Supreme Court Affirms NDPS Conviction: Clarifies Section 52-A and Admissibility of Official Witness Testimony

The Supreme Court of India while hearing an appeal in case of Jothi @ Nagajothi vs. State of Tamil Nadu upheld the conviction of the appellant for possessing commercial quantity (23.5 kg) of ganja. The Apex Court further held that the sampling at the seizure spot is not fatal to the prosecution if the integrity of the contraband is preserved.

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant, Jothi @ Nagajothi, and her husband were intercepted by the police on September 21, 2019, while transporting 23.500 kg of ganja on a two-wheeler. Following a search and seizure, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act, sentencing her to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for each count. The same is then affirmed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.

The appellant challenged the conviction and appeal before the Supreme Court alleging the procedural infirmities, such as the lack of independent witnesses during the seizure in a residential area, the drawing of samples at the spot rather than before a Magistrate as per Section 52-A, and a discrepancy in the weight of the samples sent for chemical analysis.

The Supreme Court made the following Observations:

On the "Credibility of Official Witnesses" the APex Court reiterated that the testimony of official witnesses cannot be disregarded merely because of their status. It fruther held that the non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal if the police witnesse's depositions are consistent, coherent, and corroborate each other on all material particulars.

Addressing the appellant’s primary contention,that the sampling under Section 52-A at the spot is not legally untenable, the Apex Court, drawing on the precedent of Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, clarified that non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52-A is only fatal if it creates discrepancies that affect the integrity of the seized substance or render the prosecution case doubtful. Since, the chain of custody, as per the Court was clear, and the samples were later produced before a Magistrate who confirmed their identity as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’.

Additionally, the Supreme Court also accepted the prosecution's explanation that a reduction in sample weight (from approximately 50g to 40.6g) was due to natural drying and loss of moisture over the forty days between seizure and analysis.

The Supreme Court despite the appellant’s plea for leniency based on her age, lack of prior criminal record, and role as a caregiver for a minor child, ruled that it has no discretion to reduce the sentence below the statutory minimum for commercial quantities.

The Apex Court observed that while humanitarian considerations are relevant for executive remission, they cannot override the mandatory punishments prescribed by the legislature under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

In Conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal finding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the procedural irregularities cited did not go to the root of the matter.

Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi.