Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 10-09-2020 in case of petitioner name Rizwan Khan vs State of Chhattisgarh
| |

NDPS Act Conviction Upheld: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal in Drug Possession Case

The case of Rizwan Khan vs. State of Chhattisgarh addresses the legal standards for conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court had to determine whether the conviction of the appellant, Rizwan Khan, for possession of 20 kg of ganja (cannabis) was legally sustainable in light of alleged procedural lapses in the investigation.

The appellant challenged the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision, which upheld the Special Court’s conviction and five-year sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the prosecution had sufficiently established compliance with statutory requirements and the recovery of narcotics from the appellant.

Background of the Case

The case originated when Rizwan Khan and another accused, Pukhraj, were apprehended with 20 kg each of ganja. The facts are as follows:

  • The police received information about narcotics being transported.
  • On conducting a search, officers found 20 kg of ganja in a sack on the appellant’s motorcycle.
  • The accused were informed of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
  • A seizure panchnama was prepared, and the substance was tested by smell, burning, and tasting.
  • Samples were collected, sealed, and sent for forensic examination.
  • The FSL report confirmed the presence of ganja.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellant, through his counsel, contended:

  • The prosecution failed to comply with mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act regarding recording prior information.
  • Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case, and their testimonies were declared hostile.
  • The seizure of the contraband was suspicious, with inconsistencies in documents regarding the motorcycle’s registration number.
  • The sample seals were not properly documented, and there were discrepancies in the case records.
  • The police officer who recorded the FIR also participated in the investigation, violating the principle laid down in Mohan Lal vs. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627.
  • The sentence was excessive and should be reduced.

Respondent’s Arguments

The prosecution countered:

  • The investigating officer followed all necessary procedures under the NDPS Act.
  • The compliance with Sections 42, 50, and 55 was established through the testimonies of police witnesses.
  • The case did not rely solely on independent witnesses; police officers’ testimonies were reliable.
  • The Supreme Court’s decision in Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch) (2020) had overruled Mohan Lal, affirming that an officer who registers an FIR can investigate the case.
  • The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court were justified given the seriousness of the offense.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court extensively analyzed the procedural requirements under the NDPS Act and made the following key observations:

“The evidence of police officers cannot be discarded merely because independent witnesses turned hostile. What is relevant is whether the prosecution was able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court further noted:

  • Compliance with Section 42 was established as the information was recorded and communicated to the superior officer.
  • Section 50 of the NDPS Act applies only to personal searches, and the accused’s vehicle was searched, not his person.
  • The samples seized from the appellant were properly sent for forensic examination, and the FSL report confirmed the presence of ganja.
  • The discrepancy in marking of samples (‘B1’ and ‘B2’ in one document and ‘A1’ in another) was a clerical error that did not affect the merits of the case.
  • The ownership of the motorcycle was irrelevant since the appellant was found in possession of the contraband.

Legal Precedents Considered

The Supreme Court relied on several key precedents:

  • P.P. Fathima vs. State of Kerala (2003) 8 SCC 726: Held that police officers’ testimonies can be relied upon in NDPS cases if they are found to be credible.
  • Baldev Singh vs. State of Haryana (2015) 17 SCC 554: Emphasized the importance of compliance with NDPS procedural safeguards.
  • State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pradeep Kumar (2018) 13 SCC 808: Reaffirmed that mere procedural lapses do not vitiate a case if substantial compliance is evident.
  • Mukesh Singh vs. State (Narcotic Branch) (2020): Overruled Mohan Lal and held that an officer registering an FIR is not disqualified from investigating the case.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding:

“Both the Special Court and the High Court have rightly convicted the accused based on reliable evidence. There is no reason to interfere with the conviction and sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act.”

The Court rejected the plea for leniency, considering the stringent penalties under the NDPS Act, and upheld the five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence with a fine of Rs. 25,000.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for NDPS Act cases:

  • It reinforces that minor procedural lapses do not automatically vitiate convictions if the prosecution establishes substantial compliance.
  • It upholds the credibility of police officer testimonies in drug-related cases.
  • It clarifies that an officer recording the FIR is not barred from investigating the case.
  • It reiterates that NDPS Act offenses require strict punishment to deter drug trafficking.
  • It prevents accused persons from taking advantage of technicalities to escape liability.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that procedural compliance in NDPS cases must be weighed against the overall evidence to ensure justice while maintaining the integrity of drug enforcement laws.


Petitioner Name: Rizwan Khan.
Respondent Name: State of Chhattisgarh.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice M.R. Shah.
Place Of Incident: Chhattisgarh.
Judgment Date: 10-09-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rizwan Khan vs State of Chhattisgar Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 10-09-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Drug Possession Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category

Similar Posts