NDPS Act | Bald Allegation Of S. 52A Non-Compliance Won't Result In Acquittal Unless Foundational Facts Of Non-Compliance Proved : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court reiterated that unless the foundational facts of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act are not proved by the accused, he cannot assert a bald allegation that the conviction for possessing contraband cannot be sustained due to non-compliance of Section 52A. The bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan was hearing the case where the accused was booked for possessing contraband and sought acquittal due to non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The Court doubted the Appellant's case because the investigating officer detailed the recovery process and sealing of the contraband in compliance with Section 52A which was not questioned by the appellant during cross-examination of the prosecution witness that there was no compliance with Section 52A.The Court said that a plea for non-compliance cannot be taken out of the blue; rather, a foundation fact ought to be laid down by asking the investigating officer appropriate relevant questions.The bench referred to its own latest order passed in Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh to negate the Appellant's argument of non-compliance of Section 52, holding that mere non-compliance with Section 52A would not be fatal to the prosecution's case when other cogent evidence proves the recovery of the contraband from the accused possession. “it is clear that the initial burden lies on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A on a preponderance of probabilities, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution. In the present case, no question whatsoever was put by the defence counsel to PW-7 as regards Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Moreover, apart from a mere bald assertion that there has been a contravention of the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, nothing cogent has been pointed out to us by the appellant herein that would show that there had been a violation of the requirements of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.” "In such circumstances, we do not find any error much less any error of law in the impugned judgment of the High Court. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.", the Court said.Case Title: RAJWANT SINGH VERSUS THE STATE OF HARYANA, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.201 OF 2019Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 102Click here to read/download the orderAppearance:For Appellant(s) Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, AOR Mr. Vipin Gogia, Adv. Mr. Karanvir Gogia, Adv. Ms. Varnika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aditya Goyal, Adv. For Respondent(s) Mr. Devendra Kumar Saini, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sinha Roy, Adv.Related : Mere Breach Of S.52A NDPS Act Not Fatal To Trial If Contraband Recovery Otherwise Proved : Supreme Court

NDPS Act | Bald Allegation Of S. 52A Non-Compliance Won't Result In Acquittal Unless Foundational Facts Of Non-Compliance Proved : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Tags