- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8909 OF 2026 BETWEEN: MR. ARMEL, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O ASSI, R/A-32, MANJUNATHSWAMY NILAYA, NEAR PATAL, KONDAMMA LAYOUT, GANTIGANAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE – 560 065. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SOMANNA K.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. VIRESH R, S/O NOT KNOWN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION-POLICE OFFICER, R/A P I CENTRAL CRIME SECTION, NARCOTIC DRUGS DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY - 01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CC.NO. 953/2024 PURSUANT TO FIR IN CRIME NO.06/2024 DATED 09.01.2024 REGISTERED BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 8(c) AND 22(c) OF THE NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985, SECTION 7(2) OF THE FOREIGNERS ORDER, 1948 AND SECTION 14 OF THE FOREIGNERS ACT, 1946 PENDING ON THE FILE XXXIV ACC AND SJ, SPL JUDGE, NDPS, BENGALURU (CCH-35). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court seeking the following prayer: "a. Quash the entire proceedings in Spl.c.C.No.953/2024 pursuant to FIR in Crime No.06/2024 dated 09.01.2024 registered by Chikkajala Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Section 7(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 pending on the file XXXIV ACC & SJ, SPL Judge, NDPS, Bengaluru (CCH-35). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 b. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard Sri. Somanna K.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor along with Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner is accused No.1 in Spl.C.C.No.953/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (the 'NDPS Act' for short), Section 7(2) of the Foreigners Order, 1948 and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.01.2024 on receipt of certain credible information, the respondent/Police proceed to the location where the petitioner is said to have been committing the acts of selling of narcotic substances and it is the further case that the petitioner had kept the said substances in a Honda Dio scooter parked at the spot. This becomes a crime in Crime No.6/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) and 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 contraband was placed before the learned Magistrate for certification under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The learned Magistrate is said to have certified the inventory. It is the averment in the petition that the certification did not record the seal impression or description of the material, nature of packing or other identifications that were necessary. The Police then file a charge sheet against the petitioner on 16.05.2024 both under the NDPS Act and the Foreigners Act, 1946. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and registers S.C.No.953/2024. The petitioner even today continues to remain in judicial custody. The petitioner has now knocked at the doors of this Court on the score of the identity and integrity of the alleged contraband being seriously compromised, rendering the continuation of the criminal proceedings to be an abuse of the process of the law. 5. Sri. Sommana K.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that there is non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act in the case at hand, which renders the entire proceedings null and void as the Magistrate's certification under Section 52A(4) of the NDPS Act constitutes - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 primary evidence. When the primary evidence itself records a quantity different from that reflected in the seizure proceedings, the prosecution would lose its ability to establish the identity of the seized substance beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, seeks quashment of the proceedings. 6. Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor - I appearing for the State would however refute the submission in contending that the matter has travelled too far after the registration of the crime and it is now pending before the Special Court. The allegations against the petitioner are grave. The contention that there is violation of procedure established under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which would render the prosecution void should not be accepted, as the Apex Court has clearly held that the proceedings under the NDPS Act will not stand vitiated for contravention of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 8. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events, the recovery of contraband all remain a matter of record. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet reads as follows: "17. Brief facts of the case
ಾಂಕ : 08/01/2024 ರಂದು ಾ 08-00 ಗಂ ೆ ಸಮಯದ ಈ ೋಾ ೋಪಣ ಪಯ ಾಲಂ-4 ರ ನಮೂ
ರುವ ಆ ೋ# $ಕ%&ಾಲ 'ೕ( )ಾ*ಾ ಸರಹ
,ನ ಗಂ-ಾನಹ./, -ಾಮದ ೊಂಡಮ1 2ೇಔ4 ನ ಮೆ ನಂಬ6 32, ಮಂಜುಾಥ 9ಾ:; <ಲಯದ ಮುಂ=ಾಗದ 9ಾವ>ಜ<ಕ ರ9ೆ?ಯ <ೇ
ತ Aಾದಕ ವಸು?ಗಳನುC ಇಟುೊಂಡು ಅವGಗಳನುC ತಮ-ೆ ಪHಚಯJರುವ 9ಾKೆLೕ6 ಉೊNೕOಗ.-ೆ ಮತು? ಾ2ೇP JಾNQ>ಗ.-ೆ Aಾ ಾಟ AಾಡುRಾ? ಅಕಮSಾO ಹಣ ಸಂTಾದೆ Aಾಡು ?ರುವGಾO 9ಾU-01 ರವH-ೆ ಬಂದ ಖ$ತ AಾW Xೕ ೆ-ೆ 9ಾU-1 ರವರು ಪಂಚ 9ಾUಗYಾದ 9ಾU-2 ಮತು? 9ಾU-3 Zಾಗೂ ಬ[ಂ
ಗYಾದ 9ಾU-04 Hಂದ 08 ರವ ೊಂ
-ೆ ಸ\ಳೆ% ZೋO AಾW ಯನುC ಖ$ತಪ] ೊಂಡು ಾ. Aಾ] ಆ ೋ#ಯನುC ವಶೆ% ಪ_ೆದು, ಆ ೋ#ಯ ]`ೕ
:-ಚಕSಾಹನದದ,, 62,56,000/- ರೂ aೆ2ೆ aಾಳbವ 1) <ೇ
ತ Aಾದಕ ವಸು? ಬ. ಬಣcದ ಹರ.ನ ರೂಪದ 103.46 -ಾಂ ತೂಕದ ಎಂ.].ಎಂ.ಎ ಕ9ೇe. 2) <ೇ
ತ Aಾದಕ ವಸು? #ಂf ಬಣcದ 156 -ಾಂ ತೂಕದ 410 ಎಂ.].ಎಂ.ಎ ಎೆg #ಲhಗಳನುC ಮತು? 1) ಒಂದು ಐ ೆe #-40 kaೈe mೕn, 2) o. ಬಣcದ ಒಂದು ]pಟe ಎ2ೆಾq<f ತೂಕದ ಯಂತ ಮತು? 3) ]`ೕ ಕಂಪ<ಯ
:-ಚಕ SಾಹನವನುC ಅAಾನತು? ಪ] ೊಂಡು Aಾಲುಪ ಸಂrೆN 02/2024 ರ ನಮೂ
ರುತ?ೆ. ಮುಂದುವ ೆದು, AಾನN Tಾೇtಕ Jೇtಯರ ೊಂದ*ಾuಾHಗಳb, aೆಂಗಳvರು ನಗರ ರವರು <ೕ]ರುವ ವರ
wಂದ ಆ ೋ# Ivory Cost ೇಶದ ಪ&ೆxಾOದು,, Passport No 18AT88432 (22/03/2019 ΤΟ 21/03/2024) -ೆ ಟೂH( Jೕ9ಾ ನಂ AA VK2125439 (28/03/2019 TO 27/09/2019) ಬಳ 2019 ೇ 9ಾನ =ಾರತ ೇಶೆ% ಬಂದು Jೕ9ಾ ಅವ
- 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 ಮುO ದ ನಂತರ =ಾರತ ೇಶದ ಅಕಮSಾO SಾಸSಾOರುವ ಬ-ೆy ತ<rೆwಂದ ಧೃಡಪರುತ?ೆ. Xೕಲ%ಂಡ ಕಲಂ HೕRಾN ಆ ೋ#ಯ Jರುದ| ಆ ೋಪ ಪ ಅTಾ
