The Supreme Court of India, in a recently clarified that a bald allegation of non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act | Supreme Court: Allegations of S. 52A Non-Compliance Require Foundational Proof for Acquittall facts proving such non-compliance are established. This landmark decision further strengthens procedural integrity in cases under the NDPS Act.

Overview of the Case

The case, Rajwant Singh vs. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2019), involved the appellant Rajwant Singh, who was convicted by the Special Court, Kurukshetra, for possessing contraband under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. His conviction was upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Rajwant Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that his conviction was invalid due to non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

Section 52A of the NDPS Act outlines the procedural safeguards for handling and disposing of seized narcotic substances. It mandates the preparation of an inventory, the taking of photographs, and the drawing of samples in the presence of a magistrate to ensure transparency and fairness.

Court’s Observations

The bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, examined whether the appellant had laid the foundational facts to prove non-compliance with Section 52A. The Court emphasized:

“The initial burden lies on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A on a preponderance of probabilities, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution."

In this case, the prosecution presented detailed evidence of the recovery and sealing process, which complied with Section 52A. Despite this, the defense failed to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses (particularly PW-7) on this point, nor did it provide any substantive evidence to establish procedural lapses.

Reference to Precedents

The Court referred to its decision in Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2025 INSC 78) to reinforce the principle that mere procedural defects do not invalidate a case if other evidence strongly supports the prosecution's claims. It held:

“Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Orders will not be fatal to the trial unless discrepancies in the physical evidence render the prosecution’s case doubtful.”

Additionally, the Court distinguished this case from Mohammed Khalid vs. State of Telangana (2024), where the conviction was overturned due to glaring procedural lapses, including tampering concerns and discrepancies in sample handling.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

1. Initial Burden of Proof: The accused must establish foundational facts of non-compliance with Section 52A.
2. Substantial Compliance: Minor procedural lapses under Section 52A do not invalidate the trial if the overall evidence supports the prosecution’s case.
3. Importance of Procedural Safeguards: Section 52A ensures transparency and fairness but is not meant to derail cases on technical grounds.
4. Role of Defense Counsel: Cross-examining witnesses on procedural compliance is crucial for mounting a credible defense.

Court’s Decision

After analyzing the evidence and arguments, the Supreme Court upheld the appellant’s conviction, stating:

“In such circumstances, we do not find any error, much less any error of law, in the impugned judgment of the High Court. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.”

The Court also directed the appellant to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining part of his sentence.

Conclusion

This judgment underscores the importance of procedural compliance under the NDPS Act while balancing it with the need to ensure that technicalities do not undermine the prosecution’s case. It serves as a vital precedent for handling cases involving narcotics possession and reinforces the need for both prosecution and defense to meticulously address procedural aspects during trials.

Remark from the Bench

“A plea for non-compliance cannot be taken out of the blue; rather, a foundational fact ought to be laid down by asking the investigating officer appropriate relevant questions.”