Non-compliance of 52A is a procedural irregularity
Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail, the Supreme Court (SC) says in Narcotics Control Bureau v Kashif [2024 INSC 1045].
That means, any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A) would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to get bail.
Disregarding the Section 37 is a serious lapse
But disregarding the mandatory conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is a serious lapse. But granting bail disregarding Section 37 is unacceptable.
Stipulations of SC in brief
The SC summarized the following guidelines: –
- The provisions of NDPS Act are to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act and its impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally but not liberally, so as to avoid frustration of its object, purpose and the preamble.
- While considering the application for bail, the court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.
- The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances.
- The Section 52A (2) lays down the procedure as contemplated in the Section 52A (1), and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity and it would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.
- Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. However, the court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.
SC remanded the case for fresh consideration
The SC allowed the Appeal by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB)
and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration, as the impugned order, based on the inferences and surmises, was in utter disregard of the mandate contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
And granting bail to the accused merely on the ground of non-compliance of Section 52A within reasonable time, is highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed.
SC reiterates the stand in a later case too
In Bharat Aambale v The State of Chhattisgarh [2025 INSC 78], the SC reiterated that mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution’s case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done.
The SC adds that non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
References
- Narcotics Control Bureau v Kashif [2024 INSC 1045]
- Bharat Aambale v The State of Chhattisgarh [2025 INSC 78]
