Appellants Acquitted as Court Finds Non-Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of NDPS Act
In a significant ruling, the Gauhati High Court has set aside the conviction and sentencing of two appellants, Hobiqul Islam and Nijut Bormoholia, under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The court found that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellants due to non-compliance with mandatory procedural requirements as stipulated in the Act.
The appellants had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fined Rs. 1,00,000 each by the Special Judge, Udalguri, under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, for allegedly transporting and possessing cannabis. However, the High Court, presided over by Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita, found several procedural lapses that rendered the conviction unsustainable.
The case originated from an incident on February 15, 2020, when police intercepted a vehicle allegedly transporting 30 kg of cannabis. Following this, an additional 75 kg was reportedly recovered from a residence in Rowta. The appellants were subsequently charged and convicted by the trial court.
However, upon appeal, the High Court observed that the investigating agency failed to adhere to crucial procedural requirements, notably under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The court noted the absence of an inventory of the seized contraband, failure to draw samples in the presence of a Magistrate, and unreliable evidence from seizure witnesses, all of which are mandatory for sustaining a conviction under the Act.
The court emphasized that strict adherence to procedural safeguards is necessary to uphold the integrity of the legal process, especially given the severe penalties prescribed under the NDPS Act. The judgment highlighted the failure of the prosecution to produce the seized contraband in court or to maintain a proper chain of custody for the samples sent for forensic examination.
The witnesses’ testimonies were also found lacking, as none could reliably confirm the seizure of contraband in their presence. This lack of corroborative evidence further weakened the prosecution's case.
Given these lapses, the High Court concluded that the trial court had convicted the appellants based on conjectures rather than concrete evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted Hobiqul Islam and Nijut Bormoholia of all charges and ordered their immediate release, provided they were not wanted in any other case.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring that procedural justice is upheld, particularly in cases involving stringent laws like the NDPS Act, where the consequences of conviction are severe.
Bottom Line :
Non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985, including failure to prepare an inventory and draw samples in the presence of a Magistrate, as well as unreliable evidence from seizure witnesses, renders conviction and sentencing under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 unsustainable.
Statutory provision(s): Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985, Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985, Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Hobiqul Islam v. State of Assam, (Gauhati) : Law Finder Doc id # 2967208
