Justice R.S. Garg ruled that failure to prove safe custody and sealing of seized ganja, coupled with non-examination of key witnesses, rendered the prosecution’s case unreliable and the conviction unsustainable.
In a judgment reinforcing the strict evidentiary standards required under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Chhattisgarh High Court acquitted two women accused of possessing ganja, finding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the seized contraband was kept intact or in safe custody.
The case, Savitri alias Shobha vs State of Chhattisgarh (2001 Local Law (CG) 58), was decided on June 13, 2001, by Justice R.S. Garg, who set aside the conviction imposed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Bastar at Jagdalpur, under Section 20(b)(i) of the NDPS Act.
The appellants — Savitri alias Shobha and Sunita alias Sushila alias Chanda — had been sentenced to one year and six months of rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with fines, for allegedly possessing 2 kilograms and 900 grams of ganja.
According to the prosecution, Sub-Inspector Prakash Sharma (P.W. 3) received a tip-off on October 7, 1999, that the women were carrying ganja. Acting on the information, Sharma conducted the search with lady constable Sushila Tekam (P.W. 1) and recovered the alleged contraband. The seized material was said to have been kept in the police Malkhana (storage room) and samples later sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), which confirmed the samples were ganja.
However, Justice Garg found serious lapses in the chain of custody and non-compliance with Sections 52, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act.
“It would not appear that the articles and samples remained intact in the Malkhana and were brought out in the same condition,” the Court observed. “There is no evidence that the seized articles were properly sealed, kept in safe custody, or produced before the Station House Officer for affixation of seal.”
The Court noted that the Malkhana Moharrir (custodian of seized property) was never examined, and the Malkhana register — which should have contained entries showing the deposit and release of seized items — was not produced. The person who transported the samples to the FSL was also not examined.
Justice Garg referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Gurbax Singh vs State of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 28, which held that while Sections 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act are directory, complete disregard of these provisions undermines the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 55, which mandates that the officer-in-charge of the police station must seal and safely store seized contraband, is crucial to ensure the integrity of evidence.
“In absence of positive evidence to show that what was seized from the accused was kept intact and that the sealed articles were indeed ganja, it would not be fair to convict the accused,” Justice Garg held.
He also noted that two key witnesses to the search — Sitaram (P.W. 2) and Devo alias Bhayana (P.W. 4) — turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
Finding the evidence unreliable and the chain of custody broken, the High Court gave the appellants benefit of doubt and ordered their immediate release, if not required in any other case.
Case Details
- Case Title: Savitri alias Shobha vs State of Chhattisgarh
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh
- Judge: Justice R.S. Garg
- Date of Decision: June 13, 2001
- Citation: 2001 Local Law (CG) 58
- Equivalent Citations: 2001 CrLJ 4602, 2001 2 CgLJ 18, 2001 2 MPJR 53, 2001 3 MPHT (Chh) 43, 2001 1 BilasLJ 288
- Case Type: Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2001
- Subject: Criminal / Narcotics / NDPS Act
- Acts Referred:
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Sections 20, 50, 52, 55, 57
- Advocates: Prafull Bharat (for appellants), Deep Kesharwani (for State)
- Final Decision: Conviction set aside; appellants acquitted; appeal allowed
