Holding

The trial court’s conviction was set aside because the contraband could not be clubbed to form a commercial quantity, no conspiracy was proved, and the seizure and sampling violated Section 52A, rendering the evidence inadmissible.

Summary

The appellant Nadee m Ahamed was seized with approximately 125 g of heroin while a co‑accused was found with about 130 g, leading the trial court to treat the combined 255 g as a commercial quantity and convict both under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds that the seizure and sampling procedures violated Section 52A of the NDPS Act, that the two separate seizures could not be clubbed to constitute a commercial quantity, and that there was no evidence of a conspiracy between the accused. The Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in aggregating the quantities, that no positive proof of conspiracy existed, and that the seizure officer failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 52A and the relevant standing order, rendering the forensic report inadmissible. Consequently, the prosecution’s evidence was deemed unreliable and insufficient to prove the contraband was heroin. The Court quashed the convictions, acquitted the appellant, and ordered his release.

Issues considered

Whether the quantities of heroin recovered from two separate individuals can be aggregated to constitute a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
Whether the prosecution established a conspiracy between the appellant and the co‑accused sufficient to attract Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the seizure and sampling procedures complied with the mandatory requirements of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the applicable standing order.
Whether the forensic laboratory report can be admitted as evidence despite alleged procedural lapses.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 374(2)
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985s. 21(c), s. 29, s. 52A

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether the Courts below erred in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.21(c) and 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – to be heroin, weighing about 125gms and 130gms were recovered from the appellant and the co-accused, respectively – Since the gross weight of narcotic substance was 255gms thus, the seized contraband was treated to be of commercial quantity – Conviction u/ss.21(c), 29 and sentenced

Subjects

Narcotic drugNarcotic drug heroinHeroinContraband recovered not of commercial quantityContraband heroin recovered from two distinct individualsNo positive proof to support the charge of conspiracyNo prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s possessionArticle recovered not narcotic drug heroinGlaring infirmities and discrepancies in the process of seizure and collection of samplesSeizure officerFailure to adhere to the requirements of Section 52A, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Non-compliance of Section 52A, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Seized contrabandCommercial quantityNarcotic drug recoveredInferences or conjecturesSeizure and sampling process doubtfulPossession of the contrabandConspiracyPresumption of culpable mental stateConscious and aware of the contents of the packets stashedFlawed sampling procedureFSL report cannot be read in evidenceProcedure of sampling and inventoryBarred by time and delayedRaiding teamAnti-Smuggling Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of FinanceDefault of payment of fineDismissal of appeal on the ground of delay aloneStanding OrderNon-drawing of the samples

Judgment

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 987 : 2025 INSC 993

Nadeem Ahamed
v.
The State of West Bengal
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 3573-3574 of 2025)
05 August 2025
[Aravind Kumar and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Courts below erred in convicting the accused-appellant
for the offences punishable u/ss.21(c) and 29, Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Headnotes†
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
s.52A – Non-compliance with – Narcotic drug, suspected to be
heroin, weighing about 125gms and 130gms were recovered
from the appellant and the co-accused, respectively – Since
the gross weight of narcotic substance was 255gms thus, the
seized contraband was treated to be of commercial quantity –
Conviction u/ss.21(c), 29 and sentenced accordingly – Appeal,
dismissed by High Court – Interference with:
Held: View taken by the trial Court that the contraband recovered
was more than the commercial quantity is unjustified and illegal –
It committed grave factual error in concluding that the contraband
heroin recovered from two distinct individuals could be clubbed
together, so as to be covered under the commercial quantity (above
250 gms) – Apart from the bald allegation that both the accused
were seen walking together and were searched one after the other,
no evidence was led by the prosecution, to substantiate the charge
of prior conspiracy between them giving rise to an inference that
either of them had the knowledge about the contraband being
carried by the other – There is no positive proof to support the
charge of conspiracy – Such proof could not be substituted with
mere inferences or conjectures – Positive and tangible evidence
was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both
accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the
other’s possession – Furthermore, there are glaring infirmities and

