Any Lapse Or Delay In Compliance Of S. 52A NDPS Act Neither Vitiates Trial Nor Entitles Accused To Be Released On Bail: SC

The Supreme Court held that, any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail.

The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against the Order of the Delhi High Court by which it granted bail to the accused.

The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.”

The Bench said that Section 52A NDPS Act was inserted for an early disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space, and other relevant considerations.

Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Appellant/NCB while Advocate Akshay Bhandari appeared on behalf of the Respondent/accused.

Brief Facts -

As per the prosecution case, an information was received by a Junior Intelligence Officer (JIO) regarding a parcel lying with DHL Express, suspected to contain psychotropic substances. Based on this information, NCB team reached the DHL office and the suspected parcel was opened. It was found to have contained 11 lace rolls and 3 pieces of clothes. On opening one lace roll, it was found to have contained 120 strips of Tramadol tablets and each strip had 10 tablets. The remaining lace rolls were also opened and a total of 13200 strips of Tramadol tablets were found. The suspected contraband was seized and sealed and subsequently, it was discovered that the parcel was booked through a firm named OGS Groups by one of the accused.

The aforesaid accused was apprehended by NCB and based on his disclosure statement, further seizure was made. The co-accused disclosed the names of his three associates including the Respondent and hence, they were arrested. Resultantly, NCB filed a Complaint before the Special Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 22(c), 23(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Respondent filed a Bail Application before the High Court and the same was allowed, holding that there was non-compliance of Section 51A within reasonable time, and confining itself to the issue whether the application under Section 52A was made within reasonable time and the effect of delay, if any. Therefore, the NCB was before the Apex Court.

The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, noted, “Apart from the plain language used in the said section, its Heading also makes it clear that the said provision was inserted for the Disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. As per the well settled rule of interpretation, the Section Heading or Marginal note can be relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation of any provision and to discern the legislative intent. The Section Heading constitutes an important part of the Act itself, and may be read not only as explaining the provisions of the section, but it also affords a better key to the constructions of the provisions of the section which follows than might be afforded by a mere preamble.”

The Court further reiterated that, every law is designed to further ends of justice and not to frustrate it on mere technicalities and if the language of a Statute in its ordinary meaning and grammatical construction leads a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose of the enactment, a construction may be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, or even the structure of the sentence.

“It is equally settled legal position that where the main object and intention of a statute are clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the draftsman’s unskillfulness or ignorance of the law”, it added.

The Court also referred to the Judgment in the case of K.P. Varghese v. Income Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Another (1981) 4 SCC 173 wherein it was observed that a statutory provision must be so construed, if it is possible, that absurdity and mischief may be avoided and where the plain and literal interpretation of statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result, the Court may modify the language used by the Legislature or even do some violence to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction and just result.

The Court, therefore, summarized the following points –

(i) The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the scheme, object and purpose of the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole. It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act.

(ii) While considering the application for bail, the Court must bear in mind the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature. Recording of findings as mandated in Section 37 is sine qua non is known for granting bail to the accused involved in the offences under the NDPS Act.

(iii) The purpose of insertion of Section 52A laying down the procedure for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, was to ensure the early disposal of the seized contraband drugs and substances. It was inserted in 1989 as one of the measures to implement and to give effect to the International Conventions on the Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

(iv) Sub-section (2) of Section 52A lays down the procedure as contemplated in sub-section (1) thereof, and any lapse or delayed compliance thereof would be merely a procedural irregularity which would neither entitle the accused to be released on bail nor would vitiate the trial on that ground alone.

(v) Any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter, would by itself not make the entire evidence collected during the course of investigation, inadmissible. The Court would have to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice has been caused to the accused.

“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”, concluded the Court.

Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Criminal Appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for fresh consideration.

Cause Title- Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 1045)

Appearance:

Appellant: SGI Tushar Mehta and AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma.

Respondent: AOR Ashish Batra and Advocate Akshay Bhandari.

Click here to read/download the Judgment