NDLI: Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985 – s.52A – Non-compliance of
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – s.52A– Non-compliance of – Held: – In the present case, search warrantunder Exhibit P-4 acknowledged the fact that procedurecontemplated under the NDPS Act was not followed – Also, one ofthe witnesses to the seizure memo was not examined while the otherturned hostile – Both the witnesses to the arrest memo were notexamined – The record also indicates that an order was passed bythe trial Judge permitting the prosecution to keep the seized materialswithin the police station, to be produced at a later point of time –This itself is a sufficient indication that the mandate of s.52A wasnot followed – There is no explanation either for non-production ofthe seized materials or the manner in which they are disposed of –No order passed by the Magistrate allowing the application, if any,filed u/s.52A – There are too many material irregularities creatingserious doubt on the very case of the prosecution – Hence, appellantacquitted by rendering benefit of doubt – Impugned judgments setaside.Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – s.52A– Scope and objective of – Held: Sub-section (1) of s.52A facilitatesthe Central Government a mode to be prescribed to dispose of theseized narcotic substance – Sub-section (2) thereof mandates acompetent officer to prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugswith adequate particulars, fol lowed through an appropriateapplication to the Magistrate for the purpose of certifying thecorrectness of inventory, taking relevant photographs in his presenceand certifying them as true or taking drawal of samples in hispresence with due certification – The objective is to have an elementof supervision by the magistrate over the disposal of seizedcontraband as it constitutes a primary evidence – Such inventories,photographs and list of samples drawn with certification by Magistrates constitute as a primary evidence – Therefore, whenthere is non-compliance of s.52A, where a certification of a magistrateis lacking any inventory, photograph or list of samples would notconstitute primary evidence would not constitute primary evidence– s.52A is a mandatory rule of evidence which requires the physicalpresence of a Magistrate followed by an order facilitating hisapproval either for certifying an inventory or for a photographtaken apart from list of samples drawn – Evidence.Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 – s.52A– Evidence Act, 1872 – s.114(g) – Held: Before any proposeddisposal/destruction mandate of s.52A, NPDS Act requires to beduly complied with starting with an application to that effect – ACourt should be satisfied with such compliance while deciding thecase – The onus is entirely on the prosecution in a given case tosatisfy the Court when such an issue arises for consideration –Production of seized material is a factor to establish seizure followedby recovery – The provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringentand rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution– Non-production of a physical evidence would lead to a negativeinference within the meaning of s.114(g), Evidence Act – Theprocedure contemplated through the notification has an element offair play such as the deposit of the seal, numbering the containersin seriatim wise and keeping them in lots preceded by complianceof the procedure for drawing samples.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sundresh
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 634
Petitioner	Mangilal
Respondent	The State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2023] 10 S.C.R. 517
Judgement Date	2023-07-12
Case Number	1651

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad

Manoj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajender Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Delhi Vs. Ram Avtar@ Rama

State of Rajasthan Vs. Manoj Sharma and Anr.

Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Mohinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira

Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Kajad

Manoj Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

Rajender Singh Vs. State of Haryana

Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh

State of Delhi Vs. Ram Avtar@ Rama

State of Rajasthan Vs. Manoj Sharma and Anr.

Bahadur Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr.

Mohinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Customs, New Delhi Vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira

Mangilal Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh