BHARAT AAMBALE versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1524 · Decided: 06-01-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, R MAHADEVAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1524 : 2025 INSC 78
Bharat Aambale  
v. 
The State of Chhattisgarh
(Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2025)
06 January 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Appellant had been convicted by the Courts below under Section 
20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 
1985. The issue was whether the conviction could be said to have 
been vitiated because of non-compliance of Section 52A of the 
NDPS Act.
Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – 
s.52A – Purpose, Nature, Extent & Scope – Allegation of 
non-compliance of s.52A – Onus on the accused or on the 
prosecution – Required standard of proof:
Held: 1. On facts, it can be hardly be said that there has been any 
procedural lapse in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, rather 
it appears that the police have strenuously followed the process 
prescribed thereunder that was in force at the time of seizure and 
sampling – Even otherwise, on facts, such procedural lapse has 
absolutely no bearing on the overall case of the prosecution and 
by extension the conviction of the appellant inasmuch as the entire 
material on record clearly establishes the recovery and seizure of 
the ganja at the instance of the accused. [Para 45]
2. Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and destruction 
of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the 
immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose 
of also introducing procedural safeguards in the treatment of 
narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as it provides for the 
preparation of inventories, taking of photographs of the seized 
substances and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and 
with the certification of a magistrate – Mere drawing of samples 
in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient 
compliance of the mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2) 
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 
1525
Bharat Aambale v. The State of Chhattisgarh
of the NDPS Act – The process of inventorying, photographing 
and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as 
possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though the 
same may not be done at the very spot of seizure – Any inventory, 
photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial 
compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of 
the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder 
would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as 
per Section 52A subsection (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of 
whether the substance in original is actually produced before the 
court or not – The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s)/
Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended 
to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted 
by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is 
required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein – 
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 – Courts should take a holistic 
and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the 
evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same 
more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses – If the other 
material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary 
inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery 
as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused 
persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation 
proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural 
defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act – 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 – Where 
there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following 
the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the 
prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the 
court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an 
offence from the possessi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.