'Possibility of tampering cannot be ruled out': Supreme Court acquits three men in NDPS case

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has acquitted three men from a case lodged under the NDPS upon alleged recovery over 600 kg of dry ganja as the seized contraband was kept in a separate room in office for 15 days by the investigating officer. It said this gave rise to an allegation that the material was by itself substituted and some other items planted to falsely implicate the accused.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan said in order to avoid suspicious circumstances and to ensure fair procedure in respect of search and seizure, it is always desirable to follow the standing order which provides suitable guidance for the officers investigating crimes under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

"Should there be any departure, it must be based on justifiable and reasonable grounds," the bench said.

In a recent judgment, the court allowed the appeal filed by Surepally Srinivas by extending the benefit of doubt to them. It set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Sessions Judge and affirmed by the Telangana High Court.

The bench noted the incident was of June 8, 2010. The contraband was produced in court for the first time on July 3, 2010.

In between, the contraband was in the custody of the investigating officer, in a separate room in his office. Standing Order No.1/89 laid down the procedure for sampling, storage and disposal of seized contraband. It is not in dispute that he admitted his ignorance about the existence of any such standing order, the court said.

"We do not propose to hold that a conviction should be interdicted for any minor breach of Standing Order No 1/89. What is required is a substantial compliance of the statutory provisions and the procedure laid down in such standing order," the bench said.

In 'Bharat Ambale Vs State of Chattisgarh' (2025), this court held that the purport of Section 52- A, NDPS Act read with Standing Order No 1/89 extends beyond mere disposal and destruction of seized contraband and serves a broader purpose of strengthening the evidentiary framework under the NDPS Act.

"This decision stresses upon the fact that what is to be seen is whether there has been substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52-A and if not, the prosecution must satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused," the bench said.

Going by the facts of the matter, the bench held, "We are, satisfied, on appreciation of the evidence on record, that the possibility of tampering during this 15-day period cannot be totally ruled out and that not only has there been no substantial compliance of the standing order, the departure has also not been justified".

The court said from the materials on record that there has been clear non-compliance with the provisions contained in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

Either possibly due to lack of experience of the investigating officer or his lack of knowledge of the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, there were lapses which were duly noted by the Sessions Judge, the court said.

"Thus, we are unable to hold that there was primary and reliable evidence before the trial court in respect of the offence committed. The onus of proving that compliance with Section 52-A did not affect the case of the prosecution has not been duly discharged by the prosecution," the bench said.