Delhi High Court Says Commercial Quantity Heroin Case Collapsed Due To “Extreme Carelessness” Of DRI Officers

The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a 2012 heroin recovery case involving commercial quantity narcotics, while strongly criticising the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for what it termed an “extreme carelessness” and “lackadaisical approach” in handling the prosecution.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha set aside the conviction and 10-year sentence imposed on one Sunil Sharma under Section 21(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) in connection with the alleged recovery of one kilogram of heroin near the Singhu Border in May 2012.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody of the seized contraband and pointed to several procedural lapses relating to compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act and Standing Order 1/89 governing handling and storage of narcotic substances.

“Heroin is quite a dangerous drug and such large quantities of it can destroy entire generations. However, it appears that the officials of the DRI have not assigned the importance that this case so greatly deserved. It also appears that it was only because of such lackadaisical approach and extreme carelessness on the part of the officers concerned that the benefit has gone to the appellant/accused,” the Court remarked.

It further recorded that there was no documentary material to establish that the seized contraband and samples had actually been handed over to the empowered officer immediately after seizure, apart from oral assertions of DRI officers.

The Court observed that no receipt or acknowledgment regarding such transfer was placed on record.

Reliance was placed on Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh where the High Court clarified that mere non-compliance with Section 52A does not automatically vitiate a prosecution under the NDPS Act. However, the Court said such lapses require courts to subject the prosecution case to heightened scrutiny.

“Strict compliance of the formalities is necessary because of the stringent punishment that is provided under the NDPS Act. Whether the mistake was intentional or unintentional, the result is disastrous. Despite the seizure being a commercial quantity, which is supposed to have a value of more than ₹3,00,000/- in the year 2012, (certainly not a small amount), the culprit goes scot free only because of the defects/anomalies committed by the officials concerned of the DRI,” the Court observed.

Adding that such callous or laidback attitude should not be repeated in future, the Court directed Delhi's Chief Secretary to give necessary instructions to all the officers.

Appearance: Mr. Adarsh Priyadarshi, Mr. Amit Dwivedi, Mr. Syed Miran, Mr. Suchit and Ms. Sandhya, Advocates for Appellant; Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Senior Standing Counsel with Ms. Mala Sharma and Mr. Gagan Vaswani, Advocates for Respondent

Case title: Sunil Sharma v. DRI

Case no.: CRL.A. 356/2016

Click here to read order