Supreme Court Clarifies Section 52A NDPS Act: Safeguards and Evidence Integrity

Last Updated on January 22, 2025 by Athi Venkatesh

The Supreme Court recently outlined principles under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), emphasizing its dual purpose—ensuring safe disposal of seized contraband and preserving evidence integrity through procedural safeguards.

The bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, made key observations:

1. Section 52A primarily ensures safe disposal but also mandates inventories, photographs, and sample collection with magistrate certification. Compliance solely with a gazetted officer’s presence is insufficient.
2. Sampling and documentation should, as far as possible, involve the accused, though not necessarily at the seizure site.
3. Inventories, photographs, and samples, if substantially compliant with Section 52A, must be treated as primary evidence. Producing the original contraband in court is unnecessary.
4. Procedural rules under Section 52A aim to guide fair investigation practices. Substantial compliance suffices.
5. Procedural lapses under Section 52A won’t invalidate a trial unless discrepancies render the evidence unreliable. Courts must assess evidence holistically.
6. Reliable evidence proving recovery and possession can secure conviction, even with procedural defects.
7. Delayed or incomplete compliance may lead to adverse inferences against the prosecution. However, this depends on case specifics.
8. Non-compliance bars courts from presuming guilt under Section 54 unless satisfied with other evidence on record.
9. The accused must initially show non-compliance under Section 52A on a preponderance of probabilities.
10. Once proven, the prosecution must establish substantial compliance or prove that the lapse doesn’t affect its case, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The case involved an accused challenging procedural violations in handling 73 seized contraband packets. The trial court convicted the accused, stating that representative samples were drawn after verifying packet contents. The High Court and Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that non-compliance with Section 52A does not nullify prosecution when other strong evidence supports recovery and possession.