* Author
988 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

discrepancies in the process of seizure, and collection of samples
undertaken by the seizure officer (PW-2) – There has been a
complete and unexplained failure to adhere to the requirements of
s.52A rendering the integrity of the seizure and sampling process
wholly doubtful – Though the procedure u/s.52A has not been
considered to be mandatory, but the non-drawing of the samples
in light of the Standing Order no.1 of 1989, and the complete non-
compliance of s.52A, made the entire procedure of seizure and
sampling a total farce, and thereby, unworthy of credence – Thus,
the FSL report cannot be read in evidence and therefore, there
is no evidence on record to prove that the article recovered from
the appellant was the narcotic drug heroin, as defined under the
Schedule to the NDPS Act – Moreover, the rejection of the appeal
filed by the appellant by the High Court, simply on the ground of
delay was unjustified – Impugned judgments quashed and set
aside – Appellant acquitted – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 –
s.374(2). [Paras 21-23, 25, 29-33]

Case Law Cited
Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat [2005] Supp. 3
SCR 272 : (2005) 7 SCC 550; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab [2008]
10 SCR 379 : (2008) 16 SCC 417 – referred to.

List of Acts
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973.

List of Keywords
Narcotic drug; Narcotic drug heroin; Heroin; Contraband recovered
not of commercial quantity; Contraband heroin recovered from
two distinct individuals; No positive proof to support the charge of
conspiracy; No prior knowledge of the contraband in the other’s
possession; No prior conspiracy; Article recovered not narcotic
drug heroin; Glaring infirmities and discrepancies in the process
of seizure and collection of samples; Seizure officer; Failure to
adhere to the requirements of Section 52A, Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Non-compliance of Section
52A, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985;
Seized contraband; Commercial quantity; Narcotic drug recovered;
Inferences or conjectures; Contraband heroin recovered; Seizure
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 989

Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal

and sampling process; Possession of the contraband; Conspiracy;
Presumption of culpable mental state; Conscious and aware of the
contents of the packets stashed; Seizure and sampling process
doubtful; Flawed sampling procedure; FSL report cannot be read
in evidence; Procedure of sampling and inventory; Barred by time
and delayed; Raiding team; Anti-Smuggling Unit, Department of
Revenue, Ministry of Finance; Default of payment of fine; Dismissal
of appeal on the ground of delay alone; Standing Order; Non-
drawing of the samples.

Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s).
3573-3574 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2025 of the High Court
at Calcutta in CRA(DB) Nos. 362 and CRAN No. 1 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Subhasish Bhowmick, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Rahul Kushwaha,
Suraj Kumar Singh, Ashutosh Singh, Rakesh Kumar Tiwari, Ajeet
Kumar, Ms. Mani Mala Roy, Aniruddha Singha Roy.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The accused-appellant Nadeem Ahamed 1 has approached this
Court, through these appeals by special leave, assailing the common
judgement dated 17th January, 2025, passed by the Division Bench
of High Court of judicature at Calcutta2, whereby C.R.A. (DB) 362
of 2024 preferred by the accused-appellant under Section 374(2) of

1 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘accused-appellant’.
2 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.
990 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, was rejected on the ground
of being time barred and delayed.
4. The accused-appellant stood convicted for the offences punishable
under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 19854, vide judgment dated 24th August, 2021 passed
by the Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act and Additional Sessions
Judge, 12th Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South), West Bengal5. By the
order of sentence dated 26th August, 2021, the trial Court sentenced
the accused-appellant to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused-
appellant was sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for
six months. As stated above, the High Court refused to entertain the
regular appeal against conviction preferred by the accused-appellant
and dismissed the same on the ground of delay alone.

