DRI NDPS Case: Whether Procedural Lapses in Sampling & Search Can Invalidate Conviction?

The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and 15-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to multiple accused involved in a large-scale ganja smuggling operation. The Court dismissed criminal appeals filed by the convicts and affirmed the trial court’s judgment, holding that minor procedural lapses do not vitiate conviction when recovery and possession are clearly established. The Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal has observed that “substantial compliance” with procedural requirements is sufficient under the NDPS Act, and minor deviations do not automatically invalidate the prosecution case. It relied on multiple Supreme Court precedents to hold that procedural lapses must be assessed in light of the overall evidence on record. BUY NOW: How Courts look at Customs Seizure at Airports & Passenger Rights : CASE COMPILATION The case originated from a coordinated intelligence operation conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) in January 2021. Acting on specific inputs, officials intercepted a truck along with a pilot vehicle near Raipur. Upon search, authorities recovered an enormous quantity of ganja—amounting to approximately 1533.791 kilograms, concealed beneath organic fertilizer bags. The contraband was packed in 720 packets hidden inside 60 bags, which were cleverly camouflaged under legitimate goods. The Court noted that the recovery was carried out in the presence of independent witnesses and later verified through forensic examination, confirming the seized substance as ganja. The appellants argued that they were falsely implicated and that the prosecution failed to establish “conscious possession” of the contraband. It was contended that mere presence in the vehicle or at the spot cannot amount to possession, especially where the ganja was concealed beneath other goods. They also raised serious objections regarding procedural compliance, including alleged violations of Sections 42, 52, and 57 of the NDPS Act. The defence particularly challenged the sampling process, arguing that mixing samples from multiple packets destroyed the identity of individual packets, thereby rendering the recovery unreliable. Further, it was argued that statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act could not be treated as confessional evidence and that no conspiracy under Section 29 was established. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that the prosecution had successfully established a clear chain of events leading to the recovery of contraband and the involvement of the accused. The Court observed that the interception was based on credible prior intelligence and executed in a coordinated manner involving both the truck and the pilot vehicle. The Court reiterated that even if there are irregularities in sampling or compliance with Section 52A, conviction can still be sustained if the recovery and possession are otherwise proved through reliable evidence. The Court found that the driver had full control over the truck and its contents, while the co-accused in the pilot vehicle were actively coordinating the transportation of contraband. The presence of linked invoices, common phone numbers, and synchronized movement of vehicles strengthened the prosecution’s case. The Court held that these circumstances clearly established conscious possession and criminal conspiracy, rejecting the defence contention that mere presence cannot attract liability. After examining the entire record, the High Court concluded that the trial court’s findings were based on “clear, cogent, and reliable evidence” and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fines were upheld. Case Details Case Title: Bhausab Madhukar Gore Versus DRI Citation: JURISHOUR-818-HC-2026(CHH) Case No.: CRA No. 605 of 2025 Date: 15.04.2026 Counsel For Petitioner: Vivekanand Sammadar, Advocate Counsel For Respondent: A.S.Kachhawaha, Advocate Click Here To Read Order Read More: Rights of Business Owners During GST Search

DRI NDPS Case: Whether Procedural Lapses in Sampling & Search Can Invalidate Conviction? — Chhattisgarh High Court Says No

Membership Required

Latest articles

Supreme Court Ruling Revives Scrutiny of Pre-2016 Benami Transactions; Retrospective Confiscation Powers Upheld

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 10 May, 2026

Madras HC Waives Requirement Of 10% Pre Deposit Of Penalty And Allow Appeals To Be Filed Without Pre-Deposit

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

More like this

Supreme Court Ruling Revives Scrutiny of Pre-2016 Benami Transactions; Retrospective Confiscation Powers Upheld

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : 10 May, 2026

Madras HC Waives Requirement Of 10% Pre Deposit Of Penalty And Allow Appeals To Be Filed Without Pre-Deposit

About us

Company

Categories