Supreme Court Overturns 10-Year Drug Conviction Due to Procedural Flaws

Last Updated on October 16, 2023 by News Desk

Introduction:

In a significant decision, the Supreme Court on October 13, 2023, set aside a High Court order that had sentenced a man to 10 years in prison for possessing a substantial quantity of heroin. The Apex Court made this decision based on the grounds that the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) authorities failed to follow the mandatory procedures outlined in Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. These procedures require that contraband must be seized in the presence of a Magistrate, and the inventory of the seized items must be certified by the Magistrate. The absence of this critical documentation meant that the seized contraband couldn’t be considered as valid primary evidence in the trial.

Issues:

The case revolved around the conviction of the appellant and three others for the possession of 20 kilograms of heroin. The Trial Court had initially convicted them, a decision later upheld by the High Court. However, the appellant argued that the seizure and sampling procedures violated Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which provides clear guidelines for the proper handling of seized materials and the certification process by a Magistrate.

Reasoning:

The Supreme Court emphasized that there was no dispute regarding the fact that the samples were drawn by the police in the presence of a gazetted officer rather than a Magistrate. The Court clarified that merely having a gazetted officer present was insufficient to comply with the specific requirements of Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act. The absence of evidence that the samples were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate and that the Magistrate had certified the list of samples drawn invalidated the primary evidence in the trial.

Arguments:

The appellant’s counsel, Senior Advocate Narendra Hood, contended that the failure to present primary evidence, as required by the law, should lead to the conviction’s annulment. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the State, countered this argument.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the appellant, citing the failure of the authorities to provide primary evidence as a critical flaw that invalidated the conviction. The decision highlighted the importance of following the prescribed procedures for handling seized contraband, particularly in drug-related cases, to ensure the fairness of the legal process.

This verdict sets a crucial precedent, underscoring the significance of strict adherence to legal procedures in drug-related cases, ultimately safeguarding the rights of individuals accused of drug offenses.

Written by — Athi Venkatesh