JOYITA GHOSH

BBA LLB A
1982049
10TH SEM, 5TH YEAR, 2019-24

BEFORE
THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF TAKATPUR
UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF TAKATPUR

IN THE MATTER OF

PREM CHOPRA

PINKY CHOPRA

JALI SINGH

…..PETITIONER

V.

THE STATE OF VIKASPUR

…..RESPONDENT NO. 1

CENTRAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS

…..RESPONDENT NO. 2

UPON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF TAKATPUR AND HIS COMPANION
JUSTICES OF THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF TAKATPUR

~MEMORIAL FOR THE PETITIONER~

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ABBREVIATION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION-------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
STATEMENT OF FACT-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS----------------------------------------------------------------------------------9
ARGUMENT ADVANCED-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
ISSUE I: Whether the petitioners have a locus standi before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of Takatpur?------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 14
ISSUE II: Whether the unfettered discretion vested upon the Central Govt. pertaining to
ascertainment of commercial quantity leads arbitrary exercise of its power?-------------16
ISSUE III : Whether conviction imposed upon Pinky Chopra and Prem Chopra is liable
to be set aside?-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 17

ISSUE IV : Whether Roast being an intermediary be held liable for transportation of

contraband substances?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 21
PRAYER--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------23

Page | 1
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATIONS FULL FORMS

& And

V. Verses

Sec Section

Hon’ble Honourable

Mad. Madras

NDPS Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

AIR All India Reporter

IPC Indian Penal Code

Anr. Another's

UP Uttar Pradesh

Del Delhi

CCTV Closed - Circuit Television

Para Paragraph

SCC Supreme Court Cases

UOI Union Of India

Page | 2
 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

INDIAN CASES
SL. NO. CASES CITATION
1. State of Maharashtra v Tapas D. Neogy (1999) 7 SCC 685
2. Inderjeet Singh Grewal V State of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 588
3. Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr V State of AIR 2006 SC 1367
Gujarat & Ors.
4. State of Punjab V Balbir Singh 1994 SCC (3) 299
5. State of Punjab V Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172
6. State of Rajasthan V Hiralal LAWS (RAJ) 2005-2-35
7. Sajan Abraham Mathew V State of Kerala AIR 2004 SC 2796
8. Tofan Singh V State of Tamil Nadu 2013 AIR SCW 5740
9. State of UP V Dharmendra Singh 1999 8 SCC 325
10. Rajesh Prasad V State of Bihar CRL APPEAL NO 111-
113 OF 2015
11. Mohd. Imran Khan V State of Maharashtra CIVIL APPEAL NO 10571
OF 2018
12. Maneka Gandhi V Union of India 1978 AIR 597
13. Kesavananda Bharati V State of Kerala AIR 1973 SC 1461
14. Prem Chand V State of H.P AIR 2006 CRI LJ 1821
15. D.K Basu V State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610
16. State of Rajasthan V Parmananda AIR 2014 SC 1384
17. Mangilal V State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC ONLINE SC
862
18. Anwar PV V PK Bashir (2014) 10 SCC 473

Page | 3
 BOOKS, LEXICONS AND HANDBOOKS CITED
1. Harvard Blue Book, 20th Edition
2. Dr. KP Singh, Practical Approach to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substance Act, 1985, 1st Edition, 2021
3. Bidyut Kumar Banerjee, Law Relating to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
Substance, 2nd Edition, 2023
4. Barar’s Digest on NDPS Act, 1985, 5th Edition, 2022
5. Dr J. N Pandey, Constitutional Law of India, 59th Edition, 2022
6. Satyakam Mohapatra, Current Status of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances (NDPS) Act, 2013
7. Namisha Choudhary, Drug Abuse and the Failure of the NDPS Act to Curb
the Issue : A Socio-Legal Analysis, 2021
8. Dr. Sandra Joseph, Drug Demand Reduction Programme in India - A
Qualitative Research Analysis 2019

