Does mere non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act by itself vitiate the trial or cause an automatic acquittal?
Coram: Justice Sandeep Mehta · Justice Manmohan
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)
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 accountOne 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 accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India