ಸ2ಾOೆ." Long after the filing of the charge sheet, the petitioner now is before the Court on the score that the contraband substance, which forms the primary evidence has lost its efficacy of being primary evidence, as the Magistrate has not rendered the procedure as necessary under Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The said submission is on the face of it unacceptable, as the Apex Court in the case of BHARAT AAMBALE v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH reported in (2025) 8 SCC 452, observes that Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not mandatory to be followed and if it is not followed, the proceedings under the NDPS Act will not stand vitiated. The Apex Court holds as follows: “…. …. …. 27. What is discernible from the various decisions referred to by us, is that mere non- compliance of the procedure under Section 52-A or the Standing Order(s)/Rules thereunder will not by itself render the trial vitiated or into an automatic acquittal. In all instances where this Court set aside the order of conviction, it did so not solely for the reason that there was a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 violation of Section 52-A but because of and on the strength of the other discrepancies or shortcomings in the prosecution's case that rendered it doubtful. In Jarooparam [Union of India v. Jarooparam, (2018) 4 SCC 334 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 465] the order of acquittal had been upheld as the independent witnesses had also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, in Mangilal [Mangilal v. State of M.P., (2023) 19 SCC 364] aside from the non-compliance of Section 52-A, the order of conviction was held unsustainable as some of the witnesses to the seizure either turned hostile or were not examined at all and due to discrepancies in the very case of the prosecution. In Mohd. Khalid [Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana, (2024) 5 SCC 393 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 650] also, the conviction was set aside as the FSL report was found to be very doubtful and in complete contradiction of the seizure that had taken place. Thus, this Court whilst setting aside the order of conviction has consistently looked for something more than just a mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52-A that renders the case of the prosecution doubtful. …. …. …. 29. Non-compliance or delayed compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 52- A of the NDPS Act or the Rules/Standing Order(s) thereunder may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. However, no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Such delay or deviation from Section 52-A of the NDPS Act or the Standing Order(s)/Rules thereunder will not, by itself, be fatal to the case of the prosecution, unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence which may not have been there had such compliance been done. What is required is that the courts take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that exist in the physical evidence adduced by the prosecution and correlate or link the same with any - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 procedural lapses or deviations. Thus, whenever, there is any deviation or non-compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52-A, the courts are required to appreciate the same keeping in mind the discrepancies that exist in the prosecution's case. In such instances of procedural error or deficiency, the courts ought to be extra-careful and must not overlook or brush aside the discrepancies lightly and rather should scrutinise the material on record even more stringently to satisfy itself of the aspects of possession, seizure or recovery of such material in the first place. 30. In such circumstances, particularly where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in adequately proving compliance of the same, it would not be appropriate for the courts to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record. Similarly, irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the court regarding both the recovery and possession of the contraband from the accused, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. …. …. …. 33. Thus, from above it is clear that the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s)/Rules in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 33.1. We say so because, due to varying circumstances, there may be situations wherein it may not always be possible to forward the seized contraband immediately for the purpose of sampling. This could be due to various factors, such as the sheer volume of the contraband, the peculiar nature of the place of seizure, or owing to the volatility of the substance so seized that may warrant slow and safe handling. There could be situations where such contraband after being sampled cannot be preserved due to its hazardous nature and must be destroyed forthwith or vice-versa where the nature of the case demands that they are preserved and remain untouched. Due to such multitude of possibilities or situations, neither can the police be realistically expected to rigidly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 52-A or its allied Rules/Orders, nor can a straitjacket formula be applied for insisting compliance of each procedure in a specified timeline to the letter, due to varying situations or requirements of each case. 33.2.Thus, what is actually required is only a substantial compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s)/Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per the facts of each and every case. 34. When it comes to the outcome of trial, it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies, that the court should proceed either to convict or acquit the accused. Non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52-A may be fatal only in cases where such non-compliance goes to the heart or root of the matter. 34.1. In other words, the discrepancy should be such that it renders the entire case of the prosecution doubtful, such as instances where there are significant discrepancies in the colour or description of the substance seized from that indicated in the FSL report - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 as was the case in Noor Aga [Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] , or where the contraband was mixed in and stored with some other commodity like vegetables and there is no credible indication of whether the narcotic substance was separated and then weighed as required under the Standing Order(s) or Rules, thereby raising doubts over the actual quantity seized as was the case in Mohd. Khalid [Mohd. Khalid v. State of Telangana, (2024) 5 SCC 393 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 650] , or where the recovery itself is suspicious and uncorroborated by any witnesses such as in Mangilal [Mangilal v. State of M.P., (2023) 19 SCC 364] , or where the bulk material seized in contravention of Section 52-A was not produced before the court despite being directed to be preserved, etc. 34.2. These illustrations are only for the purposes of bringing clarity on what may constitute as a significant discrepancy in a given case, and by no means is either exhaustive in nature or supposed to be applied mechanically in any proceeding under the NDPS Act. It is for the courts to see what constitutes as a significant discrepancy, keeping in mind the peculiar facts, the materials on record and the evidence adduced. 34.3. At the same time, we may caution the courts, not to be hypertechnical whilst looking into the discrepancies that may exist, like slight differences in the weight, colour or numbering of the sample, etc. The court may not discard the entire prosecution case looking into such discrepancies as more often than not ordinarily an officer in a public place would not be carrying a good scale with him, as held in Noor Aga [Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] . 35. It is only those discrepancies which particularly have the propensity to create a doubt or false impression of illegal possession or recovery, or to overstate or inflate the potency, quality or weight of the substance seized that may be pertinent and not mere clerical mistakes, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 provided they are explained properly. Whether, a particular discrepancy is critical to the prosecution's case would depend on the facts of each case, the nature of substance seized, the quality of evidence on record, etc. 36. At the same time, one must be mindful of the fact that Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is only a procedural provision dealing with seizure, inventory, and disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and does not exhaustively lay down the evidentiary rules for proving seizure or recovery, nor does it dictate the manner in which evidence is to be led during trial. It in no manner prescribes how the seizure or recovery of narcotic substances is to be proved or what can be led as evidence to prove the same. Rather, it is the general principles of evidence, as enshrined in the Evidence Act that govern how seizure or recovery may be proved. 37. Thus, the prosecution sans the compliance of the procedure under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act will not render itself helpless but can still prove the seizure or recovery of contraband by leading cogent evidence in this regard such as by examining the seizing officer, producing independent witnesses to the recovery, or presenting the original quantity of seized substances before the court. The evidentiary value of these materials is ultimately to be assessed and looked into by the court. The court should consider whether the evidence inspires confidence. The court should look into the totality of circumstances and the credibility of the witnesses, being mindful to be more cautious in their scrutiny where such procedure has been flouted. The cumulative effect of all evidence must be considered to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt as held in Noor Aga [Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, (2008) 16 SCC 417 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] . 38. Even in cases where there is non- compliance with the procedural requirements of - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 Section 52-A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. The courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non-compliance with Section 52-A may not be fatal. The emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking. …. …. …. 41. Even where the bulk quantity of the seized material is not produced before the court or happens to be destroyed or disposed of in contravention of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the same would be immaterial and have no bearing on the evidentiary value of any inventory, photographs or samples of such substance that is duly certified by a Magistrate and prepared in terms of the said provision. We say so, because sub-section (4) of Section 52-A was inserted to mitigate the issue of degradation, pilferage or theft of seized substances affecting the very trial. It was often seen that, due to prolonged trials, the substance that was seized would deteriorate in quality or completely disappear even before the trial could proceed, by the time the trial would commence, the unavailability of such material would result in a crucial piece of evidence to establish possession becoming missing and the outcome of the trial becoming a foregone conclusion. The legislature being alive to this fact, thought fit to introduce an element of preservation of such evidence of possession of contraband in the form of inventory, photographs and samples and imbued certain procedural safeguards and supervision through the requirement of certification by a Magistrate, which is now contained in sub-section (4) of Section 52-A. In other words, any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance that was prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 Rules/Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to mandatorily be treated as primary evidence, irrespective of the fact that the bulk quantity has not been produced and allegedly destroyed without any lawful order. 