Facts of the case
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16th July, 2018, at about
17:30 hours, seizure officer S. I. Subrata Saha, i.e., PW-26 received a
source information that two male persons would be coming to supply
heroin in the vicinity of Pragati Maidan P.S.7 area in the evening of
the same day. The information was reduced into writing, and a copy
thereof was forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the Narcotic Cell.
The seizure officer (PW-2) took permission of the officer-in-charge,
and formed a raiding team. He carried the weighing scale, testing
kit, packing materials, etc. and reached near Laxmi Store, which
fell under the jurisdiction of the police station, at about 19:30 hours.
The source informant led them to the prescheduled location, and
they maintained a watch. At about 20:00 hours, the source informant
pointed towards two male persons coming along the Metropolitan from
south to north direction. Both of them were detained by the seizure
officer (PW-2) with the help of the members of the raiding team.

3 For short, ‘CrPC’.
4 For short, ‘NDPS Act’.
5 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court.’
6 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘seizure officer (PW-2).’
7 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘police station.’
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 991

Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal

6. Two independent persons were requested to stand as panchas in
the search. The purpose of detention was disclosed to the detenues.
The detenues disclosed their identities as Amit Dutta @ Rakesh8
(the co-accused) and Nadeem Ahamed (the appellant herein). They
were informed about their right of being searched in the presence
of either a Magistrate or a Gazetted officer, as per Section 50 of
the NDPS Act. The detenues exercised the option to be searched
in the presence of a Gazetted officer. However, no such officer was
immediately available in the vicinity. Therefore, the seizure officer
(PW-2) informed his superior officers.
7. At about 21:30 hours, Inspector Ananda Swarup Nayak, Additional
officer-in-charge, i.e., PW-49 came to the spot in uniform. He was
introduced as a Gazetted officer to the detenues, and a re-confirmation
was taken from both of them as to whether they desired to be
searched at the spot in the presence of Gazetted officer (PW-4), to
which they agreed.
8. After observation of necessary pre-search formalities, the search of
the co-accused Amit Dutta was conducted and, from his possession,
narcotic drug, suspected to be heroin, weighing about 130 gms.,
some cash, a ring and a key, being personal properties, were
recovered. The accused-appellant was also searched and narcotic
drug, suspected to be heroin, weighing 125 gms. was found stashed
on his person, along with some cash, being his personal property.
A small portion of the narcotic drug recovered from each of the
detenues was tested by the drug testing kit, which gave a positive
indication for the presence of heroin.
9. The gross weight of the narcotic substance recovered from both the
detenues came to be about 255 gms. and thus, the seized contraband
was treated to be of commercial quantity. The drug packets so
recovered were seized, and sampling procedure was carried out. One
sample each, weighing 10 gms., was collected from the individual
packets recovered from the detenues. The drug packets were then
packed, sealed and labelled as Mark A and Mark B. The samples
collected from both the sealed packets were marked as S1 and S2.

8 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘co-accused’
9 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Gazetted officer (PW-4)’
992 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

10. As the detenues failed to give a satisfactory explanation for the
possession of the contraband, both of them were arrested at about
00:30 hours on 17th July, 2018. After investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed against both the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The samples collected from
the recovered drug packets were forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory10 for analysis. The test report concluded that both the
samples tested positive for the presence of heroin.

Proceedings before the trial Court
11. The trial Court framed charges against the accused-appellant and the
co-accused for the aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses,
exhibited 21 documents and produced 22 muddamal articles in order
to prove its case.
12. After hearing the arguments advanced by the Public Prosecutor
and the defence counsel, the trial Court proceeded to convict and
sentence the accused-appellant, as well as the co-accused, as
above, vide judgment dated 24th August, 2021.

Proceedings before the High Court
13. The accused-appellant seems to have been prevented from filing an
appeal in time, and the appeal against conviction under Section 374
(2) CrPC, assailing the judgment of the trial Court, was presented
in the High Court with a delay of 1183 days.
14. It was pleaded in application for condonation that the delay was
caused due to the accused-appellant’s financial crisis. However,
the High Court refused to condone the delay in filing of the appeal.
The High Court also took note of the fact that during the intervening
period, the appeal of the co-accused, being Criminal Appeal No. 325
of 2021, had been rejected vide judgment dated 23rd September,
2022. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant
was dismissed solely on the ground of delay. The said judgement
dated 17th January, 2025 has been assailed in the present appeals
by special leave.

