2024 (12) TMI 1232 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - mis-interpretation of the provision without recording the findings as mandated in Section 37 of the said Act - HELD THAT - Section 52A was inserted only for the purpose of early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances, considering the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, constraint of proper storage space etc. There cannot be any two opinions on the issue about the early disposal of the contraband drugs and substances, more particularly when it was inserted to implement the provisions of International Convention on the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, however delayed compliance or non-compliance of the said provision by the concerned officer authorised to make application to the Magistrate could never be treated as an illegality which would entitle the accused to be released on bail or claim acquittal in the trial, when sufficient material is collected by the Investigating Officer to establish that the Search and Seizure of the contraband substance was made in due compliance of the mandatory provisions of the Act. It is significant to note that as per Section 54 of the said Act, the courts are entitled to presume, unless and until the contrary is proved that the accused had committed an offence under the Act in respect of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance etc. for the possession of which he failed to account satisfactorily. Therefore, unless such statutory presumption is rebutted by the accused during the course of trial, there would be a prima facie presumption that the accused had committed the offence under the Act, if he is found to have possessed the contraband drug and substance, and if he fails to account satisfactorily, as contemplated in the said provision of Section 54. In case of State of H.P. vs. Pirthi Chand and Another 1995 (11) TMI 433 - SUPREME COURT this Court following the observations made by the Constitution Bench in Pooran Mal case 1973 (12) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT held that ' It would be seen that the organised traffic in contraband generates deleterious effect on the national economy affecting the vitals of the economic life of the community. It is settled law that illegality committed in investigation does not render the evidence obtained during that investigation inadmissible. In spite of illegal search property seized, on the basis of said search, it still would form basis for further investigation and prosecution against the accused. The manner in which the contraband is discovered may affect the factum of discovery but if the factum of discovery is otherwise proved then the manner becomes immaterial.' In State of Punjab Vs. Makhan 2004 (2) TMI 663 - SUPREME COURT , this Court upheld the conviction, where the contraband was recovered during a chance recovery, even though the procedure under Section 52A was not followed. From the above decisions, the position that emerges is that this Court in catena of decisions, has approved the procedure of spot searches and seizures in compliance with the Standing Orders and the Notifications issued by the NCB and the Central Government, and upheld the convictions on being satisfied about the search and seizure made by the officers as per the provisions of the Act and being satisfied about the scientific evidence of F.S.L. reports etc. - The evidence collected during the course of investigation in legal and proper manner and sought to be used in the course of trial with regard to the seized contraband substance could not be simply brushed aside, on the ground of procedural irregularity if any, committed by the concerned officer authorised in making application to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 52A of the Act. The impugned order based on the inferences and surmises, in utter disregard of the statutory provision of the Act and in utter disregard of the mandate contained in Section 37 of the Act, and granting bail to the accused merely on the ground that the compliance of Section 52A was not done within reasonable time, is highly erroneous and deserves to be quashed and set aside. Since, the High Court has not considered the application of the respondent on merits and has also not considered the mandatory requirement under Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, it is deemed appropriate to remand the case to the High Court for deciding the bail application of the respondent afresh on merits and in accordance with law. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Interpretation and compliance of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
2. Compliance with the mandate under Section 37 of the NDPS Act concerning bail.
3. Impact of procedural irregularities or non-compliance on the admissibility of evidence and trial proceedings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation and Compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act:

The primary issue in this case is the interpretation of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The High Court had granted bail to the respondent on the ground of delayed compliance with Section 52A, suggesting that this delay could have led to tampering with the evidence. The Supreme Court examined the legislative intent behind Section 52A, which was inserted to ensure the early disposal of hazardous substances to prevent theft, substitution, and storage issues. The Court clarified that Section 52A was not intended to be a mandatory provision whose non-compliance would vitiate the trial or entitle the accused to bail. Instead, any delay or non-compliance with Section 52A is considered a procedural irregularity rather than an illegality that would nullify the proceedings. The Court emphasized that the provision was aimed at facilitating the disposal of seized substances rather than impacting the admissibility of evidence or the validity of the trial.

2. Compliance with the Mandate Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act Concerning Bail:

The judgment underscores the importance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which sets stringent conditions for granting bail in cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The Supreme Court reiterated that negation of bail is the rule, and its grant is an exception under the NDPS Act. The Court highlighted that the High Court erred by granting bail without considering the mandatory twin conditions under Section 37: (i) the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty, and (ii) the accused is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court failed to record the necessary satisfaction regarding these conditions, rendering its order untenable. The Court emphasized that compliance with Section 37 is a sine qua non for granting bail in NDPS cases.

3. Impact of Procedural Irregularities or Non-compliance on the Admissibility of Evidence and Trial Proceedings:

The judgment addressed the broader question of whether procedural irregularities or non-compliance with statutory provisions like Section 52A affect the admissibility of evidence or the validity of trial proceedings. The Court referred to established legal principles that distinguish between irregularities and illegalities. While irregularities can be remedied and do not necessarily affect the outcome of a trial, illegalities might lead to nullification. The Court cited precedents affirming that evidence collected through illegal search or seizure is not automatically inadmissible. It emphasized that the admissibility of evidence depends on the context and manner of its collection. The Court concluded that procedural lapses in complying with Section 52A do not invalidate the trial or entitle the accused to bail, especially when there is sufficient material to establish compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order granting bail, emphasizing that the High Court had erred in its interpretation of Section 52A and failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 37. The case was remanded to the High Court for reconsideration of the bail application on merits, with instructions to adhere to the statutory provisions and precedents. The Supreme Court extended the respondent's bail for four weeks, allowing the High Court to decide the application afresh within this period.