Supreme Court Deems Fsl Report Void Due To Section 52a Violation, Culminating In Acquittal

CASE NAME:

Mohammed Khalid and Another vs. The State of Telangana

CASE DATE:

1st March, 2024

PARTIES:-

Appellant: Mohammed Khalid

Respondent: The State of Telangana

BENCH/JUDGE:-

Justice BR Gavai

Justice Sandeep Mehta

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:-

Section 8(c) and Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act:-

These sections pertain to the offenses related to the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, warehousing, use, consumption, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India, or transshipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Section 43 of the NDPS Act:-

Section 43 governs the powers of seizure and arrest in relation to offenses under the NDPS Act.

Section 49 of the NDPS Act:-

Section 49 outlines the procedure for the disposal of seized substances.

Section 52A of the NDPS Act:-

Section 52A deals with the procedure for the collection of samples during the investigation and mandates certain steps to be followed, including preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in the presence of a Magistrate.

Article 136 of the Constitution of India:-

Article 136 provides the Supreme Court of India with special powers to grant special leave to appeal from any judgment or order in any matter or cause, in the exercise of its discretion.

SUBJECT:-

The case centered on the appellants' conviction under Section 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, with the court revealing procedural irregularities. The defense argued insufficient examination of independent panch witnesses, flaws in the sampling procedure and lack of compliance with Section 52A. Prosecution contended concurrent findings by lower courts and urged dismissal. The court, noting discrepancies and inadmissible confessions, quashed the convictions, stressing procedural integrity.

OVERVIEW:-

The case involves four accused individuals, referred to as A-1(Md. Ishaq Ansari)(expired), A-2(S.A. Shafiullah), A-3(Mohd. Khalid) and A-4(Md. Afsar). It originated when Inspector PW-1 received information about the transportation of ganja in a Toyota Qualis vehicle. The police intercepted the vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were allegedly found inside. Notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served and a search revealed approximately 80 kgs of ganja. A-1 and A-2 were arrested, samples were drawn and the remaining ganja was seized. The accused and seized articles were handed over to Sub-Inspector LW-10 for further action. The investigation led to the arrest of A-3 and A-4. The accused were charged under Section 8 with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The trial court convicted them and the High Court affirmed the decision in November 2022, leading to appeals by A-2, A-3 and A-4 in 2023.

ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE COURT:-

1. Whether the lack of examination of independent panch witnesses raises concerns about the legitimacy of the search and seizure?
2. Whether the contradictions and doubts in the sampling procedure, including discrepancies in the number of samples collected and received, impact the reliability of the evidence?
3. Whether the failure to segregate green chillies from the contraband raises uncertainties about the nature of the seized substance and its classification as a commercial quantity?
4. Whether the absence of documented evidence regarding sample deposit, coupled with a significant delay in forwarding samples to the FSL, affects the admissibility and credibility of the FSL report?
5. Whether the absence of A-3 and A-4 at the seizure spot questions the legal basis for their arrest and subsequent conviction under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act?

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY APPELLANTS:-

• The learned counsel for A-2 argued that the non-examination of independent panch witnesses involved in the search and seizure raises doubts about the legitimacy of the proceedings.
• He further contends that the Seizure Officer did not make an effort to separate green chillies from the seized contraband, creating uncertainty about whether the ganja met the criteria of commercial quantity.
• It was claimed that the prosecution failed to comply with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, as no proper sampling procedure was undertaken before the Magistrate.
• They highlighted contradictions in the evidence regarding the number of samples collected by the Seizure Officer and discrepancies in the number of samples received at the FSL.
• They argued that the original muddamal (seized items) allegedly seized at the spot was not produced in court, and the presented packets lacked seals or identifying marks.
• It was emphasized that Sub-Inspector LW-10, who handed over the sample packets, and the carrier Constable transmitting samples to the FSL were not examined as witnesses.
• The appellant pointed out that there is no document pertaining to the deposit of samples at the Police Station, and the delay in forwarding the samples to the FSL undermines the credibility of the FSL report.
• Moreover, the learned counsel for A-3 and A-4, argued that since they were not present at the seizure spot, their arrest and subsequent conviction are illegal, questioning the prosecution's failure to establish their possession of the contraband.

CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF OF RESPONSENT:-

• The State contended that both the trial Court and the High Court have recorded concurrent findings of facts leading to the conviction of the appellants.
• The State urged that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 should be exercised sparingly, particularly when there are consistent findings by lower courts.
• The counsel argued that the appellate court should refrain from re-evaluating the facts unless there are compelling reasons to do so.
• Based on the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the High Court, the State vehemently opposed the appellants' submissions and implores the Supreme Court to dismiss the appeals.

ANALYSIS BY COURT:-

• Noting the nature of the case involving the recovery of narcotics during transit, the court observed procedural issues, particularly the failure to conduct a separate weighment of the contraband by segregating green chillies.
• The court highlighted contradictions in the evidence regarding the number of samples collected, handed over, and received at the FSL, casting doubt on the reliability of the sampling procedure.
• The absence of examination of independent panch witnesses and Sub-Inspector LW-10, coupled with the lack of documentation for safekeeping, raised concerns about the authenticity and reliability of the evidence.
• Glaring loopholes in handling seized ganja, such as repacking without court permission and the absence of sealing information, led the court to question the prosecution's ability to establish a required link of evidence.
• The court pointed out that the Investigating Officer failed to undertake proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, rendering the FSL report inadmissible as evidence.
• Observing that A-3 and A-4 were not arrested at the spot and their conviction relied on inadmissible interrogation notes, the court deemed their conviction illegal.
• Emphasizing that the confession of an accused recorded by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as per Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the court noted the failure of both the trial Court and the High Court to address this critical flaw in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT:-

After careful consideration, the court highlighted procedural flaws, including the failure to segregate green chillies during the weighment of seized contraband. Discrepancies in the sampling procedure and the absence of key witness examinations and proper documentation raised doubts about the evidence's authenticity. The court observed loopholes in the handling of seized ganja, rendering the FSL report inadmissible. A-3 and A-4's conviction, based on inadmissible interrogation notes, was declared illegal. Emphasizing the inadmissibility of confessions recorded by police, the court concluded the prosecution had failed to prove charges convincingly, quashing the convictions and ordering the immediate release of the appellants. The appeals were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.

CONCLUSION:-

The court meticulously scrutinized the prosecution's evidence related to the recovery of narcotics from a vehicle, revealing significant procedural irregularities. Notably, issues such as failure to segregate seized items, contradictions in sampling procedures, and the absence of crucial witness examinations raised substantial doubts about the authenticity and reliability of the evidence. The court emphasized the inadmissibility of confessions recorded by police and ultimately concluded that the prosecution had miserably failed to establish a solid case. Consequently, the court quashed the convictions, acquitted the appellants and ordered their immediate release. The judgment underscores the importance of procedural integrity in criminal cases and demands a high standard of evidence for convictions.