A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The judgment in Rizwan Khan v. State of Chhattisgarh examines critical procedural and evidentiary dimensions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, particularly concerning recovery, proof of possession, and reliance on police testimony in the absence of independent witnesses. The appellant challenged his conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act on multiple grounds including alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 55, discrepancies in sample marking, non-examination of independent witnesses, and failure to establish ownership and recovery of the vehicle from which contraband was seized. The Supreme Court undertook a re-appreciation of evidence and reaffirmed settled principles governing NDPS prosecutions. The Court held that testimony of police officials, if reliable and trustworthy, does not require corroboration from independent witnesses. It further clarified that ownership or subsequent recovery of the vehicle is immaterial once possession and recovery of contraband from the accused is proved. The decision also reflects the post-Mukesh Singh legal position regarding complainant and investigating officer identity. Emphasis was placed on substantial compliance rather than hyper-technical scrutiny. The judgment reinforces prosecutorial standards while balancing statutory safeguards under the NDPS regime.

Keywords: NDPS Act, police witnesses, hostile witnesses, vehicle ownership, procedural compliance

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The case arises from a prosecution under the NDPS Act involving recovery of 20 kilograms of ganja from the appellant during a vehicle search. The appellant was convicted by the Special NDPS Court, and the conviction was affirmed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh. The appeal before the Supreme Court questioned the sustainability of conviction in light of alleged procedural lapses and evidentiary inconsistencies. The NDPS Act being a stringent penal statute, judicial scrutiny often involves a delicate balance between strict procedural compliance and the overarching objective of curbing drug trafficking.

The appellant invoked alleged non-compliance with Section 42 regarding recording of information, Section 55 relating to custody of seized articles, and Section 50 concerning search safeguards. Additional emphasis was placed on hostile independent witnesses, discrepancies in vehicle number, and clerical errors in sample markings. The Supreme Court addressed these contentions against the backdrop of settled jurisprudence, including the evolution of law post Mohan Lal and its overruling in Mukesh Singh. The judgment situates itself within a consistent judicial approach that discourages acquittals based on trivial or non-prejudicial lapses while ensuring adherence to statutory protections.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The prosecution case was that the appellant along with another accused was intercepted while travelling on a motorcycle. Upon search, 20 kg of ganja was recovered from a sack placed on the vehicle. Prior to search, the accused were informed of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and consent was obtained. A seizure panchnama was prepared, samples were drawn, sealed, and marked as B1 and B2. The substance was preliminarily tested and later confirmed as ganja by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Information was initially recorded by PW4 ASI J.K. Sen, who also lodged the FIR. Subsequent investigation was conducted by PW5 Inspector Ashish Shukla.

Independent witnesses to the seizure later turned hostile during trial. The Special Court convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and imposed five years rigorous imprisonment. The High Court dismissed the appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant alleged discrepancies in vehicle numbers, improper custody of seal and samples, failure to examine material witnesses, and non-recovery of the vehicle. The appellant also sought sentence reduction citing period already undergone.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act can be sustained solely on police testimony?
ii. Whether non-examination or hostility of independent witnesses vitiates the prosecution case?
iii. Whether alleged non-compliance with Sections 42 and 55 NDPS Act renders the trial illegal?
iv. Whether failure to prove ownership or recovery of the vehicle affects culpability?
v. Whether clerical discrepancies in sample marking create reasonable doubt?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that mandatory safeguards under the NDPS Act were violated. It was argued that Section 42 was not complied with as information was not properly reduced into writing. Reliance was placed on discrepancies in vehicle numbers and inconsistencies in sample markings to contend that chain of custody was compromised. The appellant emphasized that all independent witnesses had turned hostile and that conviction based solely on police witnesses was unsafe. It was further argued that non-recovery of the motorcycle and failure to establish ownership undermined the prosecution story. The appellant also invoked Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab to contend that the complainant and investigating officer being the same vitiated the trial. Alternatively, a plea for reduction of sentence was raised.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the State submitted that substantial compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 55 was proved through consistent testimony of official witnesses. It was contended that hostility of independent witnesses does not erode the credibility of otherwise reliable police evidence. The State relied on Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab to assert that non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal. It was argued that discrepancies in sample numbering were clerical and did not prejudice the defence. The State further contended that ownership or recovery of vehicle is irrelevant once possession and recovery of contraband from the accused is established. The State also pointed out that Mohan Lal stood overruled by Mukesh Singh.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction. The Court held that police witnesses PW3, PW4, PW5, PW7 and PW8 were consistent, reliable, and thoroughly cross-examined. Absence of animosity or motive for false implication was noted. The Court reiterated that there is no legal requirement that police testimony must be corroborated by independent witnesses. On Section 42, the Court accepted the prosecution evidence demonstrating that information was duly recorded and communicated. Compliance with Section 55 was established through testimony relating to sealing and dispatch of samples. The Court rejected the argument regarding sample discrepancy, holding it to be a clerical error without substantive impact. The Court clarified that under the NDPS Act, ownership of vehicle is immaterial, and recovery of contraband from the accused is the determinative factor. The plea for leniency in sentencing was also rejected considering the statutory framework.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the judgment lies in reaffirming that credible police testimony is sufficient to sustain conviction under the NDPS Act even in the absence of independent witnesses. The Court held that procedural safeguards must be substantially complied with and not interpreted in a hyper-technical manner. The ruling clarifies that ownership or subsequent recovery of the vehicle used for transporting contraband is irrelevant if possession and recovery are proved. The Court also recognized the post-Mukesh Singh legal position that investigation by the complainant does not per se vitiate the trial.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that NDPS offences must be viewed in light of the object of the statute, which seeks to combat drug trafficking. It emphasized that courts should avoid adopting an approach that allows offenders to escape liability on minor technical lapses that do not cause prejudice. The Court also reiterated the presumption of regularity attached to official acts.

c) GUIDELINES

i. Police testimony cannot be discarded solely due to absence of independent corroboration.
ii. Clerical discrepancies in documentation must be assessed for actual prejudice.
iii. Ownership of vehicle is not a sine qua non for proving NDPS offences.
iv. Substantial compliance with procedural safeguards is sufficient.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces doctrinal clarity in NDPS jurisprudence by aligning evidentiary standards with practical enforcement realities. It strengthens prosecutorial reliance on official testimony while safeguarding against arbitrary action through insistence on procedural compliance. The decision discourages acquittals grounded in technical trivialities and upholds legislative intent. It also harmonizes earlier conflicting precedents by adopting the Mukesh Singh position. The ruling has significant precedential value in NDPS trials involving hostile witnesses and disputed vehicle ownership.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, [2018] 9 SCR 1006
2. P.P. Fathima v. State of Kerala, (2003) 8 SCC 726
3. Baldev Singh v. State of Haryana, [2015] 12 SCR 969
4. State of Himachal Pradesh v. Pradeep Kumar, [2018] 2 SCR 656
5. Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563
6. Mukesh Singh v. State (Narcotic Branch), SLP (Cr.) Diary No. 39528/2018

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973