Convictions in 600 kg ganja case set aside for non‑compliance with Section 52‑A and Standing Order; appellants ordered released

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan heard appeals arising from convictions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, challenging a High Court order that had partly modified sentence but largely affirmed trial convictions for possession and trafficking of approximately 600 kg of dry ganja. The appeals arose from judgments of the Sessions Court at Cyberabad and the Telangana High Court, and raised questions of compliance with Sections 42 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act and with Standing Order No.1/89 governing sampling, sealing and storage of seized contraband.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the conviction and sentences recorded by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the High Court, and directed the release of the appellants if they were not wanted in any other case. The Court held that the prosecution had not discharged the onus of proving substantial compliance with statutory safeguards relating to seizure, sealing, sampling and production. The Court noted that "what is required is a substantial compliance of the statutory provisions and the procedure laid down in such standing order" and expressed concern that the seized contraband remained in the custody of the investigating officer for fifteen days before being produced in court, creating a real possibility of tampering. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We have also found from the materials on record that 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, we are 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.” The Court further recorded the operative direction from its order that “They shall now be set free provided they are not wanted in any other case.”

Background

The dispute originated from a seizure dated 18 June 2010 of about 600 kg of dry ganja. The contraband was first produced before the trial court on 3 July 2010; in the intervening period the material remained in the custody of PW‑3, the investigating officer, stored in a separate room in his office. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to terms ranging up to 20 years rigorous imprisonment; the Sessions Judge recorded lapses in sealing, sampling and storage but nonetheless convicted. On appeal the Telangana High Court acquitted two accused and reduced the sentence of A‑1 from 20 to 10 years, while affirming convictions of others.

On special leave, counsel for the appellants challenged the convictions primarily on the ground of violation of Sections 42 and 52‑A of the NDPS Act and breach of Standing Order No.1/89 (notified 13 June 1989), relying on precedents including Noor Agha v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Mohanlal and Bharat Ambale v. State of Chhattisgarh. The State relied on this Court’s recent decision in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif to submit that only material departures nullifying the evidentiary value would vitiate conviction and that substantial compliance was sufficient.

The Supreme Court examined the timeline and evidence, observed that PW‑3 admitted ignorance of the standing order, and concluded that the contraband had not been properly sealed and was not produced before the trial court for fifteen days — circumstances that could not exclude the possibility of tampering. Applying the principle that Section 52‑A and Standing Order No.1/89 serve to strengthen the NDPS evidentiary framework, the Court held that substantial compliance was absent and that the prosecution failed to discharge the burden of proving that non‑compliance did not affect its case. In consequence, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, set aside the conviction and order on sentence, allowed the appeals and directed that the appellants be released if not wanted in any other case.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1474‑1476 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 14265‑14267 of 2024) Case Title: Surepally Srinivas & Ors. v. The State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Divyanshu Rai, AOR; Mr. K. Dayakar Reddy, Adv.; Mr. Vishal Sharma, Adv.; Mr. Taruna, Adv.; Ms. Bina Madhavan, Adv.; Mr. S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Adv.; Mr. Tushar Singh, Adv.; Mr. S. Tridev Sagar, Adv. For the Respondent(s): Mr. Kumar Vaibhaw, Adv.; Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR; Mr. S. Uday Bhanu, Adv.; Mr. Dhananjay Yadav, Adv.; Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv.