NADEEM AHAMED versus THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 987 · Decided: 05-08-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARAVIND KUMAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 987 : 2025 INSC 993
Nadeem Ahamed 
v. 
The State of West Bengal
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3573-3574 of 2025)
05 August 2025
[Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the Courts below erred in convicting the accused-appellant 
for the offences punishable u/ss.21(c) and 29, Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – 
s.52A – Non-compliance with – Narcotic drug, suspected to be 
heroin, weighing about 125gms and 130gms were recovered 
from the appellant and the co-accused, respectively – Since 
the gross weight of narcotic substance was 255gms thus, the 
seized contraband was treated to be of commercial quantity – 
Conviction u/ss.21(c), 29 and sentenced accordingly – Appeal, 
dismissed by High Court – Interference with:
Held: View taken by the trial Court that the contraband recovered 
was more than the commercial quantity is unjustified and illegal – 
It committed grave factual error in concluding that the contraband 
heroin recovered from two distinct individuals could be clubbed 
together, so as to be covered under the commercial quantity (above 
250 gms) – Apart from the bald allegation that both the accused 
were seen walking together and were searched one after the other, 
no evidence was led by the prosecution, to substantiate the charge 
of prior conspiracy between them giving rise to an inference that 
either of them had the knowledge about the contraband being 
carried by the other – There is no positive proof to support the 
charge of conspiracy – Such proof could not be substituted with 
mere inferences or conjectures – Positive and tangible evidence 
was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both 
accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the 
other’s possession – Furthermore, there are glaring infirmities and 
* Author
988
[2025] 8 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
discrepancies in the process of seizure, and collection of samples 
undertaken by the seizure officer (PW-2) – There has been a 
complete and unexplained failure to adhere to the requirements of 
s.52A rendering the integrity of the seizure and sampling process 
wholly doubtful – Though the procedure u/s.52A has not been 
considered to be mandatory, but the non-drawing of the samples 
in light of the Standing Order no.1 of 1989, and the complete non-
compliance of s.52A, made the entire procedure of seizure and 
sampling a total farce, and thereby, unworthy of credence – Thus, 
the FSL report cannot be read in evidence and therefore, there 
is no evidence on record to prove that the article recovered from 
the appellant was the narcotic drug heroin, as defined under the 
Schedule to the NDPS Act – Moreover, the rejection of the appeal 
filed by the appellant by the High Court, simply on the ground of 
delay was unjustified – Impugned judgments quashed and set 
aside – Appellant acquitted – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – 
s.374(2). [Paras 21-23, 25, 29-33]
Case Law Cited
Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat [2005] Supp. 3 
SCR 272 : (2005) 7 SCC 550; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [2008] 
10 SCR 379 : (2008) 16 SCC 417 – referred to.
List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Narcotic drug; Narcotic drug heroin; Heroin; Contraband recovered 
not of commercial quantity; Contraband heroin recovered from 
two distinct individuals; No positive proof to support the charge of 
conspiracy; No prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s 
possession; No prior conspiracy; Article recovered not narcotic 
drug heroin; Glaring infirmities and discrepancies in the process 
of seizure and collection of samples; Seizure officer; Failure to 
adhere to the requirements of Section 52A, Narcotic Drugs and 
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Non-compliance of Section 
52A, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; 
Seized contraband; Commercial quantity; Narcotic drug recovered; 
Inferences or conjectures; Contraband heroin recovered; Seizure 
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
989
Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal
and sampling process; Possession of the contraband; Conspiracy; 
Presumption of culpable mental state; Conscious and aware of the 
contents of the packets stashed; Seizure and sampling process 
doubtful; Flawed sampling procedure; FSL report cannot be read 
in evidence; Procedure of sampling and inventory; Barred by 

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