DRI Complaint Before Special Court Not Governed By Private Complaint Procedure: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed on an accused in a heroin recovery case under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), while also clarifying that complaints filed by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officers before Special Courts under the NDPS Act are not “private complaints” governed by the procedure contemplated under Part B of Chapter XIX of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The bench of Justice Chandrasekharan examined the legality of the trial procedure, compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, and the evidentiary value of procedural lapses alleged by the accused. The appeal had challenged the trial court judgment dated 27 February 2016 and sentence order dated 10 March 2016 convicting the accused for possession of one kilogram of heroin allegedly recovered from a Honda Civic car intercepted near Singhu Border on 18 May 2012. The trial court had sentenced the accused to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. The prosecution case was that DRI officials, acting on secret information, intercepted the accused while he was entering Delhi through Singhu Border in a vehicle allegedly carrying heroin concealed under the bonnet. Before the High Court, the accused contended that the entire case was vitiated because the proceedings were initiated through a “complaint” filed by a DRI Intelligence Officer and therefore the procedure applicable to complaint cases under Part B of Chapter XIX Cr.P.C. ought to have been followed. Reliance was placed on various precedents including State of Tamil Nadu v. V. Krishnaswami Naidu and a Gauhati High Court decision. Rejecting the contention, the High Court relied heavily upon the Supreme Court judgment in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu. The Court held that a complaint filed by an authorised officer under Section 36A(1)(d) of the NDPS Act is not a complaint under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., and therefore Special Courts are empowered to directly take cognizance without committal proceedings before a Magistrate. The Court observed that the NDPS Act contains a special statutory scheme overriding the ordinary Cr.P.C. mechanism and therefore the procedure applicable to trials before Sessions Courts under Chapter XVIII Cr.P.C. would govern such prosecutions. The accused further alleged serious procedural violations, including non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, delay in depositing samples, failure to draw samples before a Magistrate, non-deposit of seal impressions in the malkhana, and discrepancies in the quantity of contraband allegedly seized. The defence also argued that the search and seizure were not conducted at the place of interception but at the DRI office, thereby violating Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It was additionally contended that no effort was made to trace the source or destination of the alleged contraband. On the other hand, the DRI argued that the seized articles were handled in sealed condition throughout, and that any delay in deposit was due to intervening holidays. The prosecution maintained that procedural lapses, if any, did not automatically vitiate the prosecution unless prejudice or tampering was demonstrated. While examining Section 52A compliance, the High Court acknowledged that the statutory procedure had not been “strictly complied with.” The Court noted that the application under Section 52A was moved nearly five months after seizure and that the inventory contemplated under Section 52A(2) was not properly placed before the Magistrate. However, the Court clarified that mere non-compliance with Section 52A does not automatically result in acquittal. Relying upon the Supreme Court ruling in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court held that procedural lapses must be assessed holistically and conviction can still be sustained if the remaining oral and documentary evidence inspires confidence regarding seizure and conscious possession. The Court further examined whether the seized contraband had remained in lawful custody. It held that the Deputy Director of DRI, being an officer above the rank of Inspector, was duly empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act and therefore competent to receive and retain the case property. The Court referred to notifications issued by the Ministry of Finance empowering DRI officers under Sections 42, 53 and 67 of the NDPS Act. The High Court also relied upon testimonies of prosecution witnesses, including the independent panch witness, who supported the prosecution narrative regarding interception of the vehicle, recovery of a concealed packet from the engine compartment, testing of the substance, and preparation of seizure documents. The accused had alleged false implication and claimed that he was picked up from near his residence and forced to sign documents. However, the Court noted that he admitted several signatures appearing on the seizure and Section 50 documents, though he claimed they were obtained under pressure. The Court ultimately proceeded to evaluate whether the prosecution had proved conscious possession and whether the evidentiary record remained reliable despite procedural irregularities. Case Details Case Title: SUNIL @ SUNIL SHARMA Versus DRI Citation: JURISHOUR-1185-HC-2026(DEL) Case No.: CRL.A. 356/2016 Date: 07.05.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Adarsh Priyadarshi Counsel For Respondent: Satish Aggarwala, Senior Standing Counsel Click Here To Read Order Read More: E-Way Bill and GSTR-3B Mismatch| Allahabad High Court Stays Rs. 142 Crore GST Demand Against Oppo Mobiles

DRI Complaint Before Special Court Not Governed By Private Complaint Procedure: Delhi HC

Membership Required

Latest articles

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 30 May, 2026

Decree on Admission Can’t Be Passed Unless Admission Is Unconditional: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Removal of Tirupati Mutt Mahant

Rs. 11 Lakh Compensation for Illegal Detention After Parole Order: Supreme Court

More like this

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 30 May, 2026

Decree on Admission Can’t Be Passed Unless Admission Is Unconditional: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Removal of Tirupati Mutt Mahant

About us

Company

Categories