The Gauhati High Court acquits two individuals previously convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, after finding that the alleged seizure witnesses could not demonstrate that they had actually seen the contraband being taken.
Prosecution’s case and alleged capture
According to the prosecution, police acted on a tip about a vehicle transporting ganja. Officers set up a checkpoint, stopped the conveyance and reported that about 30 kg of suspected cannabis was recovered from the truck.
Investigators later claimed a further 75 kg of the same substance was found at a residence linked to the accused. The charge sheet cited these figures and sought a conviction under the NDPS provisions.
High Court’s assessment of evidence
The defense argued that the trial court never saw the seized material, nor any inventory required by Section 52A of the NDPS Act. They also pointed out the absence of a magistrate‑supervised sampling process.
Related: Section 126 Electricity Act Can’t Cover Every Regulatory Violation
When the bench examined the testimony of the so‑called seizure witnesses, it noted that several had signed documents at the police station or at their homes, not at the site where the cannabis was allegedly taken.
One witness admitted he could not recall what was written on the paper he signed. Another said his signature was obtained at his residence, and he never visited the location of the alleged capture. A third confirmed his signature was taken at the station, not at the scene.
Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita observed, “…none of the seizure witnesses has been able to prove the fact of recovery and seizure of the seized contraband from the possession of the present appellants.”
The court also highlighted that no inventory of the alleged contraband had been prepared, a step expressly required by the law. The record showed no indication that samples were drawn before a magistrate; instead, they appeared to have been taken at the police station.
Related: Lawyers urged to adopt artificial intelligence tools
The conviction was overturned.
The bench stressed that the NDPS Act imposes severe penalties, and therefore its procedural safeguards must be observed meticulously. Any deviation, it said, could tilt the balance in favor of the accused.
It concluded that the conviction and the ten‑year rigorous imprisonment sentences, along with the fine of Rs 1 lakh each, were not sustainable under the circumstances.
For more details on the statutory requirements, see the NDPS Act provisions.