Procedural Deviations Under NDPS Act Not Fatal If Custody Proved: Chhattisgarh HC

Substantive justice overrides procedural technicalities in drug trafficking prosecutions, making procedural deviations non-fatal if the chain of custody is indisputably established. The High Court has underscored that mere procedural lapses under statutory provisions cannot automatically entitle accused persons to acquittals when cogent evidence establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas dismissed a criminal appeal challenging conviction for possession of intermediate quantities of contraband, affirming four-year rigorous imprisonment sentences. The Court rejected arguments regarding minor discrepancies in sample seals and non-production of bulk contraband, reiterating that strict interpretations are mandatory to curb drug trafficking.

Court's Analysis on Chain of Custody and Procedural Lapses

The Court observed that seized articles and samples sent for forensic evaluation were duly correlated without any break in custody. Addressing procedural arguments raised under NDPS Act 1985 and earlier precedents like Bharat Aambale Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ( "(2025) 8 SCC 452": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 16) and Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ( "(2020) 9 SCC 627": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1289), the Court evaluated the totality of evidence presented by the prosecution.

The Court has following directions:

"The appellants are directed to surrender before the concerned trial Court on 8th October, 2026 for serving out the remaining part of sentence as awarded to them by the trial Court. The appellants are entitled to set off as under Section 428 (2) of the Cr.P.C. or Section 468 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023."

"It is made clear that if the appellants fail to surrender before the concerned trial Court on the aforesaid date, the trial Court shall take necessary steps against them and compliance report thereof be sent to this Court forthwith."

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non-compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking."

Refusing to reduce the sentence despite the appellants having undergone 2 years and 4 months in incarceration, the Court relied on Rizwan Khan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh ( "(2020) 9 SCC 627": 2020 CaseBase(SC) 1289), noting that drug abuse is a crime against society that must be dealt with an iron rod.

Background

On April 5, 2018, police personnel and RPF staff intercepted three individuals carrying backpacks near Jay Ambey Dharamkanta, Mahasamund. Inspection revealed brown adhesive tape-wrapped packets containing 15 kg, 10 kg, and 15 kg of ganja (total 40 kg) from their respective possession. Samples were drawn on the spot, sealed, and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur, which confirmed the contraband to be ganja.

Following investigation under Crime No. 154/2018, the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund convicted the appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act 1985 vide judgment dated November 20, 2019, sentencing them to four years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each.

In appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., the appellants argued that independent witnesses turned hostile, seals on FSL samples differed from Malkhana entries, procedures under Section 52A of NDPS Act 1985 were violated, exit entries were missing, and bulk contraband was not produced in court, citing precedents such as Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa ( "(2005) 9 SCC 773": 2004 CaseBase(SC) 1485), Surepally Srinivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Nadeem Ahamed vs. State of West Bengal ( "(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1779": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 465), Tarun Nayak vs. State of Chhattisgarh ( "2026:CGHC:476": 2024 CaseBase(CTH) 2999), Yusuf @ Asif vs. State ( "(2023) INSC 912": 2023 CaseBase(SC) 921), Mohammad Khalid Vs. State of Telangana ( "AIR 2024 SC 134": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 379), Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ( "AIR 2018 SC 3798": 2018 CaseBase(PNH) 37), and Ritesh Chakarvarti vs. State of M.P. ( "(2006) 12 SCC 321": 2006 CaseBase(SC) 782). Conversely, the State argued that minor procedural deviations do not vitiate trial absent prejudice.

The High Court found no perversity or illegality in the trial court's order, held that Surepally Srinivas vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, Nadeem Ahamed vs. State of West Bengal ( "(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1779": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 465), and Mohinder Singh vs. State of Punjab ( "AIR 2018 SC 3798": 2018 CaseBase(PNH) 37) were distinguishable on facts, affirmed the conviction and sentence, and dismissed the appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRA No. 1788 of 2019
Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:37811
Case Title: Bhagwan Nayak & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suresh Tandon, Panel Lawyer

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CTH) 13472