The Legal Mandate for Proving NDPS Act Charges Isn’t Solely Dependent on Independent Witnesses

The recent Supreme Court ruling emphasized that the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) doesn’t mandate solely relying on an independent witness to establish charges.

In a case involving possession of 54 kgs of poppy husk under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, the appellant argued lack of conscious possession, emphasizing the absence of proper documentation like the CFCL form during the contraband’s recovery. However, the State contended that the courts had thoroughly considered these points, with the trial court imposing a minimum 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence.

The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts’ decisions. It stated that NDPS Act compliance was observed in arrest, seizure, and recovery processes. The Court highlighted the competence of PW-3 in gathering evidence and stressed the presence of PW-7, a gazetted officer, during the recovery from the car. Addressing the non-filling of the CFCL form at the site, the Court noted that while it’s a procedural requirement, its absence doesn’t nullify the case, as it’s a part of procedural law, echoing the findings of the lower courts.