Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that an accused cannot rely upon Section 52A of the NDPS Act to claim that the trial was vitiated in view of non compliance of the provision, holding that he has to discharge the initial burden by laying foundational facts for it.

"We are of the view that Section 52A talks about the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Even for the purpose of invoking Section 52A, a foundation has to be laid by putting appropriate relevant questions in that regard to the investigating officer," a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said.

The case before the court arose from the judgment and order of May 15, 2018, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, which dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant, Rajwant Singh, against the judgment of the Special Court, Kurukshetra of 2004 holding him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with a fine of Rs one lakh.

On April 23, 2002, the appellant along with co-accused Dara Singh were found travelling in a Contessa car with bags containing poppy straw. Co-accused was acquitted by the high court.

The appellant's counsel submitted that the conviction could be said to have stood vitiated because of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. In support of her submission, she relied upon the decision of the top court in the case of Mohammed Khalid and Another Vs State of Telangana (2024).

Going through the arguments and materials, the bench said, out of the blue, the appellant cannot contend that Section 52A was not complied with.

"We have looked into the evidence of PW-7 – Mahavir Singh, ASI, who had at the relevant point of time attached to the Kurukshetra Police Station. We have looked into the entire cross-examination of PW-7 and we do not find any question put by the defence counsel to PW-7 as regards Section 52A of the NDPS Act," the bench said.

The bench also pointed out that the apex court in its recent decision in Bharat Aambale Vs State of Chhattisgarh (2025) summarised the position of law as regards the scope of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the consequences of any non-compliance of the same.

"From the exposition of law, it is clear that the initial burden lies on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A on a preponderance of probabilities, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution," the court said.

In the present case, the court said, no question whatsoever was put by the defence counsel to PW-7 as regards Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

"Moreover, apart from a mere bald assertion that there has been a contravention of the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, nothing cogent has been pointed out to us by the appellant herein that would show that there had been a violation of the requirements of Section 52A of the NDPS Act," the bench said.

The bench also said the reliance of the appellant on the decision of the apex court in Mohammed Khalid to assail the order of conviction was completely misplaced.

In the said case, the court had set-aside the conviction of the accused therein not solely on the ground of noncompliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, but on the strength of the other glaring loopholes in the prosecution’s case that made it doubtful as to whether the samples drawn remained untampered or in safe custody from the time of seizure till it reached the FSL. In the said case, the court found that the FSL report did not disclose about the seals on the sample and although it was stated that two samples were sent to FSL, yet in fact a total of three samples had actually reached the lab, the bench pointed out.

In the present case, the court noted, the high court in its impugned judgment and order of conviction had clearly observed that after drawing the samples from the seized substance, they were put into separate parcels and were sealed bearing the initials of PW-7.

Unlike Mohammed Khalid case, the bench said, there was nothing on record that would even remotely indicate that the samples that were drawn were not sealed or that the chain of custody of the said samples to the FSL was in any way compromised.

"In such circumstances, we do not find any error much less any error of law in the impugned judgment of the High Court. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed," the bench said.

The court directed the appellant to surrender within a period of four weeks to serve the remaining period of sentence as he was granted bail after having served four years of jail term.

Case Title: Rajwant Singh Vs The State of Haryana