced before the Trial Court prior to 3rd July, 2010. It is difficult to accept the prosecution case that though there may not have been strict compliance of Standing Order No. 1/89, the seized contraband was not tampered at all. Keeping of the seized contraband by PW-3 in a separate room in his office for fifteen days could give rise to an allegation that the seized contraband was by itself substituted and some other items planted to falsely implicate the accused. There has been clear non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. Either possibly due to lack of experience of the investigating officer or his lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, there were lapses which were duly noted by the Sessions Judge. Thus, it is unable to hold that there was primary and reliable evidence before the trial court in respect of the offence committed. The onus of proving that compliance with Section 52-A did not affect the case of the prosecution has not been duly discharged by the prosecution. It is inclined to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, since affirmed by the High Court, stands set aside. The appeals stand allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether non-compliance with Section 52-A, NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1/89 (procedure for sampling, storage and disposal of seized contraband) vitiates a conviction under the NDPS Act. 2. Whether departures from Section 52-A/Standing Order No. 1/89 require strict compliance or whether 'substantial compliance' suffices, and on whom lies the burden of proving that any non-compliance did not affect the prosecution's case. 3. Whether procedural lapses in seizure, sealing, storage and delayed production (including custody of seized material by the investigating officer for an extended period) raise a real possibility of tampering sufficient to create reasonable doubt. 4. Whether an appellate court, when assessing convictions under the NDPS Act, must re-appreciate and re-analyse the evidence and expressly address points raised by the defence; and whether an acquittal of some accused on the same evidence requires acquittal of co-accused. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Effect of non-compliance with Section 52-A and Standing Order No. 1/89 Legal framework: Section 52-A, NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1/89 prescribe procedures for sampling, sealing, storage and disposal of seized contraband to secure the evidentiary chain. Precedent treatment: The Court relied on and followed the recent approach in Bharat Aambale and Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif that Section 52-A read with Standing Order No. 1/89 serves a broader evidentiary purpose and non-compliance must be examined for its impact on prosecution case. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the statutory scheme and standing order aim to prevent tampering and to strengthen the evidentiary framework; therefore compliance is material. Mere minor or technical breaches will not always vitiate conviction, but substantive departures that affect the integrity of the seized material do. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - substantial compliance with Section 52-A and the standing order is required; where substantial compliance is absent and the possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out, conviction must be interdicted. (This follows and applies precedents cited.) Conclusion: Non-compliance with Section 52-A and Standing Order No. 1/89 can vitiate a conviction where the departure is not shown to be immaterial; here the departures were material. Issue 2 - Standard of compliance and burden of proof Legal framework: The statutory provisions do not demand ritualistic perfection but envisage procedures that secure the integrity of evidence; courts have recognised the doctrine of 'substantial compliance.' Precedent treatment: The Court adopted the approach in Bharat Aambale and Kashif that substantial compliance is the test, and where there is non-compliance the prosecution must demonstrate that the lapse did not affect its case. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasised that not every violation vitiates prosecution; the character of the duty breached and its effect on the case must be considered. The onus lies on the prosecution to satisfy the court that any non-compliance was immaterial to the integrity of evidence and did not occasion prejudice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - substantial compliance suffices, but prosecution must discharge the onus to show non-effect of non-compliance; failure to do so requires acquittal. Conclusion: Substantial compliance is required; here the prosecution failed to discharge the onus to show that non-compliance did not affect its case. Issue 3 - Handling, storage, sealing and delayed production: inference of tampering and reasonable doubt Legal framework: Preservation of seized contraband by proper sealing and prompt production in court are essential safeguards against substitution/tampering under the NDPS regime. Precedent treatment: Applied principles from earlier decisions recognising that unexplained or unjustified departures (including prolonged custody by investigating officer and delayed production) permit an inference of possible tampering. Interpretation and reasoning: The seized contraband remained in the investigating officer's office for fifteen days and was not properly sealed; the investigating officer admitted ignorance of the standing order. Given the gap between seizure and first production, and absence of justification for departure, the Court found the possibility of substitution or planting could not be ruled out. Such circumstances undermine the reliability of the prosecution's primary evidence. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - where seized contraband is not properly sealed, is kept in unsecured custody for a significant period, and no satisfactory justification is offered, the possibility of tampering generates reasonable doubt requiring acquittal. Conclusion: The factual lapses in sealing, storage and delayed production here raised a real possibility of tampering; substantial compliance was absent and the prosecution's evidence could not be treated as reliable. Issue 4 - Appellate duty to re-appreciate evidence and effect of selective acquittals Legal framework: A first appellate court is obliged to re-appreciate and re-analyse the evidence and to address pertinent points raised by the defence; appellate reasoning must not be cryptic or evasive. Precedent treatment: The Court reiterated established appellate obligations and treated the High Court's succinct disposal as inadequate where it failed to engage with critical defence points and the statutory compliance issues. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the contention that the High Court did not properly re-appreciate the evidence or explain why departures from statutory safeguards did not affect conviction. Although some co-accused were acquitted on the same evidence, the Court examined the totality and concluded that the admitted lapses warranted extending the benefit of doubt to all appellants. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - an appellate court must re-appreciate evidence and explicitly address issues of statutory non-compliance; failure to do so may require interference. On selective acquittals, where systemic lapses undermine the prosecution case, acquittal of some may be a compelling reason to reassess convictions of others. Conclusion: The High Court's treatment was inadequate; on full re-appreciation the convictions could not be sustained and the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellants. Final Disposition (Conclusive Legal Outcome) Because there was neither substantial compliance with Section 52-A and Standing Order No. 1/89 nor any satisfactory justification for the departures, and because the prosecution failed to discharge the onus of showing non-prejudice from such non-compliance, the convictions could not stand. The convictions and sentences were set aside and the accused were entitled to be released (subject to being wanted in other cases).