In Sanjeev Dev Verma & Anr. vs. State of Bihar 2026 (1) PLJR 493, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Justices Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Sourendra Pandey delivered a 34-page long judgment dated December 16, 2025 upon hearing an appeal against the judgment dated dated February 23, 2023 and order of sentence dated February 27, 2023 by Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum Successor of Court of A.S.J.-IV, Kathihar in a N.D.P.S. Case. The trial court had convicted the the appellants namely Sanjeev Dev Verma, Tapas Dev Verma and Sanjeet Dev Verma for the offences under Sections 20(b)(C) read with Section 25/29 of the N.D.P.S Act. They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 14 years for the offence under Section 20(b)(C) read with Section 25/29 of the N.D.P.S Act and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each. The Division Bench concluded:"....we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not proved it’s case beyond all reasonable doubt, therefore, we set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants and acquit them of the charges giving them benefit of doubt." Earlier, seven persons were arrested but four accused were not convicted under the NDPS Act by the trial court.
The High Court found serious lapses in how the police handled seizure, sampling and legal formalities. The case arises from an alleged seizure of ganja on January 30, 2018 in Katihar, Bihar. Officers of the Special Task Force, Patna, allegedly passed secret information to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Katihar Town (Sahayak) Police Station about a truck carrying cannabis from Tripura to Bihar, escorted by a Bolero vehicle.As per the written report, the SHO formed two raiding teams. Around 05:00 a.m., a Bolero followed by a truck was intercepted near Kolasi Petrol Pump. Seven persons were apprehended from both vehicles. The police claimed that, after serving notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and in the presence of independent witnesses, they searched the truck and recovered 110 packets of ganja (weighing 644.5 kg) from a hidden chamber behind the driver’s seat. Mobile phones and cash were allegedly recovered from the occupants. The contraband was said to have been weighed, samples drawn, and seizure lists prepared and signed by independent witnesses and accused persons. All seven persons were arrested on the spot.
On this basis, Katihar Town (Sahayak) P.S. Case No. 73 of 2018 was registered on January 30, 2018 under Sections 8/20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act. After investigation, charge-sheet No. 189 of 2018 dated July 27, 2018 was submitted under the same sections. Cognizance was taken on August 3, 2018 against seven accused, including the appellants. The case was tried as NDPS Case No. 03 of 2018 in the trial court. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses and produced various documents, including the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report.
The Division Bench heard the appeals agaisnt the judgement by the trial court. The appellants’ counsel argued that the entire prosecution was vitiated by non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. There was violation of Section 42 (information and reporting to superior officers), non-compliance of Sections 50, 52, 52A and 57, failure to prove seizure through independent witnesses, lack of evidence on sampling and safe custody, and delay and irregularity in sending samples to FSL. It observed that the driver, khalasi and a passenger were convicted merely because ganja was allegedly found in a concealed box in the truck, without proper proof that they knowingly possessed or transported it. The High Court re-examined the trial record and evidence of all 13 prosecution witnesses.
The Court examined how sampling and custody of the seized material were handled. The FIR stated that small quantities were taken from packets P1, P2, P3 and P4, mixed, and a sample prepared at the spot. In his examination-in-chief, the informant (PW-2, the SHO) had not mentioned any sampling at the place of occurrence. He only stated that seizure lists were prepared, the ganja was kept in sacks, sealed, and brought to the police station for keeping in the malkhana. There was no disclosure about where or how any sample was kept. PW‑1 and PW‑3, did not support the FIR version that sampling was done at the spot. PW‑13 stated that sealing was done at the police station. He did not remember in how many packets it was sealed. None of the witnesses explained when, where and in whose presence samples were drawn.
The Court recorded that an application was made by the Investigating Officer (PW‑6) for sending samples to the FSL at Patna and to a laboratory at Kolkata, and permission was granted on the same day. But the FSL report from Patna recorded that the sample was received there only on July 23, 2018, based on memo no. 795 of 2018 dated April 30, 2018—almost three months after the memo date. There was no evidence on where and in what condition the samples remained during this period. The Court observed: “the very sampling of the seized material becomes doubtful”.
