Case Details: Surepally Srinivas Versus State of Andhra Pradesh- (2025) 29 Centax 289 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Dipankar Datta & Manmohan, JJ.
- S/Shri Gagan Gupta, Sr. Adv., K. Dayakar Reddy, Vishal Sharma, Taruna, Ms Bina Madhavan, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Tushar Singh, S. Tridev Sagar, Advs., Divyanshu Rai for M/s. Lawyer S. Kanit & Co., AOR’s, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Kumar Vaibhaw, S. Uday Bhanu, Dhananjay Yadav, Yatharth Kansal, Advs. and Ms Devina Sehgal, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner was prosecuted for an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in connection with the alleged seizure of 600 kilograms of dry ganja. As per the prosecution, the contraband was recovered and taken into custody by the investigating officer. However, the seized substance was not sealed at the time of recovery, contrary to mandatory procedural requirements. Post seizure, the contraband remained in the personal custody of the investigating officer for 15 days and was stored in an unsecured room at his office. During cross-examination, the officer admitted he was unaware of Standing Order No. 1/89, which mandates procedures for sampling, storage, and disposal of narcotic substances. The contraband was produced before the court only after this unexplained delay. Despite these procedural lapses, the Sessions Court convicted the petitioner along with co-accused. The High Court upheld the conviction without independently assessing the evidentiary concerns and procedural violations raised. Notably, two similarly placed co-accused were acquitted by the High Court on identical facts. Aggrieved by the differential treatment and flawed appreciation of evidence, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that strict compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, 1985, and adherence to Standing Order No. 1/89 are mandatory safeguards intended to preserve the evidentiary sanctity of seized contraband. The Court observed that the failure to seal the contraband at the time of seizure, its prolonged and unexplained retention in personal custody, and the delay in production before the court cast serious doubts on the integrity and authenticity of the evidence. The investigating officer’s admitted ignorance of binding procedural guidelines further weakened the prosecution’s case. In view of these lapses and the resultant failure to establish a credible and tamper-proof chain of custody, the Court extended the benefit of doubt to the petitioner. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence confirmed by the High Court were set aside.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Surepally Srinivas v. State of A.P. — Criminal Appeal No. 943 of 2012, decided on 27-6-2024 by Telangana High Court — Reversed [Paras 2, 3, 16]
List of Cases Cited
- Bharat Ambale v. State of Chhattisgarh — 2025 SCC Online SC 110 — Noted [Paras 7, 13]
- Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif — 2024 SCC Online SC 3848 — Noted [Paras 8, 13]
- Noor Agha v. State of Punjab — (2008) 16 SCC 417 — Referred [Para 7]
- Union of India v. Mohanlal — 2016) 3 SCC 379 — Referred [Para 7]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification dated 13-6-1989 [Para 4]