42. Section 52-A sub-section (4) should not be conflated as a rule of evidence in the traditional sense i.e. it should not be construed to have laid down that only the certified inventory, photographs and samples of seized substance will be primary evidence and nothing else. The rule of “Primary Evidence” or “Best Evidence” is now well settled. In order to prove a fact, only the best evidence to establish such fact must be led and adduced which often happens to be the original evidence itself. The primary evidence for proving possession will always be the seized substance itself. However, in order to mitigate the challenges in preservation of such substance till the duration of trial, due to pilferage, theft, degradation or any other related circumstances, the legislature consciously incorporated sub-section (4) in Section 52-A to bring even the inventory, photographs or samples of such seized substance on the same pedestal as the original substance, and by a deeming fiction has provided that the same be treated as primary evidence, provided they have been certified by a Magistrate in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed. This, however, does not mean that where Section 52-A has not been complied, the prosecution would be helpless, and cannot prove the factum of possession by adducing other primary evidence in this regard such as by either producing the bulk quantity itself, or examining the witnesses to the recovery, etc. 43. What Section 52-A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act does is it creates a new form of primary evidence by way of a deeming fiction which would be on a par with the original seized substance as long as the same was done in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed thereunder, however, the said provision by no means renders the other evidence in original to be excluded as primary evidence, it neither confines nor restricts the manner of proving possession to only one mode i.e. through such certified - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 inventory, photographs or samples such that all other materials are said to be excluded from the ambit of “evidence”, rather it can be said that the provision instead provides one additional limb of evidentiary rule in proving such possession. Thus, even in the absence of compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the courts cannot simply overlook the other cogent evidence in the form of the seized substance itself or the testimony of the witnesses examined, all that the courts would be required in the absence of any such compliance is to be more careful while appreciating the evidence. …. …. …. 55. However, a close reading of the aforesaid decision reveals that this onus on the prosecution will only encumber once such an issue of non-compliance arises for consideration. Although, we are in complete agreement with the aforesaid observations inasmuch as it would be for the prosecution to establish and prove compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, yet at the same time, we are of the considered opinion, that mere assertion by the accused that there has been non-compliance of the said provision may not be sufficient. The initial burden will always be on the accused to lay down the foundational facts for establishing that there has been a non- compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, either by leading evidence of their own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution itself such as by putting direct and specific questions to the police officers and key witnesses. Such burden on the accused to establish contravention of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act will only be on the mere preponderance of probabilities, whereas once the foundational facts are established that raises an issue as regards the non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the onus will entirely be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either: (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non- compliance does not affect its case against the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt. 56. We summarise our final conclusion as under: 56.1. Although Section 52-A is primarily for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of inventories, taking of photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a Magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in the presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52-A sub-section (2) of the NDPS Act. 56.2. Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure as held in Mohanlal [Union of India v. Mohanlal, (2016) 3 SCC 379 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 864] , yet we are of the opinion that the process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure. 56.3. Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and the Rules/Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52-A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is actually produced before the court or not. 56.4. The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s)/Rules in terms of Section 52- A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. 56.5. Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52-A or the Standing Order(s)/Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses. 56.6. If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 56.7. Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. 56.8. Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52-A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35472 CRL.P No. 8909 of 2026 recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record. 56.9. The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52-A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities. 56.10. Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either: (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non- compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In that light, the petition lacking in merit does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 118