A) Abstract / Headnote

This case examines the legality of the conviction of the appellants under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The trial court and the High Court affirmed the conviction, finding the appellants guilty of trafficking contraband. However, the Supreme Court scrutinized procedural violations, evidentiary inconsistencies, and failures in the chain of custody, leading to the reversal of the conviction. The prosecution’s failure to comply with Sections 43 and 52A of the NDPS Act, inadequate documentation of the seized samples, and lack of credible evidence played pivotal roles in the acquittal.

Keywords: Recovery of narcotics, confession-cum-seizure panchnama, NDPS procedural violations, chain of custody, evidentiary inconsistency.

B) Case Details

• Judgment Cause Title: Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana
• Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023
• Judgment Date: March 1, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta
• Author: Justice Sandeep Mehta
• Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 23 : 2024 INSC 158
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: Sections 8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c), 43, and 52A.
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 25.
• Judgments Overruled: None
• Related Legal Subjects: Criminal Law, Narcotic Drugs Law

C) Introduction and Background of the Judgment

This appeal arises from the judgment of the High Court of Telangana, which upheld the appellants’ conviction under the NDPS Act. The prosecution’s case was based on the seizure of 80 kilograms of ganja from the appellants. Despite significant procedural lapses in search, seizure, and sampling, both lower courts convicted the appellants. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence for compliance with statutory provisions and admissibility, focusing on procedural integrity and evidentiary gaps.

D) Facts of the Case

1. On May 8, 2009, the Inspector of Police (PW-1) intercepted a vehicle based on credible information. Two individuals, identified as A-1 and A-2, were apprehended with alleged possession of 80 kilograms of ganja.
2. A confession-cum-seizure panchnama (Exhibit P-3) recorded by PW-1 documented the seizure. However, the contraband was allegedly mixed with green chilies.
3. Samples of 50 grams each were collected from the bundles, and the contraband was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) after significant delays.
4. Accused A-3 and A-4 were arrested later based on the interrogation notes of A-1 and A-2. The prosecution alleged that A-3 and A-4 were involved in the conspiracy.
5. The trial court convicted all four accused based on the evidence presented, despite objections to procedural lapses.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Was the search and seizure conducted in compliance with Sections 43 and 52A of the NDPS Act?
2. Was the chain of custody of the seized contraband and samples maintained?
3. Were the convictions of A-3 and A-4 sustainable based solely on the interrogation of A-1 and A-2?
4. Were procedural lapses in handling evidence fatal to the prosecution’s case?

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. Non-compliance with statutory provisions:

   • The independent witnesses were not examined during the trial.
   • Section 52A procedures for inventory preparation were not followed.
   • The contraband seized was not adequately segregated from the green chilies.

2. Evidentiary lapses:

   • Discrepancies in the chain of custody of the samples, including unaccounted repackaging of seized contraband.
   • Lack of documentation to prove the safekeeping of samples in the malkhana.
   • Delayed transmission of samples to the FSL, undermining the reliability of the FSL report.

3. Admissibility of evidence:

   • Confessions to police officers are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
   • A-3 and A-4 were convicted without any direct evidence of possession or involvement.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The prosecution argued that procedural lapses were minor and did not undermine the credibility of the evidence.
2. The findings of the trial court and the High Court were based on concurrent evidence, and the Supreme Court should not interfere.
3. The chain of custody was sufficiently maintained, and the conviction was based on admissible evidence.

H) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. Violation of Statutory Procedures:

   • The prosecution failed to comply with Sections 43 and 52A of the NDPS Act. No inventory was prepared, and there was no magistrate oversight during sampling.
   • The seizure memo did not segregate ganja from other contents (green chilies).

2. Chain of Custody Gaps:

   • Discrepancies in handling and transmission of samples were critical. The absence of seals, unexplained delays, and conflicting testimonies rendered the chain of custody unreliable.

3. Illegality of Conviction for A-3 and A-4:

   • The case against A-3 and A-4 relied solely on the inadmissible confessions of co-accused, violating Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

4. Procedural Integrity is Paramount:

   • Procedural violations in NDPS cases undermine the prosecution’s case, given the stringent evidentiary standards under the Act.

b. Obiter Dicta

• Investigating agencies must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act to ensure convictions are not overturned on technical grounds.

c. Guidelines

• Ensure compliance with Sections 43 and 52A in all narcotics cases.
• Maintain an unbroken chain of custody for seized contraband.
• Avoid reliance on inadmissible evidence, such as confessions to police officers.

I) Conclusion & Comments

The Supreme Court overturned the conviction due to pervasive procedural lapses and evidentiary inconsistencies. The judgment underscores the critical importance of adherence to statutory safeguards in NDPS cases, reaffirming that procedural integrity is essential for upholding convictions.

J) References

1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627
4. Baldev Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 6 SCC 172
5. Supreme Court Judgment: Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana, [2024] 3 S.C.R. 23