Court Criticizes DRI for Non-compliance with Mandatory Provisions in Ganja Seizure Case
In a landmark judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted all appellants in a high-profile narcotic drugs case, emphasizing procedural lapses and non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. The case, involving the alleged transportation of over 800 kilograms of ganja, was marred by serious deficiencies in the investigation process, leading to the appellants being granted the benefit of doubt.
The appeals, filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, challenged the convictions and sentences handed down by the Special Judge (NDPS Act) in Raipur. The appellants, including Dorilal and others, were initially convicted for their alleged roles in transporting the contraband from Andhra Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh.
The High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, found that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) failed to adhere to statutory safeguards during the search, seizure, sampling, and chain of custody. Key procedural violations included the absence of proceedings at the interception site, non-preparation of panchnama, and shifting the truck 150 kilometers to the DRI office before conducting the search.
Moreover, the court noted that confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were inadmissible as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The prosecution's reliance on electronic evidence also faltered due to the lack of necessary certifications under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering such evidence inadmissible.
The judgment highlighted the failure to examine the Executive Magistrate to prove inventory proceedings under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, further undermining the prosecution's case. The cumulative deficiencies in search, seizure, sampling, and investigation entitled the accused to the benefit of doubt, leading to their acquittal.
Expressing strong dissatisfaction with the investigation's conduct, the court directed the Director General of DRI to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the lapses, fix accountability, and ensure future compliance with NDPS Act provisions. The acquitted appellants have been ordered to furnish a personal bond, effective for six months, pending any further legal proceedings.
Bottom line:-
NDPS Act - Conviction under Sections 8-C, 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27-A, and 29 of NDPS Act set aside due to procedural lapses and non-compliance with mandatory provisions, including Sections 42, 50, and 52-A, violating statutory safeguards and creating grave doubt about prosecution's case.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 8-C, 20(b)(ii)(C), 25, 27-A, 29, 42, 50, 52-A, 57 of NDPS Act, Section 415(2), 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, Section 313, 294 of CRPC
