NDPS Act | Non-Production Of Seal Used To Secure Recovered Contraband Does Not Vitiate NDPS Trial: HP High Court
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prosecution case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be rejected merely because the seal used for sealing the recovered contraband was not produced before the Trial Court.Rejecting the contention of the accused, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is unchallenged and trustworthy evidence that the case...
The Himachal Pradesh High Court has held that a prosecution case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act cannot be rejected merely because the seal used for sealing the recovered contraband was not produced before the Trial Court.
Rejecting the contention of the accused, Justice Rakesh Kainthla remarked that: “There is unchallenged and trustworthy evidence that the case property was not tampered with at any stage, the non-production of the seals used for sealing and re-sealing of the bulk case property or the samples is also of no help to the accused.”
On 26th September, 2018, the police were patrolling at night in a village in Himachal Pradesh when they spotted a Bolero vehicle parked at a lonely place whose internal light was on. The police approached the vehicle and asked the driver for the documents, but the driver could not find any.
Since the papers were not found, the police officer opened the dashboard to check for the documents and instead found a spherical substance wrapped in khaki tape. On opening it, the police found it to contain heroin.
Being late at night, the police could not find any independent witnesses so it associated official witnesses and weighed the substance, which was found to be 23 grams. Thereafter registered an FIR was registered. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
The Court remarked that as the recovery was made during night patrolling and without any prior information, it amounted to a “chance recovery” and the prosecution's case cannot be discarded due to the non-association of independent witnesses.
The Court held that the testimony of police officials cannot be distrusted and disbelieved merely on account of their official status. It further noted that minor discrepancies in statements like exact time and whether there were lights at the place are not sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution.
Further, the Court observed that one of the key points raised by the accused was that the seal was not produced before the learned Trial Court, and the same is fatal to the prosecution's case. Denying this, the Court remarked that the police took seal impressions on the NCB-I form and on separate cloth pieces when the parcel was sealed. The Trial Court was therefore able to compare those seal impressions with the ones on the parcel and confirm their genuineness.
Thus, the Court held that the trial court had rightly imposed a sentence of four years' rigorous imprisonment, which cannot be said to be harsh.
Case Name: Digvijay Singh V/s State of H.P.
Case No.: Cr. Appeal No. 204 of 2024
Date of Decision: 12.08.2025
For the Petitioner: Ms. Madhurika Sekhon Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General