Supreme Court Upholds Conviction For Possession Of Commercial Quantity Of Ganja Despite Procedural Irregularities

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi heard Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 arising out of an SLP (Crl.) and a challenge to the Madras High Court judgment that affirmed convictions under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The appeal questioned the legality of the seizure of 23.500 kg of ganja and attacked the sampling process, absence of independent witnesses, alleged defects in sample markings and discrepancies in sample weight.

The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution proved conscious possession of a commercial quantity beyond reasonable doubt, rejected the contention that sampling at the spot or absence of independent witnesses vitiated the case, and ruled that the court had no power to reduce statutory minimum sentences. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Therefore, upon careful evaluation, the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in conscious possession of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity. The minor procedural irregularities pointed out do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The chain of custody remains intact and sampling and sealing have been sufficiently established.” The judgment also noted that “non-examination of independent witnesses cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution version so long as the witnesses, who have been examined have deposed in unison,” and emphasised that “the Court has no discretion to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.”

Background On 21 September 2019, police received secret information that ganja was being transported on a two‑wheeler. Sub‑Inspector PW‑1, accompanied by two constables (PWs 2 and 3) and after informing the occupants of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, intercepted the vehicle carrying the appellant (A‑2) and her husband (A‑1). Police seized 23.500 kg of ganja and cash of ₹21,140. Two representative samples of about 50 grams each were drawn at the spot, labelled ‘S‑1’ and ‘S‑2’, sealed and later produced before the Magistrate; one sample was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory which detected cannabinoids.

The trial court convicted A‑1 and A‑2 on 1 February 2021 and sentenced each to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000 for each count; the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal on 27 June 2024. Before the Supreme Court the appellant urged multiple infirmities: (i) absence of independent witnesses to the mahazar though seizure occurred in a residential locality; (ii) representative samples were drawn at the spot in purported non‑compliance with Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act and without Magistrate certification; (iii) loss of markings on sample packets and discrepancies in weight; and (iv) breach of statutory formalities under Sections 52‑A(2) and 52‑A(4). In mitigation the appellant cited youth, first conviction status and sole care of a minor child, asking for remission or sentence reduction.

The State maintained that the official witnesses’ testimony was consistent and that the chain of custody and integrity of the samples remained unimpeached. The Court applied established principles from this Court’s precedents including Surinder Kumar and Jarnail Singh on evaluation of official witnesses, and relied on Bharat Aambale to hold that mere non‑compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52‑A was not fatal unless it caused discrepancies affecting integrity of the seized substance. The Court distinguished Simranjit Singh and Yusuf @ Asif, noting those cases involved broken seals and unexplained substitution. Minor variation in sample weight was explained by drying and loss of moisture, consistent with Noor Aga and other authorities. Concluding that the prosecution had established conscious possession of a commercial quantity beyond reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld conviction and sentence, and granted liberty to seek statutory remission from the appropriate authority.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 52102 of 2024) Case Title: JOTHI @ NAGAJOTHI v. THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): [Counsel not indicated in the judgment]