The Bombay High Court, dismissed an appeal filed by Appellant, upholding his conviction under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. The appellant had been convicted for possessing commercial quantities of LSD and was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh. The court rejected contentions regarding non-compliance with Sections 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act, finding no procedural violations.

Introduction and Appeal Grounds

• Para 1-4:
  The appellant challenged the judgment from 2021, convicting him for LSD possession. The key grounds were the alleged non-compliance with Section 50 (informed consent for personal search), Section 52-A (seizure procedure), and claims of contraband tampering.

Arguments on Section 50 (Compliance)

• Para 6-7:
  The appellant argued that he wasn’t properly informed about his right to be searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer as required under Section 50 NDPS Act. However, cross-examination revealed inconsistencies in testimonies about whether this right was communicated in Hindi.

Arguments on Section 52-A (Seizure Process)

• Para 12-13:
  The appellant claimed a breach of Section 52-A, citing delays in sending the contraband for testing, raising doubts about tampering.

Findings of the Court

• Para 18-22:
  The court ruled in favor of the prosecution on Section 50, stating that both the raiding officer and panch witnesses consistently testified about informing the accused in Hindi, the language he understood. The court clarified that any minor deviations in terminology (e.g., "Nyayadhish" for magistrate) did not invalidate the search.

• Para 23-26:
  Regarding Section 52-A, the court held that forwarding the entire LSD paper sheet for forensic testing did not require sample separation or further procedural safeguards under the section. The court found no evidence of tampering.

Weighing Evidence and Conclusions on Substance Weight

• Para 27-34:
  The appellant questioned the reliability of the weight recorded (0.4 grams), alleging improper calibration of the weighing scale. The court rejected this, citing corroborating witness testimony and documentation on the drug's weight, confirming that it fell under commercial quantity.

Seal and Custody of Contraband

• Para 35-36:
  It was further argued that improper custody of the contraband could lead to tampering. The court dismissed these claims, noting that all seals used were properly documented and handed over to relevant authorities immediately post-raid.

Delay in Forensic Dispatch

• Para 37-38:
  The appellant raised concerns over delays in sending the contraband to the laboratory. The court observed that there was no substantial delay and no tampering occurred.

Conclusion

• Para 67-70:
  The appeal was dismissed as the court found no material violation of procedural laws, upholding the conviction based on the clear and corroborative evidence presented by the prosecution.

Relevant Legal Provisions:

• Section 50 NDPS Act – Provides the right to the accused to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate.
• Section 52-A NDPS Act – Mandates procedures for handling, sealing, and disposing of seized narcotics.
• Section 22(c) NDPS Act – Punishes offenses related to the possession of psychotropic substances in commercial quantities.

Ratio Decidendi:

Procedural compliance with Section 50 (informing of rights) is mandatory but minor linguistic deviations do not nullify compliance if the accused was reasonably informed. Moreover, strict adherence to Section 52-A is necessary but can be relaxed where the entire contraband is sent for testing, as it does not materially affect the fairness of the process.

Subjects:

NDPS Act, LSD Possession, Section 50 Compliance, Contraband Seizure, Drug Law Enforcement.