NDPS Act case latest news: The Supreme Court recently upheld the conviction of a woman under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and observed that humanitarian considerations cannot override the punishment mandated by law.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Vipul M Pancholi in an order passed on December 11, said, “Humanitarian considerations, though relevant for executive remission, cannot override statutory minimum punishment mandated by the legislature. Thus, no interference with the sentence is permissible.”
The order, authored by Justice Pancholi, further noted that the prosecution had proved the case against the woman beyond reasonable doubt to show that she knowingly possessed 23.5 kilogram of ganja (cannabis), which is a commercial quantity.
Case
According to the prosecution, on September 21, 2019, Jothi alias Nagajothi and her husband were arrested by Tamil Nadu police with 23.5 kilogram of cannabis.
On Feb 1, 2021 the trial court convicted her and sentenced the couple to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. The court also imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on both of them.
The Madras High Court upheld the same on June 27, 2024 saying that the trial court had rendered proper findings on the basis of the materials placed by the prosecution to prove the case.
Aggrieved by the high court’s decision, the woman moved the top court.
Story continues below this ad
Findings
The court said that the chain of custody in the present case remains clear and continuous and 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, the court noted.
The evidence of the witnesses stands out as “consistent and coherent” and their depositions corroborate each other, the court said.
No material has been brought out in cross-examination to cast doubt credibility of the official witnesses and the absence of independent witnesses cannot be said to weaken the case.
Story continues below this ad
The prosecution has proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in conscious possession of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity, said the court.
The court said that minor procedural irregularities pointed out do not affect the core of the prosecution’s case.
Rejecting the plea of non-compliance of section 52-A, which provides a specific procedure for the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances before the completion of the trial, the court said that mere noncompliance or delayed compliance with the provision is not fatal.
“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 court said.
Story continues below this ad
Even where some procedural lapse is shown, if the remaining oral or documentary evidence inspires confidence regarding the seizure and conscious possession, the conviction may still be upheld, the top court added.
The court further said that the prosecution has demonstrated substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and the integrity of the material evidence stands fully preserved.
Arguments
Counsel for the appellant informed the court that she was only 24 years of age at the time of the incident, is a first-time offender with no prior criminal antecedents and is the sole caregiver of her minor child.
On these mitigating considerations, the counsel pleaded for remission or reduction of the sentence to the period already undergone, which stands at over five years and nine months.
Story continues below this ad
He contended that the prosecution’s case suffers from multiple infirmities, saying that the seizure of the contraband took place in a residential locality containing about 50-60 houses, yet no independent witness was secured, casting doubt on the genuineness of the seizure.
The counsel also said that there was non-compliance under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, which vitiates the evidentiary value of the samples and undermines the prosecution’s case.
Opposing these submissions, the public prosecutor said that all alleged discrepancies were minor and could not discredit the prosecution’s case.
The integrity of the samples was never compromised and the high court had rightly rejected the appellant’s contentions, he said.