The Division Bench examined compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which requires preparation of an inventory, drawing of representative samples, and certification by a Magistrate. Citing the provision at length, the Court emphasised that the officer must apply to a Magistrate for certifying the correctness of the inventory, taking photographs in the Magistrate’s presence, and allowing representative samples to be drawn and certified. On perusal of the trial court record, the High Court found no application to any Magistrate for certification, no Magistrate’s certificate, and no photographs. There was also no material to show that samples were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate. The trial court’s own judgment recorded that the seized narcotics “may be destroyed if the same has not yet been done”, indicating that mandatory pre-disposal certification did not happen. The Court held that this amounted to “complete violation of Section 52A”. It drew adverse inference against the prosecution regarding the alleged seizure of such a huge consignment.
The two independent seizure witnesses, PW‑10 and PW‑11, did not support the prosecution. PW‑10 said that while he was sitting at a tea stall, 2–3 officers asked him to sign some papers. They told him it was a formality, and that he had not seen any article being seized. PW‑11 stated he had not seen any truck being seized or any material recovered and could not identify the accused. Both were declared hostile. The independent witnesses disowned the seizure, and police witnesses gave inconsistent details about fog, the presence of a following vehicle, and other circumstances. The Court inferred that the prosecution version lacks reliability.
The Investigating Officer (PW‑6) admitted in cross-examination that he submitted charge-sheet without receiving the FSL report. He stated that charge-sheet was filed in hurry to ensure that the accused could not get bail. The FSL report from Patna was dated September 27, 2019 but was produced before the trial court only on November 24, 2021, at the fag end of the trial. Defence counsel had objected to its exhibition, yet the trial court overruled the objection and marked it as Exhibit-6.
The High Court noticed another inconsistency. The trial court records showed that objection had been raised, but in paragraph 22 of its judgment incorrectly stated that no party objected to marking the FSL report under Section 293 CrPC. It also recorded that the FSL report from Kolkata was never brought on record for inexplicable reason.
The Bench proved whether Section 42, which governs how secret information is recorded and conveyed to superior officers, was followed. Although the informant claimed to have made a station diary entry about the secret information and to have informed his superior, no such record was produced. he Court held that a mere general diary entry does not automatically amount to compliance with Section 42(1) and 42(2). The High Court drew on Supreme Court’s decision in Mahabir Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 SCC 148, wherein, it observed that station diary entries cannot be used as substantive evidence against an accused. It relied on Court's decision in Boota Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2021) 19 SCC 606, and the Constitution Bench's decision in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539, wherein, the Court reaffirmed that total non-compliance with Section 42 is not permissible, and only delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation can be accepted. It referred the decision in Darshan Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2016) 14 SCC 358, to stress that the procedure under Section 42 NDPS Act was distinct from and cannot be substituted by the general Criminal Procedure Code process of FIR registration and forwarding. Nothing was shown to prove written recording of information and its forwarding to superior officers in the manner required by Section 42. It implied that that statutory compliance was lacking.
The trial court had acquitted the four persons travelling in the Bolero, holding that the prosecution failed to connect them with transport of ganja or any conspiracy under Section 29 NDPS Act. But on the same evidence, it convicted the three appellants only because they were found travelling in the truck from which contraband was allegedly recovered and could not explain how ganja came to be concealed there.
The High Court pointed out that the prosecution case itself was that the truck carrying ganja was being escorted by a Bolero vehicle, and witnesses had consistently said that four persons were apprehended from the Bolero and forwarded to jail. If, on this basis, Bolero occupants were given benefit of doubt, it was inconsistent to deny similar benefit to the truck occupants when the basic legal requirements of seizure, sampling and statutory compliance were not met.
Taking factors like lack of reliable evidence on sampling, absence of malkhana records, violation of Section 52A, non-compliance with Section 42, hostile independent witnesses, late and irregular production of FSL report, and differential treatment of co-accused into account, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It set aside the judgment of conviction.
This judgment is relevant for anyone facing charges under the NDPS Act, especially drivers, helpers and labourers picked up with vehicles allegedly carrying contraband. The High Court makes it clear that courts will not uphold harsh NDPS punishments if the police skip mandatory legal steps.
The decision underlines that secret information must be recorded and reported properly under Section 42, seizure and sampling must follow Section 52A, and the chain of custody must be clear. Independent witnesses, malkhana records and timely FSL reports matter. Where these elements are missing or doubtful, courts can give the accused the benefit of doubt, even in cases involving large quantities of alleged drugs.
This judgement tells the defence lawyers and accused persons to keenly question how police conducted search, seizure, sampling and storage, and not to accept police narratives at face value when legal safeguards are ignored.