10 For short, ‘FSL’.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 993

Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal

15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has advanced the following
arguments to challenge his conviction: -
i) That there was a total non-compliance of the mandatory
provisions of NDPS Act in conducting the search and seizure.
ii) That the search and seizure proceedings are full of contradictions
and inherent improbabilities and the same do not inspire
confidence.
iii) That the prosecution case is vitiated because the seizure officer
(PW-2) failed to comply with the mandate of Section 52A of
the NDPS Act, inasmuch as neither were samples drawn in
presence of a Magistrate, nor was any inventory prepared as
per the requirement of law.
iv) That the trial Judge committed a grave error in holding that
the recovered contraband weighed more than the commercial
quantity. In this regard, it has been fervently contended that there
is no evidence on record to show that the accused-appellant
and the co-accused were known to each other from before, or
that either of them had the prior knowledge of the contraband
allegedly possessed by the other.
16. He further submitted that conviction of the accused-appellant for the
offence punishable under Section 29 of the NDPS Act is absolutely
illegal, for the simple reason that there is no evidence to justify the
charge of conspiracy.
17. The respondent-State of West Bengal, though duly served, has
chosen not to put in appearance before this Court.
18. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the accused-appellant at the bar, and have gone through
the impugned judgment and the material placed on record.

Discussion and Analysis
19. At the outset, we may note that the rejection of the appeal preferred
by the accused-appellant by the High Court, simply on the ground
of delay, was uncalled for.
20. Given the fact that the accused-appellant was incarcerated in prison
from the date of his initial apprehension, the rejection of the appeal on
the sole ground of delay was too harsh and unjustified in our opinion.
994 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

The High Court should have condoned the delay and decided the
appeal on merits, keeping in view the fact that the accused-appellant
was in custody, and did not have the financial wherewithal to file
the appeal. We could have remanded the matter to the High Court
for reconsidering the appeal on merits, but that would cause further
delay. Thus, we have proceeded to consider the merits of the matter.
21. Upon examination of the material placed on record, we are of the
firm opinion that the view taken by the trial Court, that the contraband
recovered in this case was more than the commercial quantity, is
unjustified and illegal on the face of the record.
22. Merely because the two accused, walking side-by-side, were
apprehended simultaneously, and both were carrying narcotic drug
concealed on their body, the said coincidental happening, by itself,
would not give rise to an inference that either of them had the
knowledge about the contraband being carried by the other. These
facts may give rise to a suspicion, but suspicion, however, cannot
take place of proof.
23. If at all the prosecution intended to bring home the charge of
conspiracy, and club the contraband recovered from both the accused
persons together, then positive proof to support the charge of
conspiracy had to be presented. Such proof could not be substituted
with mere inferences or conjectures. Positive and tangible evidence
was necessary to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both
accused persons had prior knowledge of the contraband in the
other’s possession. However, upon carefully analysing the evidence
available on record, we find that, apart from the bald allegation that
both the accused were seen walking together and were searched
one after the other, not even a semblance of evidence was led by the
prosecution, which can substantiate the charge of prior conspiracy
between the two accused persons.
24. Rather, upon going through the judgment of the trial Court, we find
that, without there being any such evidence, the trial Court simply
raised a presumption as to the culpable mental state by proceeding
on an assumption that both the accused were conscious and aware
of the contents of the packets stashed on the other’s person. Such
assumption is erroneous and absolutely unjustified on the face of
the record for want of evidence to substantiate the same. Reference
in this regard can be made to the judgment of this Court in the case
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 995

Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal

of Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat11. The relevant
observations from the aforesaid judgement are reproduced below:-
“7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged
only one contention in support of the present appeal. He
contended that the High Court fell into an error in taking
the total quantity of the offending substances recovered
from the two accused jointly and holding that the said
quantity was more than the commercial quantity, warranting
punishment under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act. He
contended that as far as the appellant is concerned, the
High Court erred by assuming that there was criminal
conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS
Act, and erroneously proceeded under the said section.
The High Court fell into a further error of assuming that
because Section 29 was applicable, the total quantity
of opium recovered was 920 grams plus 4.250 kg. The
counsel urged that because of this error the High Court
took the wrong view that the total opium recovered was
of “commercial quantity” and, therefore, attracted Section
21(c) of the NDPS Act.
8. Although, at first blush, the argument of the learned
counsel appeared attractive, on careful appreciation of
the facts on record we are satisfied that the High Court
judgment is fully justified and needs to be upheld. It is true
that the High Court proceeded on the footing that there
was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant and
the deceased Danabhai Virabhai Rabari. In our view,
however, there was no warrant for this conclusion at all
as there is no evidence to suggest that there was any
such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy within the
meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act. The appellant
and Danabhai Virabhai Rabari were found together,
but individually carrying the recovered substances.
Hence, it was not possible for the High Court to take
the view that Section 29 was attracted.”
(Emphasis supplied)

11 (2005) 7 SCC 550
996 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

25. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the trial Court
committed a grave factual error in concluding that the contraband
heroin recovered from two distinct individuals could be clubbed
together, so as to be covered under the commercial quantity (above
250 gms.).
26. That apart, we find certain glaring infirmities and discrepancies in
the process of seizure, and collection of samples undertaken by the
seizure officer (PW-2). Before we delve into these inconsistencies,
it is imperative to set out the sequence of events commencing from
16th July, 2018, when the seizure officer (PW-2) received source
information regarding two individuals suspected of carrying heroin,
who were expected to be coming near Laxmi Store, Pragati Maidan,
Kolkata with the contraband. Upon locating the suspected persons,
the seizure officer (PW-2) proceeded to search them, which yielded
to the discovery of a heat-sealed transparent polythene packet
containing a brown powder/granular substance weighing 125 gms.
from the accused-appellant Nadeem, along with certain Indian
currency notes. A similar packet was recovered from the co-accused
Amit Dutta, which weighed 130 gms. Both packets were punctured,
and one sample each was drawn from the same for the purposes
of sealing, marking, and labelling.
27. Upon returning to the police station, the seizure officer (PW-2)
handed over the seized contraband to Ashish Das, the Officer-in-
charge12, directing him to prepare an inventory list. The contraband
was thereafter deposited in the malkhana by S.I. Sandip Datta
(PW-1). The investigation was subsequently entrusted to S.I.
Debashish Barman (PW-6)13, along with custody of the seized
contraband and the collected samples. On 20th July, 2018, investigation
officer (PW-6) attempted to deposit the samples at the FSL. However,
they were not accepted as he arrived after the stipulated time. It was
only on 23rd July, 2018 that investigation officer (PW-6) succeeded
in depositing the samples for analysis.
28. While the above sequence of events appears to form a continuous
chain, the inconsistencies that emerge therein are of such gravity
that they cannot be disregarded. These are as follows:-

12 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘officer-in-charge’
13 Hereinafter, referred to as ‘investigation officer (PW-6)’
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 997

Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal

(a) The seizure officer (PW-2) collected only one sample each
from the packets of the contraband seized from the individual
accused. This is in direct contravention of Clause 2.2 of Standing
Order No. 1 of 1989 dated 13th June, 1989, issued by the Anti-
Smuggling Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance.
The said clause stipulates:
“2.2 All the packages/containers shall be serially
numbered and kept in lots for Sampling. Samples
from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances
seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in
duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses
(Panchas) and the person from whose possession
the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect
should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn
on the spot.”
(Emphasis supplied)