RULES & STATUTES CITED

1. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985
2. Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. The Constitution of India

WEB RESOURCES
1. https://www.barandbench.com/ (Bar and Bench)
2. https://www.livelaw.in/ (Live Law)
3. www.jstor.org (JSTOR)
4. www.judis.nic.in (THE JUDGES INFORMATION SYSTEM )
5. www.manupatrafast.com (MANUPATRA)
6. www.scconline.com (SCC ONLINE)
7. www.westlaw.india.com (WEST LAW INDIA)

Page | 4
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

In accordance with Articles 136 of the Takatpur, which is pari materia with the Law and
constitution of India, the petitioner has petitioned the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the India. The
present case may be heard by the Supreme Court of the India.

Article 136 of the Constitution:

“36. Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court
(1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or
order in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of
India.
(2) Nothing in clause (1) shall apply to any judgement, determination, sentence or order
passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed forces.”

Page | 5
 STATEMENT OF FACT
Factual Background:
Prem Chopra owned a restaurant chain called Happy Days Pvt. along with a license from the Central
Bureau of Narcotics (CBN) to cultivate marijuana. Ltd., which had a branch in Bharatpur, Vikaspur. Only
special access cards were required to access this branch's premium lounge.

Due to his lack of access card, a senior narcotics officer, Mr. Pradyuman Daya, was denied entry
to the premium lounge. Due to the fact that the restaurant's website didn't advertise the premium
lounge, suspicions arose. The CBN conducted a raid on the Bharatpur branch after receiving an
anonymous tip alleging that Happy Days was selling marijuana through online deliveries using
the alias "Extra Greens" and access card numbers. In addition to the marijuana found in the
premium lounge, a significant amount was found in a vehicle owned by Prem Chopra using
packaging associated with his cultivation license.

Upon further investigation, it was discovered that anonymous individuals were granted access to
the premium lounge, the restaurant's server lacking proper records of the cardholders. It was
discovered that the anonymous tip came from a delivery service called Roast OPC Private
Limited. Happy Days customers often provided access card numbers when ordering "Extra
Greens" alongside their meals.

According to the findings, Prem Chopra, Pinky Chopra, Roast OPC Private Limited, and an
individual named Jali Singh were charged with various offenses related to selling and possessing
marijuana under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act). Additional
charges were filed against Prem Chopra for exceeding his cultivation license limits.

In the trial court, all accused were found guilty and sentenced to prison and fines. According to
the NDPS Act, Prem Chopra and Pinky Chopra were sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment and
fined Rs. 2,000,000, while Jali Singh was sentenced to 10 years and fined Rs. 1 lakh.

Page | 6
The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) of 1985 sentenced Prem
Chopra and Pinky Chopra under Sections 38, 19, and 20(b)(iii). According to Section 20(b)(ii),
Jali Singh was convicted of the offense.

All appeals were dismissed by the High Court, upholding the original convictions. Consequently,
Prem Chopra filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India,
challenging the issues raised in the lower courts.

Page | 7
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1: Whether the petitioners have a locus standi before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of Takatpur?

ISSUE 2: Whether the unfettered discretion vested upon the Central Govt. pertaining to

ascertainment of commercial quantity leads arbitrary exercise of its power?

ISSUE 3: Whether conviction imposed upon Pinky Chopra and Prem Chopra is liable to

be set aside?

ISSUE 4: Whether Roast being an intermediary be held liable for transportation of

contraband substances?

Page | 8
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE I : Whether the petitioners have a locus standi before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of Takatpur?

1. Based on Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the appellant asserts their locus standi
before the Honorable Supreme Court, which is empowered to grant special leave to
appeal judgements, sentences, or orders issued by courts within its jurisdiction. This
provision is warranted to rectify injustices and uphold principles of justice and duty. As
established in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy 1, Article 136 is
instrumental in addressing miscarriages of justice and ensuring fair adjudication.

