Bharat Aambale Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14420 of 2024]

The Supreme Court of India, in Bharat Aambale vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14420 of 2024], delivered its judgment on January 6, 2025, upholding the conviction of the appellant under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), while clarifying the scope of procedural compliance under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

Facts and Background
The appellant, Bharat Aambale, was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act for possession and trafficking of narcotic substances. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and fined Rs. 1 lakh by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Mahasamund. The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed his appeal, affirming the conviction and sentence.

The appellant challenged the conviction before the Supreme Court, primarily contending that the trial was vitiated due to non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates procedural safeguards for the inventory, sampling, photographing, and disposal of seized narcotics in the presence of a Magistrate.

Legal Issues
Whether mere non-compliance with procedural requirements under Section 52A of the NDPS Act vitiates the trial and conviction.

The evidentiary standard for proving non-compliance and its impact on the prosecution’s case.

The balance between procedural safeguards and substantive justice in NDPS prosecutions.

Supreme Court’s Analysis and Findings
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan held that mere non-compliance with Section 52A or related Standing Orders does not automatically invalidate the trial or conviction unless such lapses cause discrepancies in the physical evidence that cast doubt on the prosecution’s case.

The Court clarified that the burden initially lies on the accused to establish foundational facts indicating non-compliance by a preponderance of probabilities. Once established, the onus shifts to the prosecution to prove substantial compliance or that the non-compliance did not prejudice the accused, with the standard of proof being beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court emphasized a holistic and cumulative evaluation of evidence, cautioning against mechanical dismissal of cases due to procedural lapses when the core evidence remains credible.

Rejecting the appellant’s reliance on earlier precedents that suggested strict compliance, the Court underscored that Section 52A’s purpose is to ensure safe custody and proper handling of narcotics but procedural lapses must be weighed against the totality of evidence.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The judgment affirms that:

Procedural non-compliance under Section 52A NDPS Act is not fatal unless it materially affects the evidence or prosecution’s case.

Courts must adopt a balanced approach, ensuring procedural safeguards without allowing technicalities to defeat substantive justice.

The prosecution must demonstrate substantial compliance or that lapses do not prejudice the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

This ruling reinforces judicial pragmatism in NDPS cases, safeguarding both procedural integrity and effective enforcement against drug offenses.