Mere "Seen" Endorsement By Magistrate On Seized Narcotics Not Substantial Compliance U/S 52A NDPS Act: Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand High Court has observed that a Magistrate's mere endorsement of "seen" on an inventory of seized narcotic substances does not amount to substantial compliance with the certification requirements under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Rule 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and...
The Uttarakhand High Court has observed that a Magistrate's mere endorsement of "seen" on an inventory of seized narcotic substances does not amount to substantial compliance with the certification requirements under Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, read with Rule 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022. The Court further observed that such non-compliance, coupled with prolonged incarceration and the absence of progress in trial, constituted a relevant consideration while deciding a bail application.
Justice Rakesh Thapliyal was hearing a bail application filed by an accused booked under Sections 8/22 read with Section 60 of the NDPS Act. The applicant contended that although the seized contraband was of commercial quantity, the mandatory procedure under Section 52A had not been substantially complied with because the Magistrate had merely put a "seen" endorsement on the inventory instead of certifying it in the manner prescribed under Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules. The applicant also pointed out that he had remained in custody since 24 March 2024, the charge sheet had been filed on 31 August 2024, and despite there being eight prosecution witnesses, not a single witness had been examined.
The Court noted that the applicant had remained in custody for over two years, the trial had commenced, but no prosecution witness had yet been examined, and the inventory prepared during seizure had not been certified by the Magistrate in the manner contemplated by Rule 8 of the 2022 Rules.
While observing that the question of compliance with the requirement of certification of the correctness of inventory [a requirement under Section 52A(2)(b)] would ultimately be determined during trial, the Court held that the apparent deficiency in certification could nevertheless be taken into account at the stage of considering bail.
“… the inventory which was prepared is not certified in the manner as provided under Rule 8 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal), Rules, 2022 though is completely a subject matter of trial but can be looked into while considering the bail application,” the Court observed.
In the circumstances, it concluded that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail without expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution case.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the bail application and directed the release of the applicant on furnishing a personal bond.
Case Title: Hashim v. State of Uttarakhand [Bail Application No. 820 of 2025]