2. That an immense injustice has occurred due to the wrongful interpretation of the NDPS
Act, leading to a miscarriage of justice evident in the judgment of the Honorable High
Court. This contravention of law is well-established in legal precedents such as the case
of Inderjeet Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab2, where it was held that palpably bad
judgments are subject to correction by the higher courts. Thus, the invocation of Article
136 of the Constitution of India is warranted to rectify the miscarriage of justice
perpetrated by the misinterpretation of the NDPS Act.

1
(1999) 7 SCC 685
2
(2011) 12 SCC 588

Page | 9
ISSUE II: Whether the unfettered discretion vested upon the Central Govt. pertaining to

ascertainment of commercial quantity leads arbitrary exercise of its power?

3. That, despite the Central Government's role in crafting legislation, it's crucial to
recognize that India operates within a framework of Constitutionalism and the Rule of
Law. Within this framework, all entities, including the legislature, judiciary, and
executive branches, are obligated to abide by legal standards and procedures. It's essential
to acknowledge that in a system governed by the rule of law, every entity, regardless of
its authority or position, is subject to the same legal principles and accountability
mechanisms.

4. Furthermore, it is argued that the absence of clear criteria for defining a commercial
quantity raises apprehensions regarding the discretionary powers bestowed upon the
Central Government under the pretext of legislative authority. This lack of clarity not
only violates well-established legal principles but also undermines the foundational
structure of the Indian Constitution. The arbitrary exercise of authority without
transparent guidelines not only violates the rule of law but also undermines the
fundamental tenets upon which the Indian legal system rests. Hence, it is imperative to
tackle these concerns to safeguard the integrity and credibility of the legal framework.

Page | 10
 ISSUE III: Whether conviction imposed upon Pinky Chopra and Prem Chopra is liable to

be set aside?

5. That the Conviction Judgment delivered by the Honorable High Court is deemed to be
flawed and unreasonable, necessitating its annulment. This assertion is in line with
established legal principles as demonstrated in cases such as Zahira Habibullah Sheikh &
Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.3, which stress the importance of ensuring fair trial
procedures and adherence to legal requirements in criminal cases.

6. Furthermore, the conviction judgment and the imposed sentences on the appellant, Pinky
Chopra, and Prem Chopra, fail to consider various provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, including procedural obligations and requirements.
The failure to establish the chain of custody and comply with statutory provisions such as
Section 52A of the NDPS Act further undermines the legitimacy of the judgment. These
deficiencies serve as substantial grounds for overturning the judgment, as emphasized in
cases like State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 4, which highlight the significance of adhering
to legal procedures and evidentiary standards in criminal prosecutions.

3
AIR 2006 SC 1367
4
1994 SCC (3) 299
Page | 11
 ISSUE IV: Whether Roast being an intermediary be held liable for transportation of

contraband substances?

7. That the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act are
subject to certain conditions, including the liability of intermediaries in the transportation of
contraband substances. While an intermediary may be held liable, such liability only attracts a
presumption under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, placing a reverse burden of proof upon the
appellant. This legal principle is supported by Indian case law, as seen in the case of State of
Punjab v. Baldev Singh5, where the court emphasized the importance of adhering to
procedural requirements and burden of proof standards in NDPS cases.

8. The appellant's potential conviction under the NDPS Act, even if proven to be an
intermediary, is contingent upon stringent procedural requirements. Provisions such as
Section 42, Section 50, Section 52A, and others relating to search, seizure, arrest, and
establishing a chain of custody are pivotal. These provisions ensure that convictions are based
on reliable evidence and adhere to legal standards. Case law, such as State of Rajasthan v.
Hiralal6, highlights the significance of proper procedure and adherence to legal provisions in
ensuring fair trials and just outcomes in NDPS cases.

9. The appellant may be presumed to have committed an offense under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act, leading to a reverse burden of proof under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
However, it is imperative to note that Sections 41, 42, and 43 of the NDPS Act impose stricter
provisions. Conviction can only be confirmed upon fulfilling the conditions outlined in these
sections; otherwise, the conviction may be vitiated due to the stringent nature of the act. This
legal interpretation finds support in Indian case law, such as Sajan Abraham Mathew v. State
of Kerala7, where the court emphasized the need for strict adherence to legal provisions in
NDPS cases.
5
(1999)6 SCC 172
6
LAWS(RAJ)-2005-2-35
7
AIR 2004 SC 2796
Page | 12
10. Thus, the petitioner contends that these conditions have not been met, and therefore, the
provision punishing the appellant as an intermediary based on the facts and circumstances of
the case should be set aside. This argument aligns with legal principles established in cases
like Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu 8, where the court stressed the importance of ensuring
that legal provisions are applied correctly and fairly in NDPS cases to prevent miscarriages of
justice.

ARGUMENT ADVANCED

8
2013 AIR SCW 5740
Page | 13
ISSUE I: Whether the petitioners have a locus standi before the Hon’ble Supreme Court

of Takatpur?

1. That The petitioner claims standing under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, arguing
that the imposed punishment is arbitrary and diverges from legal principles. Additionally, it
is asserted that the alleged actions do not conform to legal frameworks. This argument is
supported by the precedent established in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dharmendra
Singh9, where the Supreme Court highlighted the importance of adhering to legal principles
and avoiding arbitrary judgments. Hence, the petitioner maintains that their appeal under
Article 136 is warranted.
2. That the petitioner underscores a severe miscarriage of justice, echoing the sentiments
expressed in Dharmendra Singh. He argues that the paramount interest of justice must be
upheld with utmost rigor, thus reinforcing his right to appeal under Article 136. Furthermore,
he urges the court to meticulously reassess the evidence, citing the foundational principles of
the NDPS laws. The presence of doubts and discrepancies mandates a reevaluation in the
interest of justice, as established in cases like Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 10,
where the Supreme Court emphasized the duty to ensure fair trials and the importance of
addressing discrepancies in evidence.
3. That there exist compelling reasons for the appellate court, under Article 236, to intervene in
the judgment of the High Court. The failure of the High Court to align factual scenarios with
legal principles constitutes a clear error. The lack of substantial reasoning behind the High
Court's decision renders it legally flawed, necessitating a reexamination of the trial court's
judgment. This aligns with the precedent set in Rajesh Prasad V State of Bihar 11, where the
Supreme Court stressed the need for appellate courts to rectify errors of law and ensure justice
is served.
4. That the High Court's order of conviction lacks depth in its consideration of both law and
facts. The absence of substantial reasoning and failure to conduct a detailed analysis of the
trial court's judgment further undermines the integrity of the conviction. A post-mortem of the

9
State of UP v Dharmendra Singh, (1999) 8 SCC 325
10
AIR 2006 SUPREME COURT 1367
11
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.111113 OF 2015
Page | 14
 trial court's judgment was imperative before affirming the conviction, which the High Court
failed to undertake. This omission is contrary to the principles established in Mohd. Imran
Khan v. State of Maharashtra12, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need for appellate
courts to provide reasoned judgments based on thorough analysis.
5. For that the Trial Court's passive role during the trial proceedings and its failure to adequately
appreciate evidence and legal principles further exacerbate the miscarriage of justice. The
Trial Judge's duty to actively participate and record reasons during the conviction process was
neglected, which is crucial, especially in cases under the NDPS Act where strict scrutiny is
warranted. This aligns with the principles laid down where the Supreme Court emphasized the
importance of trial courts actively engaging in the trial process and providing reasoned
judgments.
6. For that both the High Court and the Trial Court overlooked admissible evidence that could
have potentially benefited the petitioners. The duty of the appellate court, as established by
precedents, is to reassess such evidence to ascertain the culpability of the accused accurately.
This aligns with the principles established where the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized the
duty of appellate courts to ensure that all admissible evidence is properly considered and
evaluated.
7. For that the injustice faced by the petitioners, coupled with their unwarranted imprisonment,
underscores the necessity for the court to ensure that innocent individuals are not wrongfully
punished. The burden of proof lies squarely on the prosecution in criminal cases, and
convictions must be beyond any doubt. In light of these circumstances, the petitioners
rightfully invoke their locus standi under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This aligns
with the principles laid down in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India 13, where the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of individuals and ensuring justice is
served.