The said standing order came up for consideration before this
Court in the case of Noor Aga v. State of Punjab14, wherein it
was held that the guidelines mentioned above should not only
be substantively complied with, but in a case involving penal
proceedings, the rigours of such guidelines may be insisted
upon. The manifest non-compliance of the standing order in
the present case is, therefore, of considerable import.
(b) According to the testimony of the seizure officer (PW-2), the
Gazetted officer (PW-4), the independent witnesses, and the
detenues, including the accused-appellant, signed the seizure
list and the labels affixed to the seized material, including the
loose labels. However, when the sample packets were opened
before the trial Court during evidence of the seizure officer
(PW-2), the labels contained only the signatures of the witnesses,
the seizure officer (PW-2) and the panch witness. The signatures
of the accused were conspicuously absent from the packets, as
per the observations recorded in the deposition. To substantiate
this conclusion, we proceed to extract the relevant excerpts
from the seizure officer’s (PW-2) evidence: -

14 (2008) 16 SCC 417.
998 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“Thereafter, I seized the contraband as well as the
currency notes and the key under a seizure list in
presence of independent witnesses, the Gazetted
Officer as well as the member of the raiding team
and both the accused persons put their signature in
the seizure list. The GO, independent witnesses as
well as the other member of the raiding team also
put their signatures in the seizure list.
…
The witness is shown a brown coloured envelope it
is sealed and labeled and marked as S1 he identify
the packet and stated that the packet contained 10
gms of heroin from the mother packet.
The brown coloured packet is marked as MAT
EXT - I. The label on the brown packet is marked
as MAT EXT - II and the signature of the witness
in the label is marked as MAT EXT - II/1.
The brown coloured envelope is opened in presence
of Id. Advocate. From inside the packet a transparent
polythene packet containing brown coloured powder/
granules is brought out. The witness identifies the
powder to be the sample which he had taken from
the mother packet.
The packet is marked as MAT EXT - III. A loose
label is also brought out from inside the brown
packet. The label is marked as MAT EXT - IV and
the signature of the witness in it is marked as
MAT EXT - IV/1.
The witness is shown a brown coloured envelope it is
sealed and labeled and marked as ‘S2’. He identifies
the packet and stated that the (sic) packet contained
10 gms of Heroin from the mother packet.
The brown coloured packet is marked as MAT
EXT - V. The label on the brown packet is marked
as MAT EXT - VI and the signature of the witness
in the label is marked as MAT EXT - VI/1.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 999

Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal

The brown coloured envelope, is opened in presence
of Id. Advocate. From inside the packet a transparent
polythene packet containing brown coloured powder/
granules is brought out. The witness identifies the
powder to be the sample which he had taken from
the mother packet.
The packet is marked as MAT EXT - VII. A loose
label is also brought out from inside the brown
packet. The label is marked as MAT EXT - VIII
and the signature of the witness in it is marked
as MAT EXT - VIII/1.
After the sample, of 10 gms was taken out the
remaining portion of the contraband along with the
transparent packet recovered from the possession of
Amit Dutta was sealed labeled and pack in a brown
coloured packet after repairing the punctured portion.
The same was marked as ‘A’.
The witness is shown a brown coloured envelope
which is sealed and labeled and marked as A” he
identifies the packet and stated that it contained
remaining portion of the contraband which was
recovered from the possession of the accused Amit
Dutta (sic). The brown coloured (sic) envelop is
marked as MAT EXT - IX. The label in it is marked
as MAT EXT - X. The signature of the witness on
the label is marked as MAT EXT - X/1.
The brown coloured envelope is opened in court in
presence of the Ld. Advocate.
A loose label and a polythene packet containing
brown coloured substance is brought out.
The witness identifies the brown substance and stated
that it is the remaining portion of the contraband
recovered from the possession of Amit Dutta.
The packet containing the brown substance is marked
as MAT EXT - XI. The loose label is marked as MAT
EXT - XII and the signature of the witness in the label
is marked as MAT EXT - XII/1.
1000 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

