Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court recently emphasised that to avoid suspicious circumstances and to ensure a fair procedure with respect to search and seizure, it is always desirable to follow the standing order, which provides suitable guidance for officers investigating crimes under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). Should there be any departure, it must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds, court said. 

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan acquitted three men in a case related to carrying 600 kg of dry ganja, after finding that the contraband seized by the investigating officer was kept in a separate room in his office for 15 days, giving rise to an allegation that the material was substituted and some other items were planted to falsely implicate the accused.

The court noted that from the evidence on record, it could be seen—and it was clear—that the seized contraband was not properly sealed.

Coupled with this was the fact that the seized contraband was not produced before the trial court prior to July 3, 2010. “It is difficult to accept the prosecution case that though there may not have been strict compliance of Standing Order No 1/89, the seized contraband was not tampered at all,” the bench said.

The appellants contended that the conviction recorded by the sessions judge, and subsequently affirmed by the high court, was indefensible having regard to patent violations of the provisions of Sections 42 and 52A of the NDPS Act. They further claimed that Standing Order No. 1/89, issued by the Central Government as notified via notification on June 13, 1989, was also clearly breached.

They also said that the sessions judge returned clear findings of lapses committed by the investigating officer in the seizing and sealing of the alleged contraband (600 kg of dry ganja) as well as in its storage prior to the samples being produced in court. Yet, the judge proceeded to convict them on the ground that the prosecution's evidence was more trustworthy, without realising that the lack of substantial compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order No. 1/1989 would render the prosecution's case suspect and unsubstantiated.

They also argued that the high court owed a duty to reappreciate and reanalyse the evidence on record, coupled with an ascertainment of whether the procedural safeguards provided by the NDPS Act were followed in letter and spirit; however, the high court failed in this duty by abruptly concluding that the conviction was correctly recorded. The appellants further submitted that since two of the accused were acquitted, there was no justifiable reason not to acquit the other appellants.

The state counsel argued that even if there were violations of Sections 42 and 52A of the NDPS Act, they were not significant enough to vitiate the conviction recorded by the Sessions Judge. He relied upon Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2009) to contend that not every violation has the effect of vitiating the prosecution’s case and that such an alleged violation must be viewed from the perspective of the nature of the duty imposed on the investigating officer by the relevant statutory provision and its effect on the conviction.

Finding force in the submissions of the appellants, the court noted that the incident occurred on June 8, 2010. The contraband was produced in court for the first time on July 3, 2010. In the interim, the contraband remained in the custody of the investigating officer, stored in a separate room in his office. Standing Order No. 1/89 laid down the procedure for sampling, storage, and disposal of seized contraband. It was not in dispute that the officer admitted his ignorance about the existence of any such standing order.

“We do not propose to hold that a conviction should be interdicted for any minor breach of Standing Order No 1/89. What is required is a substantial compliance of the statutory provisions and the procedure laid down in such standing order,” the bench said.

Referring to Bharat Ambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), the bench pointed out that the top court held that the purport of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, read with Standing Order No 1/89, extends beyond the mere disposal and destruction of seized contraband and serves a broader purpose of strengthening the evidentiary framework under the NDPS Act.

“This decision stresses upon the fact that what is to be seen is whether there has been substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52-A and if not, the prosecution must satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused,” the court said.

Going by the facts of the matter, the bench said, “We are, satisfied, on appreciation of the evidence on record, that the possibility of tampering during this 15-day period cannot be totally ruled out and that not only has there been no substantial compliance of the standing order, the departure has also not been justified.”

The court found from the materials on record that there was clear non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

"Either possibly due to lack of experience of the investigating officer or his lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, there were lapses which were duly noted by the Sessions Judge. Thus, we are unable to hold that there was primary and reliable evidence before the trial court in respect of the offence committed. The onus of proving that compliance with Section 52-A did not affect the case of the prosecution has not been duly discharged by the prosecution," the bench said.

The court thus extended the benefit of doubt to the appellants, allowed the appeal, and set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, which had been affirmed by the high court. The bench directed that the appellants be set free if not wanted in any other case.

Case Title: Surepally Srinivas Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh (Now State of Telangana)