LexStreak
Read free →
Supreme Court of India· 16 September 2026

Does mere non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act by itself vitiate the trial or cause an automatic acquittal?

ABDUL RAJIK v. STATE OF M.P
2026 INSC 1001
Coram: Justice Sandeep Mehta · Justice Manmohan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narc…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Mere non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act does not by itself vitiate the trial or cause an automatic acquittal.

No. Mere non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act does not by itself vitiate the trial or cause an automatic acquittal; the determinative factor is whether such non-compliance has caused prejudice to the accused. However, total non-compliance — here, no effort was made to draw representative samples before a Magistrate — is a relevant factor in assessing whether the prosecution proved that the samples were kept safe and secure, that is the link evidence, from seizure till their deposit at the FSL. (¶31, 32, 33)

Headnote

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s.52-A — Chain of custody — Link evidence — ss.42, 50 — FSL report — NDPS Act, 1985 — Chain of custody — Link evidence — Held: The prosecution cannot rely on an FSL report where an unexplained gap breaks the chain of custody of the seized samples. Safe and secure custody from seizure till receipt at the FSL must be proved by proper link evidence. (¶29, 30, 34) NDPS Act, 1985 — s.52-A — Non-compliance — Held further: Mere non-compliance with Section 52-A does not by itself vitiate the trial, but total non-compliance is a relevant factor in assessing whether the link evidence was proved. (¶31, 32, 33) NDPS Act, 1985 — ss.42, 50 — Open public place — Held further: Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act do not apply where the accused is apprehended and searched in an open public place. (¶16) FSL report — Essential ingredient — Held further: Once the FSL report is excluded, the recovered substance cannot be proved to be a narcotic drug without other admissible evidence. Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and the accused-appellants acquitted. (¶35, 37, 38, 39)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 31We may note that this Court, in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif[^8] and in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh,[^9] has held that mere non-compliance of the procedure provided under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act or the Standing Orders/Rules made thereunder may not, by itself, vitiate the trial or result in an automatic acquittal. The determinative factor would be whether, and to what extent, such non-compliance has caused prejudice to the accused. Section 52-A of the NDPS Act was incorporated in the Act with the object of providing a statutory mechanism to eliminate the possibility of investigational taint in the procedure of drawing of samples and to ensure expeditious disposal of seized narcotic drugs. Under this provision, the Investigating Agency is obligated to present the seized contraband before the Executive Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate, who is required to cause the representative samples to be drawn in his presence and certify the correctness of the inventory so prepared, the photographs taken thereof and the list of samples so drawn. Upon such certification, the inventory, photographs and list of samples may be treated as primary evidence of the seized goods, thereby obviating the necessity of producing the muddamal before the trial Court.
Paragraph 32This Court has held that minor lapses or procedural delay in compliance with the said provision may not, by itself, result in an automatic acquittal. However, total non-compliance would definitely be a relevant factor to be taken into account while assessing the mandatory requirement of proving that the samples were kept in a safe and secure condition, i.e., the link evidence from the time of seizure till the time the samples came to be deposited in the FSL.
Paragraph 33Having gone through the evidence led by the prosecution, we find that no effort whatsoever was made by the Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7) to undertake the procedure provided under Section 52- A of the NDPS Act for drawing representative samples in presence of a Magistrate and thus, there is total non-compliance with the said provision.
Acts & Sections
Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 2(iii)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of ABDUL RAJIK v. STATE OF M.P — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Can the prosecution rely on an FSL report where an unexplained gap breaks the chain of custody of the seized samples?Do Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act apply where the accused is apprehended and searched in an open public place?Can the recovered substance be proved to be a narcotic drug without other admissible evidence once the FSL report is excluded?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections