Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mittal acquitted a man convicted under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1881 (NDPS Act).

• The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Yusuf @ Asif v. State.

What is the Background of Yusuf @ Asif v. State Case?

• The appellant, along with three other individuals, received a 10-year imprisonment sentence after being found in possession of 20 kilograms of heroin.
• The Trial Court convicted them, and the High Court subsequently affirmed the decision of Trial Court.
• The appellant contended that the seizure and sampling of the alleged contraband violated the mandatory stipulations of Section 52A of NDPS Act.
• Section 52A of the NDPS Act outlines the procedure for seizing, preparing an inventory of the seized material, forwarding the seized material, and obtaining certification from the relevant Magistrate.
• Furthermore, Section 52A of NDPS Act considers that the certified inventory or photographs of the seized substance, along with any list of seized samples primary evidence in the trial.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The SC held that no evidence has been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate.
  • The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of sub­section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

What is Section 52A (2) of the NDPS Act?

• Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare:
  • An inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances.
  • The inventory must contain such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars.
  • Or mention conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity.
  • And make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of-

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of such drugs, substances or conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

What was the Landmark Judgment Involved in the Case?

• Union of India v. Mohanlal and Anr (2016):
  • The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “It is manifest from the said provision that upon seizure of the contraband, it has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who is obliged to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband.”
    • And then to make an application to the Magistrate for the purpose of getting its correctness certified.