Section 52A

The Rajasthan High Court set aside a 1999 conviction for carrying 250 grams of opium, holding that a notice which merely conveyed that the accused could be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate did not apprise him of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution also never exhibited the seized opium or the sample, leaving the seizure itself unproved (paras 7-11).

The Supreme Court dismissed the Union of India's appeal against a Madhya Pradesh High Court acquittal in a 7.2 kg opium case (para 13). After samples were drawn, the Executive Magistrate handed the bulk back to the investigating officer, and it was never produced at trial; any destruction needed a Magistrate's order under Section 52A, which was never sought (paras 8-11). With hostile independent witnesses and a Section 67 statement recorded in custody, the acquittal stood (paras 12-13).

Finding that only 16% of drugs seized between 2002 and 2012 had been disposed of, the Supreme Court issued nationwide directions on the sampling, storage and disposal of seized narcotics. Under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, samples must be drawn in the presence and under the supervision of a Magistrate, who certifies them. Governments were directed to set up secure storage within six months, and stocks in concluded cases were ordered destroyed (paras 13, 15, 19-20).

The Supreme Court upheld Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act, which reverse the burden of proof, but held that the presumption arises only after the prosecution proves the foundational facts, including possession, beyond reasonable doubt (paras 84, 88-89). It set aside an Afghan airline crew member's conviction for 1.4 kg of heroin: the carton, bulk and samples were never produced, the bulk was destroyed without a Section 52A order, and the customs confession could not alone sustain a conviction (paras 170-171).

The Supreme Court acquitted a man and his mother convicted of possessing charas and ganja because the seized drugs were never produced at trial, the panch witnesses turned hostile and the Investigating Officer was not examined (paras 5-6, 9). "The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects" (para 6). A final report saying the laboratory report was awaited, filed after that report's date, added to the doubt (para 8).

In this 1990 ruling the Supreme Court held that officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence invested with police-station powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are not "police officers" under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, so confessions made to them are not barred (paras 1, 21-22). The decisive test was the power to file a police report under Section 173 of the Code (para 21). The ruling was later overruled by a majority of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2020).