12
Civil Appeal No.10571 of 2018
13
1978 AIR 597
Page | 15
 ISSUE II: Whether the unfettered discretion vested upon the Central Govt. pertaining
to ascertainment of commercial quantity leads arbitrary exercise of its power?

8. THAT the unrestrained authority granted to the Central Government in determining

commercial quantity results in the arbitrary exercise of power. This unchecked discretion
violates the Rule of Law, the Fundamental Structure, and the principle of Constitutionalism.
Given India's status as the largest democratic republic, it is crucial to adhere to constitutional
principles. This matter is reminiscent of the pivotal case of Kesavananda Bharati v. State of
Kerala (1973)14, where the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of Basic Structure and stressed
the importance of constitutionalism in governance.
9. THAT unfettered discretion in defining "commercial quantity" creates legal ambiguity and
facilitates discriminatory application of the law. For example, the Central Government could
establish a significantly lower threshold for marijuana compared to cocaine, despite both
substances being listed under the NDPS Act. This inconsistency violates Article 14 of the
Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws. The
Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978)15, reiterated the significance of
Article 14 and emphasized the need for non-arbitrary state action.
10. THAT The absence of precise criteria for establishing commercial quantity leads to uneven
enforcement of the law, which may result in varying penalties. Such inconsistency can be
contested in court for being arbitrary and contravening Article 14. The Supreme Court has
underscored that arbitrariness undermines equality and impartiality under the law, thereby
supporting the petitioner's argument.
11. THAT moreover, the lack of precise standards for defining "commercial quantity" may lead
to unequal enforcement of the law, influenced by irrelevant factors like the accused's socio-
economic status. Such differential treatment undermines the equality principle of Article 14.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that equal treatment before the law is a constitutional
right, and any form of discrimination contravenes this fundamental principle.
12. THAT even though individuals may possess comparable amounts of illicit substances, they
could receive varying punishments due to arbitrary thresholds set for different substances.

14
AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 1461
15
Id. at 13
Page | 16
 This inconsistent enforcement of the law breaches the principle of equality under the law as
outlined in Article 14.
13. THAT in the case of Prem Chand v. State of H.P 16, the accused raised a plea of false
implication by the police. Despite the opportunity to present evidence in defense, the accused
failed to substantiate this plea. The absence of evidence to support the claim of false
implication led the court to conclude that the seized contraband was indeed in the conscious
and exclusive possession of the accused. This underscores the importance of evidence in
disproving false implications, as established in judicial precedents like Prem Chand v. State of
H.P.

ISSUE III : Whether conviction imposed upon Pinky Chopra and Prem Chopra is liable
to be set aside?

14. It is respectfully presented to the Honorable Court that the convictions against the petitioners,
Pinky Chopra and Prem Chopra, are fundamentally incorrect and cannot be upheld under the
specified section. The petitioners have been penalized under Sections 19, 20(b)(iii), and 38 of
the NDPS Act, 1985.
15. THAT It is humbly submitted that Section 19 of the NDPS is defined herein below-

“Punishment for embezzlement of opium by cultivator.—Any cultivator licensed to cultivate

the opium poppy on account of the Central Government who embezzles or otherwise illegally
disposes of the opium produced or any part thereof, shall be punishable with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but
which may extend to two lakh rupees: Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded
in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees”