After the sample of 10 gms was taken out the
remaining portion of the contraband along with the
transparent packet recovered from the possession
of Amit Dutta was sealed labeled and pack in a
brown coloured packet after. Repairing the punctured
portion. The same was marked, as ‘B’.
The witness is shown a brown coloured envelope
which is (sic) sealed and labeled and marked as ‘B’.
He identifies the packet and stated that it contained
the remaining portion of the contraband which was
recovered from the possession of the accused Nadim
Ahmed. The brown coloured envelop is marked as
MAT EXT - XIII. The label in it is marked as MAT
EXT - XIV. The signature of the witness on the label
is marked as MAT EXT - XIV/1.
The brown coloured envelope is opened in court in
presence of the Ld. (sic) Advocate.
A loose label and a polythene packet containing
brown coloured substance is brought out.
The witness identifies the brown substance and stated
that it is the remaining portion of the contraband
recovered from (sic) the possession of Amit Dutta.
The packet containing the brown substance is marked
as MAT EXT - XV. The loose label is marked as MAT
EXT - XVI and the signature of the witness in the
label is marked as MAT EXT - XVI/1.”
A careful perusal of the above excerpt from the evidence of the
seizure officer (PW-2) makes it clear that neither the mother
packet, nor the sample packets, bore the signatures of the
accused-appellant, when the same were opened and exhibited
as material objects, during evidence of the aforesaid witness
before the trial Court.
(c) The seizure officer (PW-2) did not prepare any separate seizure
list for the samples drawn from the accused-appellant. Likewise,
no “test memo” or “weighment chart” was prepared at the spot.
Furthermore, no specimen seal memo was proved by the seizure
officer (PW-2), as is evident from his deposition at trial.
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1001

Nadeem Ahamed v. The State of West Bengal

(d) Although two independent witnesses were associated with
the investigation, only one was examined by the prosecution,
without any explanation for the omission to examine the other.
(e) Most significantly, there has been a complete failure by the
prosecution to comply with the important procedural requirement,
as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS
Act.15 A perusal of the record makes it clear that there was no
effort whatsoever, either by the seizure officer (PW-2), or the
officer-in-charge, to undertake the procedure of sampling and
inventory in presence of a Magistrate, in light of the aforesaid
provision. The trial Court also noted that the seizure officer
(PW-2) has even failed to state as to whether any inventory
list had been prepared at the time of the raid.
29. In view of the above discussion, this Court is compelled to hold that
there has been a complete and unexplained failure to adhere to the
requirements of Section 52A. Neither representative samples were
drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, nor was the inventory list
prepared and certified, as required by law. These lapses strike at
the very root of the prosecution case, rendering the integrity of the
seizure and sampling process wholly doubtful.
30. We may hasten to add that the procedure under Section 52A of
the NDPS Act has not been considered to be mandatory by this
Court, but the facts taken cumulatively, i.e., the non-drawing of
the samples in light of the Standing Order no. 1 of 1989, and the
complete non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, makes the
entire procedure of seizure and sampling a total farce, and thereby,
unworthy of credence.

15 “Where any [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been
seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered
under Section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such [narcotic
drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details
relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying
particulars of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or
the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to
in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to
any Magistrate for the purpose of— (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b)
taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of [such drugs, substances or conveyances]
and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or
substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so
drawn.”
1002 [2025] 8 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

31. In this view of the matter, we are of the firm opinion that the FSL
report loses significance on account of the flawed sampling procedure
undertaken by the seizure officer (PW-2), coupled with the fact that
there has been a total failure by the officer-in-charge to comply with
the procedure provided under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
32. In the wake of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion
that the FSL report cannot be read in evidence and consequently,
there is no acceptable evidence on record to prove that the article
recovered from the accused-appellant was the narcotic drug heroin,
as defined under the Schedule to the NDPS Act.
33. Consequently, the impugned judgments do not stand to scrutiny and
are hereby quashed and set aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted
of the charges. He shall be released from custody forthwith, if not
wanted in any other case.
34. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
35. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey