Section 52A of The NDPS Act

Posted on by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray

The evidence collected during course of investigation in a legal and proper manner and sought to be used in course of trial with regard to a seized contraband substance could not be simply brushed aside on ground of a procedural irregularity committed.

Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 nowhere held, non-compliance or delayed compliance of procedure prescribed under Section 52A(2) of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would vitiate trial or would entitle a release on bail. In our opinion, decisions of Constitution Benches in case of Pooran Mal, AIR 1974 SC 348 and State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 must take precedence.

Simarnjit v. State of Punjab, Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2023 and Yusuf v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328 and Mohammed Khalid v. State of Telangana, (2024) 5 SCC 393, in which convictions have been set aside by this Court on finding non-compliance of Section 52A, have not proposed to lay down any law on issue of admissibility of any other evidence collected during course of trial under NDPS Act.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, [Criminal Appeal No. 5544 of 2024].

_____

Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452 has comprehensively clarified, scope, purpose and effect of Section 52A. Most significantly, Paragraphs 56.5 and 56.6 make it clear, mere non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52A is not fatal.

– Hon’ble Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, Jothi v. State, [Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025] decided on 11.12.2025.

Rudrajyoti Nath Ray's avatar
'The Last Word' seeks to include not only wise and witty sayings but also curiosities. These words are not of obligation but of delight. I am not alone in my refusal to believe, law is tedious. For all who escaped these percipient eyes, mea culpa maxima. History, after all, has many cunning passages, contrived corridors and issues.