16. THAT the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act,
particularly under Section 2(iii)(a) and (b), clearly distinguishes between cannabis (hemp)
and opium, outlining their distinct properties and forms. Cannabis includes charas and ganja,
16
AIR 2006 Cri LJ 1821
Page | 17
 while opium is defined as the coagulated juice of the opium poppy. These definitions
highlight the differences between ganja and opium, justifying separate treatment under the
NDPS Act. Additionally, Section 20 of the NDPS Act specifically addresses the unlawful use
of cannabis. This distinction is supported by legal precedents such as Manoj Prabhakar Lohar
v State of Maharashtra17, where the Supreme Court stressed the importance of adhering to
statutory definitions in legal interpretations.
17. THAT based on the foregoing submission, the provisions of Section 19 of the NDPS Act
cannot be applied to the petitioners as there is no indication of involvement in the production,
sale, or cultivation of poppy. Therefore, any punishment imposed under Section 19 lacks legal
basis and should be set aside. This interpretation aligns with principles of statutory
interpretation as where the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized adherence to statutory
language and the need for precise interpretation.
18. THAT the imposition of punishment under the sections of the NDPS Act necessitates strict
adherence to prescribed procedures. Non-compliance with these procedures compromises the
integrity of the conviction, given the severity of the penalties involved. This principle is
underscored by judicial precedents such as D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal 18, where the
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards in criminal proceedings
to prevent miscarriage of justice.
19. THAT the provisions of the NDPS Act require greater scrutiny and adherence to procedural
norms, particularly regarding the initiation of search, seizure, and arrest proceedings. Failure
to comply with mandatory provisions, such as Section 42 regarding the recording of
information in writing before search or seizure, renders the conviction vulnerable to
challenge. This interpretation finds support in cases like State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh 19,
where the Supreme Court stressed the necessity of strict compliance with procedural
requirements to ensure fairness in criminal proceedings.
20. The NDPS Act, through Sections 41(2) and 42(1), requires the documentation of information
before commencing search, seizure, or arrest operations. Adherence to these regulations is
crucial to prevent the arbitrary use of authority by law enforcement agencies. Neglecting

17
2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2883
18
AIR 1997 SUPREME COURT 610
19
(1999) 6 SCC 172
Page | 18
 these procedural safeguards undermines the legality of such actions. The Supreme Court has
stressed the significance of procedural fairness in maintaining the rule of law.
21. THAT under the NDPS Act, the conduct of searches must involve at least two independent
witnesses, as mandated by Section 49. Additionally, proper disposal of seized contraband in
accordance with statutory provisions is essential to maintain the integrity of the legal process.
Failure to adhere to these procedural requirements undermines the reliability of the evidence
obtained and compromises the fairness of the trial. This principle is elucidated in cases like
State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand 20, where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of
procedural regularity in ensuring the legality of search and seizure operations. That the
evidences adduced is silent about the factual situation with regard to the disposal of the
Narcotics in the manner as specified under the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
Section 52A of the NDPS Act states-

Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. [(1) The Central
Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution,
constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any
narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by
notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic
substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be
after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government
may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.]

(2) Where any 3[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or

conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police
station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1)
shall prepare an inventory of such 3[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled
substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality,
quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the
3[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances] or conveyances or the

20
AIR 2014 SUPREME COURT 1384

Page | 19
 packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer
referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the 3[narcotic drugs,
psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under
this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of--

(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or

(b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of 4[such drugs, substances or
conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or

(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of
such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.

(3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may
be, allow the application.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act,
shall treat the innventory, the photographs of 5[narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances,
controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2)
and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.]

22. That the evidence presented before the lower court fails to demonstrate the mandatory
adherence to Section 52A of the NDPS Act. This section is deemed non-negotiable and must
be strictly followed. In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court emphasized in paragraphs 4 and 5
of the judgment in Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh 21 that compliance with Section 52A
is essential before disposing of seized narcotic substances. The court, presided over by
Justices A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh, made this observation while granting an appeal
filed by an accused who was concurrently convicted under Section 8(b) read with Section
15(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. It was noted that in the
mentioned case, there was no magistrate's order for the disposal of the seized narcotics.

