The Supreme Court held that, any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail.
The Court held thus in a Criminal Appeal preferred by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) against the Order of the Delhi High Court by which it granted bail to the accused.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed,“Any lapse or delay in compliance of Section 52A by itself would neither vitiate the trial nor would entitle the accused to be released on bail. The Court will have to consider other circumstances and the other primary evidence collected during the course of investigation, as also the statutory presumption permissible under Section 54 of the NDPS Act.”

The Bench said that Section 52A NDPS Act was inserted for an early disposal of the seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space, and other relevant considerations.
Solicitor General of India (SGI) Tushar Mehta appeared on behalf of the Appellant/NCB while Advocate Akshay Bhandari appeared on behalf of the Respondent/accused.
Brief Facts –
As per the prosecution case, an information was received by a Junior Intelligence Officer (JIO) regarding a parcel lying with DHL Express, suspected to contain psychotropic substances. Based on this information, NCB team reached the DHL office and the suspected parcel was opened. It was found to have contained 11 lace rolls and 3 pieces of clothes. On opening one lace roll, it was found to have contained 120 strips of Tramadol tablets and each strip had 10 tablets. The remaining lace rolls were also opened and a total of 13200 strips of Tramadol tablets were found. The suspected contraband was seized and sealed and subsequently, it was discovered that the parcel was booked through a firm named OGS Groups by one of the accused.

The aforesaid accused was apprehended by NCB and based on his disclosure statement, further seizure was made. The co-accused disclosed the names of his three associates including the Respondent and hence, they were arrested. Resultantly, NCB filed a Complaint before the Special Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 22(c), 23(c), and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Respondent filed a Bail Application before the High Court and the same was allowed, holding that there was non-compliance of Section 51A within reasonable time, and confining itself to the issue whether the application under Section 52A was made within reasonable time and the effect of delay, if any. Therefore, the NCB was before the Apex Court.