Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

While observing that the standing orders of the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) have to “serve a certain purpose” and cannot be “rendered optional for compliance to the investigating agencies”, the Delhi High Court suspended the 10-year sentence of a 38-year-old Zimbabwean woman named Betty Rame, who had already undergone over four years in custody in a narcotics recovery case.

The single-judge bench of Justice Anish Dayal in its May 30 order noted that there had been alleged “non-compliance” of standing orders of the Narcotics Control Bureau on the “manner of sampling of narcotics”.

Justice Dayal said, “The procedures prescribed in the said orders are based upon a certain logic which ought to be respected, or else it would be a worthless piece of paper…..Therefore, in this court’s view, the standing orders ought to be respected by the investigating agencies and non-compliance of those standing orders may naturally invoke a reasonable doubt relating to the process of sampling which is the most critical procedure to be carried out in order to ascertain the nature of the substance and its quantity”.

High Court added that in fact the Field Officers Handbook issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau for Drug Law Enforcement also reiterates these procedures prescribed under the Standing Orders.

The single-judge bench said that the issue of improper sampling would have to be considered carefully at the time of adjudication of the appeal since prima facie it seems from the record that the results of two samples drawn were not completely placed on record. It also noted that there was evidently a mix of both the packets which were seized, separate sampling as per the Standing Order was not done.

“However, these and other contentions would have to be considered at the stage of appeal, although provide sufficient ground for the appellant to be released on suspension of sentence having undergone more than half of sentence”, the court said.

Besides the fact that the appellant may have a case to argue on the issue of defective sampling at the time of seizure, the appellant has also undergone a substantial period of sentence and the appeal is likely to take some time for hearing, court noted.

"Taking note of a Supreme Court decision in two cases, wherein it stated that in cases other than life sentence cases the broad parameter of 50 per cent of the actual sentence undergone can be the basis for grant of bail, this Court deems it fit to suspend the sentence of the appellant. It is therefore directed that the sentence of the appellant be suspended pending the hearing of the appeal, on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- with one surety bond of the like amount, subject to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/ CMM/ Duty Magistrate”, the court accordingly ordered.

An NCB team had detained the appellant Betty Rame at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in April 2018 and two polyethene were recovered in each cavity containing the crystalline substance. Upon testing the materials in both polyethenes tested positive for Methamphetamine.

Rame sought regular suspension of the sentence of the judgment dated August 25, 2021 and order on sentence dated August 28, 2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court.

She was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs 1 lakh for the offence punishable under sections 22 (c) (which provides for punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances, where the contravention involves commercial quantity) and 23 (c) (which provides for punishment for illegal import to India, export from India or transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, where the contravention involves commercial quantity) NDPS Act. Rame had undergone 4 years, 11 months and 18 days in custody.

Rame’s counsel argued that he contraband was admittedly seized from two separate bags but the contents of the two bags were mixed and then samples were collected, which was not in terms of the standing orders.

The court opined that the Standing Orders ought to be respected by the investigating agencies and non-compliance of those Standing Orders may naturally “invoke a reasonable doubt” relating to the process of sampling which is the most critical procedure to be carried out in order to ascertain the nature of the substance and its quantity.

“The lack of compliance of these provisions necessarily imports an element of “doubt”, moreover a “reasonable doubt”. This therefore will segway into the issue of proving guilt, considering that the guilt of any accused has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It would therefore not be enough to contend, as is done by the prosecution that issues of noncompliance were to be considered at the time of trial and that what prejudice is caused to the accused, had to be shown by the accused…. a fortiori at the stage of granting bail, it would be even more important to consider this possibility, even if it is just a possibility”, the court held.

Accordingly, the application was disposed of.

Case Title: Ms. Betty Rame v. Narcotics Control Bureau