Supreme Court quashes conviction in NDPS case due to flawed procedure: Mohammed Khalid vs State of Telangana (2024) INSC 158 (01 March 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 01 March 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 158

Judges: B.R. Gavai, J., Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can a conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 be sustained if there are glaring procedural lapses in the seizure and handling of the contraband? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a recent case, highlighting the importance of adhering to established protocols in drug-related cases. The Court overturned the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the prosecution’s failure to establish a clear chain of custody for the seized narcotics and the lack of adherence to mandatory procedures. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, with Justice Sandeep Mehta authoring the opinion.

Case Background

On 8th May 2009, the Inspector of Police (PW-1), West Zone Task Force, received information about the transportation of ganja from Sangareddy to Hyderabad. Acting on this information, PW-1, along with two panchas (witnesses), intercepted a Toyota Qualis vehicle near Galaxy Theatre at 15:00 hours. The vehicle contained A-1 (Md. Ishaq Ansari) and A-2 (S.A. Shafiullah). After serving notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and in the presence of a Gazetted Officer (PW-4), a search was conducted. Three bundles of ganja, weighing approximately 80 kgs, were allegedly seized from the vehicle. A-1 and A-2 were arrested, and samples were taken from the seized ganja. Subsequently, based on the interrogation of A-1 and A-2, the Investigating Officer (PW-5) apprehended A-3 (Mohd. Khalid) and A-4 (Md. Afsar). A charge sheet was filed against all four accused in the trial Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 each. The accused appealed to the High Court of Telangana, which upheld the trial Court’s decision. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court of India challenging the High Court’s judgment.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the NDPS Act:

• Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act: This section prohibits the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import inter-State, import into India, export from India or transhipment of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance.
• Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act: This section deals with punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis, specifically where the contravention involves commercial quantity.
• Section 43 of the NDPS Act: This section empowers officers to seize narcotics in public places or in transit. It states, “Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 may — (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed…”
• Section 49 of the NDPS Act: This section provides the power to stop and search conveyances. It states, “Any officer authorised under Section 42, may, if he has reason to suspect that any animal or conveyance is, or is about to be, used for the transport of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance [or controlled substance], in respect of which he suspects that any provision of this Act has been, or is being, or is about to be, contravened at any time, stop such animal or conveyance…”
• Section 52A of the NDPS Act: This section deals with the procedure for disposal of seized drugs and requires that an inventory of the seized drugs be made before a Magistrate.
• Section 25 of the Evidence Act: This section renders confession made to a police officer inadmissible in evidence.

Arguments

Submissions on behalf of the accused appellants:

• A-2 (S.A. Shafiullah):
  • The independent panch witnesses were not examined, making the search and seizure doubtful.
  • The seized ganja was mixed with green chillies, and no effort was made to segregate them, making it impossible to determine the exact quantity of ganja.
  • The prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, as no sampling procedure was undertaken before the Magistrate.
  • There were contradictions in the evidence regarding the number of samples taken and sent to the FSL, casting doubt on the sanctity of the samples.
  • The muddamal (seized material) produced in court was different from what was seized at the spot, raising questions about its authenticity.
  • Sub-Inspector LW-10, who allegedly handed over the sample packets, was not examined, and there was a delay in sending the samples to the FSL.
• A-3 and A-4:
  • They were not present at the spot during the seizure and were arrested solely based on the interrogation notes of A-1 and A-2.
  • The prosecution did not prove that they were in possession of the contraband.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

• The State argued that the trial Court and the High Court had recorded concurrent findings of fact, and the Supreme Court should not interfere with these findings.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Innovativeness of the argument: The defense highlighted the discrepancies in the handling of the seized contraband, particularly the mixing of ganja with chillies and the failure to follow proper sampling procedures, which is a novel approach to challenge the prosecution’s case.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the procedures followed during the search, seizure, and handling of the contraband were in accordance with the NDPS Act.
3. Whether the conviction of A-3 and A-4 based on the confession of A-1 and A-2 was valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions and did not rely on any case laws:

• Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act: Prohibits production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, import, export, or transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
• Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act: Specifies punishment for contravention related to cannabis involving commercial quantities.
• Section 43 of the NDPS Act: Empowers officers to seize narcotics in public places or during transit.
• Section 49 of the NDPS Act: Authorizes officers to stop and search conveyances suspected of transporting narcotics.
• Section 52A of the NDPS Act: Mandates the procedure for disposal of seized drugs, including inventory before a Magistrate.
• Section 25 of the Evidence Act: Renders confessions made to a police officer inadmissible in evidence.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act:* The court acknowledged this section’s prohibition on certain activities related to narcotics but found that the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s involvement in such activities.
• Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act:* The court noted this section’s provision for punishment for contravention involving commercial quantities of cannabis but found that the prosecution failed to prove the quantity of the contraband.
• Section 43 of the NDPS Act:* The court recognized this section’s power to seize narcotics in public places but noted that the seizure in this case was flawed due to procedural lapses.
• Section 49 of the NDPS Act:* The court acknowledged the power to stop and search conveyances but found that the search in this case was not conducted properly.
• Section 52A of the NDPS Act:* The court emphasized the mandatory procedure for disposal of seized drugs and noted that the prosecution failed to comply with this section.
• Section 25 of the Evidence Act:* The court applied this section to invalidate the confession of A-1 and A-2, which was the sole basis for the conviction of A-3 and A-4.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the numerous procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of custody for the seized narcotics, and the evidence presented was full of contradictions and was unconvincing. The fact that the seized ganja was mixed with chillies, that the samples were not properly taken, and that the muddamal produced in court was different from what was seized at the spot, all contributed to the Court’s decision to acquit the accused. The Court also emphasized that the conviction of A-3 and A-4 was based solely on the inadmissible confession of A-1 and A-2, which is not permissible under the Evidence Act.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Table:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them due to the glaring procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore, the conviction could not be sustained. The Court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish that A-3 and A-4 were in possession of the contraband, and their conviction was based solely on the inadmissible confession of A-1 and A-2.

The Court stated, “The evidence of the police witnesses is full of contradictions and is thoroughly unconvincing.” The Court also noted, “The FSL report(Exhibit P -11) is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence.” Further, the Court observed, “It is trite that confession of an accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.”

The Court unanimously held that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court overturned the conviction of the accused, emphasizing the prosecution’s failure to establish a clear chain of custody for the seized narcotics and the lack of adherence to mandatory procedures. There were no minority opinions.

The Court’s decision highlights the importance of following proper procedures in drug-related cases and emphasizes that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The case also underscores the inadmissibility of confessions made to a police officer under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

Key Takeaways

• Strict adherence to the procedures outlined in the NDPS Act is mandatory for a successful prosecution.
• The prosecution must establish a clear chain of custody for seized narcotics from the time of seizure to the time of analysis.
• Confessions made to a police officer are inadmissible in evidence.
• The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant procedural lapses will undermine the case.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of independent witnesses and proper documentation in drug-related cases.

The judgment has significant implications for future cases under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the need for meticulous adherence to procedures and the importance of establishing a clear chain of custody for seized narcotics. It also serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based on inadmissible evidence or mere suspicion.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained if the prosecution fails to adhere to the mandatory procedures for search, seizure, and handling of the contraband, and if the evidence is full of contradictions and is unconvincing. This decision reinforces the importance of procedural compliance and the need for a clear chain of custody in drug-related cases. There is a change in the previous position of the law as the Court has emphasized that even if the lower courts have given concurrent findings, the Supreme Court can overturn it if the findings are perverse.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mohammed Khalid vs. State of Telangana underscores the critical need for meticulous adherence to legal procedures in cases involving the NDPS Act. The Court’s decision to overturn the conviction highlights the importance of a clear chain of custody for seized narcotics, the inadmissibility of confessions made to police officers, and the necessity of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment serves as a significant reminder to law enforcement agencies and the judiciary about the importance of due process in drug-related cases.

Category

Parent Category: Criminal Law

Child Categories: NDPS Act, Section 8(c), NDPS Act, Section 20(b)(ii)(c), NDPS Act, Section 43, NDPS Act, Section 49, NDPS Act, Section 52A, Evidence Act, Section 25

FAQ

Q: What is the main issue in the Mohammed Khalid vs. State of Telangana case?

A: The main issue is whether the prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), and whether the procedures followed during the search, seizure, and handling of the contraband were in accordance with the NDPS Act.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide in this case?

A: The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the accused, stating that the prosecution failed to establish a clear chain of custody for the seized narcotics and did not adhere to mandatory procedures. The Court also held that the conviction of A-3 and A-4 was based on inadmissible evidence.

Q: What is Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and why was it important in this case?

A: Section 52A of the NDPS Act deals with the procedure for disposal of seized drugs and requires that an inventory of the seized drugs be made before a Magistrate. In this case, the prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A, which led the Court to conclude that the FSL report was inadmissible.

Q: What is the significance of Section 25 of the Evidence Act in this case?

A: Section 25 of the Evidence Act renders confessions made to a police officer inadmissible in evidence. The Court held that the conviction of A-3 and A-4 was solely based on the inadmissible confession of A-1 and A-2, and therefore, it was unsustainable.

Q: What are the key takeaways from this judgment?

A: The key takeaways are that strict adherence to the procedures outlined in the NDPS Act is mandatory, the prosecution must establish a clear chain of custody for seized narcotics, confessions made to a police officer are inadmissible, and the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Q: What are the practical implications of this judgment?

A: Law enforcement agencies must ensure that they follow proper procedures when conducting searches, seizures, and handling of narcotics. They must also ensure that they have sufficient admissible evidence to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment also serves as a reminder to the judiciary about the importance of due process in drug-related cases.