LexJOTHI @ NAGAJOTHI versus THE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 12 S.C.R. 488 : 2025 INSC 1417 Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025) 11 December 2025 [Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by the High Court, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant u/ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) were affirmed. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) – Prosecution case was that on receiving the information, appellant (A-2) and her husband (A-1) were intercepted – Police searched the vehicle and seized 23.500 kg of ganja, along with ₹21,140/- – Two samples of about 50g each were drawn, sealed and marked as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’ – PW-1 (Sub-Inspector) also recorded the confession of A-1 at the spot – Offences u/ss.8(c) r/w 20(b) (ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act were registered – A-1 and A-2 were sent for remand – During investigation, PW-5 (Inspector) forwarded the seized samples to the Court along with a requisition for chemical analysis – PW-6 (Scientific Officer) analysed the sample, detected cannabinoids and furnished the report – The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty u/ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, convicted them and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running concurrently) – The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court – Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-2) has filed the present appeal: Held: In the present case, upon careful evaluation, the evidence of the official witnesses stands out as consistent and coherent – * Author [2025] 12 S.C.R. 489 Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police Their depositions corroborate each other on all material particulars and no material has been brought out in cross-examination to cast doubt on their credibility – The absence of independent witnesses cannot be said to weaken the prosecution case in any manner – Further, the appellant has failed to lay any foundational material to suggest that the sampling process was unreliable or that the integrity of the samples stood compromised – On the contrary, the record demonstrates a clear and unimpeached sequence of events: (i) the samples were drawn at the spot in the presence of PWs 1 to 3, (ii) the sample packets were duly sealed with signatures and seizure details, (iii) the seized material, along with the samples, was produced before the Magistrate, and (iv) pursuant to the judicial order dated 20.10.2019, sample ‘S-1’ was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory while ‘S-2’ was retained in judicial custody – The Scientific Officer (PW-6) affirmed that the seal on the packet received for analysis was intact and bore the correct identifying particulars – In addition, the chain of custody in the present case remains clear and continuous – At no stage has any evidence been brought out to indicate tampering, substitution or mishandling – The forensic report confirms the presence of cannabinoids in the sample, which stands in complete harmony with the seizure – In these circumstances, even assuming some deviation from the ideal procedure envisaged u/s.52-A, such irregularity does not go to the root of the matter nor does it create any reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the seized contraband or the identity of the samples analysed – The prosecution has demonstrated substantial compliance with the statutory requirements – Therefore, upon careful evaluation, the prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in conscious possession of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity – There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court. [Paras 22, 24, 26, 27, 31, 33] Case Law Cited Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906; Yusuf @ Asif v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328; Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab [2020] 1 SCR 307 : (2020) 2 SCC 563; Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [2011] 2 SCR 888 : (2011) 3 SCC 521; Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh [2025] 1 SCR 1524 : (2025) 8 SCC 452; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. [2008] 10 SCR 379 : (2008) 16 SCC 417 – referred to. 490 [2025] 12 S.C.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.