Supreme Court Quashes NDPS Conviction Over Flawed Sampling and Failure to Comply With Section 52A; Acquits Accused

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta heard appeals by special leave against the Calcutta High Court’s decision refusing to entertain a delayed criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC and took up the matter on merits. The appeals challenged convictions under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and primarily contested the legality of search, seizure and sampling procedures adopted by investigating officers.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial and High Court judgments, and acquitted the accused. It held that rejection of the appeal by the High Court solely on the ground of delay was “too harsh and unjustified” given the appellant’s incarceration and financial disability, and proceeded to examine the merits. The Court found that the trial Court erred in aggregating the quantities recovered from two distinct persons and in drawing an inference of conspiracy from mere coincidence of their presence. The Court emphasised that “suspicion, however, cannot take place of proof.” Crucially, the Court concluded that the sampling and inventory process was fatally defective: “In view of the above discussion, this Court is compelled to hold that there has been a complete and unexplained failure to adhere to the requirements of Section 52A. Neither representative samples were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, nor was the inventory list prepared and certified, as required by law. These lapses strike at the very root of the prosecution case, rendering the integrity of the seizure and sampling process wholly doubtful.” On this basis the FSL report was held to have lost evidentiary value and the conviction could not be sustained.

Background The prosecution alleged that on 16 July 2018 two men were intercepted near Laxmi Store, Pragati Maidan, Kolkata, and sealed polythene packets containing suspected heroin (gross weight about 255 gms) were recovered from them. Samples were taken and forwarded to the FSL; both samples tested positive. The trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to 10 years RI and a fine. The appellant’s regular appeal to the Calcutta High Court was filed with a delay of 1,183 days and was dismissed as time-barred; the co-accused’s appeal had earlier been dismissed.

On appeal to this Court the accused contested (i) non-compliance with mandatory NDPS procedures for search, seizure and sampling; (ii) contradictions and improbabilities in the seizure evidence; (iii) failure to comply with Section 52A — no samples were drawn in presence of a Magistrate nor was an inventory certified; and (iv) illegal application of Section 29 and aggregation of quantities to constitute commercial quantity.

The Supreme Court reviewed the record and found multiple procedural infirmities: only one sample was taken from each seized packet (contrary to Standing Order No.1/1989), labels and exhibit packets did not bear the accused’s signatures when produced in court, no separate seizure list or weighment chart for samples was prepared, one of two independent witnesses was not examined, and no inventory or Magistrate-certified sampling under Section 52A was undertaken. The Court relied on precedents including Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot to hold that mere proximity or simultaneous apprehension cannot substitute for positive proof of conspiracy. Given the flawed chain of custody and sampling, the FSL report could not be relied upon; the convictions and sentences were quashed and the accused was ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. The appeals were allowed and pending applications disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 993 Case Title: Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Advocate not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [State of West Bengal — no appearance; State chose not to put in appearance]