(¶ 24.) That the provisions of Section 52A shall be strictly construed and non-compliance of
the same, will lead to vitiating the conviction of the petitioners and the same shall be set aside.
21
2023 SCC Online SC 862
Page | 20
 ISSUE IV : Whether Roast being an intermediary be held liable for transportation of
contraband substances?

23. THAT Roast, functioning as an intermediary, can be held accountable for transporting
contraband substances only if the procedures outlined in the NDPS Act are meticulously
followed without any gaps. This emphasizes the critical role of procedural integrity in
establishing liability. The need for strict adherence to procedural norms in cases involving
intermediaries is emphasized in legal precedents such as State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh
(1999)22, where the Supreme Court stressed the significance of procedural fairness in
determining liability.
24. THAT the lack of documented evidence regarding confidential information regarding the
transportation conducted by Roast, a company managed by Jali Singh, casts doubts on
procedural adherence. Section 49 of the NDPS Act requires secret information to be
documented and submitted to higher authorities within 72 hours. Non-compliance with this
stipulation diminishes the credibility of the presented evidence. The significance of adhering
to procedural safeguards, especially in cases involving confidential information, is
underscored in legal cases like State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand 23, where the Supreme Court
emphasized the importance of procedural regularity in search and seizure operations
25. THAT under the provisions of the NDPS Act, searches must be conducted in the presence of
at least two independent witnesses. This procedural requirement is essential to ensure the
integrity and reliability of search operations. The significance of witness presence in
maintaining procedural regularity highlights the importance of witnesses in upholding the rule
of law.
26. THAT the absence of witnesses and the lack of recovery of contraband from Roast's premises
cast doubt on the prosecution's case. Without tangible evidence linking Roast to the
transportation of contraband, the conviction lacks a solid legal basis. The importance of
corroborative evidence and tangible proof in establishing guilt is emphasized in cases like
Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat 24, where the Supreme Court stressed the need for
reliable evidence in criminal proceedings.
22
Supra, 18
23
Supra, 19
24
Supra, Zahibullah
Page | 21
27. THAT the absence of recovery of contraband from Roast, coupled with procedural
irregularities, undermines the prosecution's case against Jali Singh. Moreover, the failure to
comply with Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act regarding electronic evidence further
weakens the prosecution's position. The lack of concrete evidence and procedural lapses
render the conviction unsustainable, as it fails to meet the standards of proof required in
criminal proceedings. This interpretation is consistent with principles of evidence law and
procedural fairness as elucidated in cases like Anwar PV v PK Bashir 25, where the Supreme
Court emphasized the importance of adhering to evidentiary rules to ensure fairness in trials.
28. THAT the preamble of the NDPS Act emphasizes stringent provisions for the control and
regulation of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The failure of the prosecution to
establish Jali Singh's involvement in narcotic drug operations undermines the very purpose of
the Act. This highlights the importance of meeting the statutory objectives and standards of
proof in criminal prosecutions. The necessity for clear evidence and adherence to statutory
objectives is underscored by the Supreme Court and emphasized the importance of proving
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in such NDPS proceedings

PRAYER

Wherefore, in the lights of the facts stated, issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities
cited, the Petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays and requests to the Hon’ble Court to
declare and hold:

1. That the conviction of the Petitioner Pinky Chopra and Prem Chopra and Jali Singh under
Section 38, 20(b)(iii), 19 and Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act respectively shall be set
aside.

AND/OR

25
(2014)10 SCC 473
Page | 22
Pass any other order(s), direction or relief that it may deem fit in the interest of Justice, Equity
and Good Conscience.

All of which is most humbly and respectfully submitted and for this act of kindness the
counsel for the Petitioner shall duty bound forever pray

Sd/-

Date: (Counsel for the Petitioner)

Page | 23