Substantial Compliance with Section 52‑A NDPS Act and Validity of On‑Spot Sampling: Commentary on Jothi @ Nagajothi v. State

1. Introduction

This Supreme Court decision addresses recurring and contentious issues in prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act"), particularly:

• Whether failure to associate independent witnesses in a seizure is fatal to the prosecution;
• Whether representative samples of contraband must necessarily be drawn before a Magistrate under Section 52‑A of the NDPS Act;
• How courts should deal with minor discrepancies in sample weight; and
• Whether humanitarian circumstances permit reduction of the statutory minimum sentence for possession of a commercial quantity of contraband.

The appellant, a young woman (A‑2) and wife of co‑accused A‑1, challenged her conviction for possessing 23.5 kg of ganja (a commercial quantity) and for criminal conspiracy under the NDPS Act. The trial court and the Madras High Court had both convicted her under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) read with 29(1) of the NDPS Act and imposed the minimum statutory punishment of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine.

The Supreme Court, speaking through Vipul M. Pancholi, J., dismissed the appeal, reaffirming and clarifying key principles on evidentiary standards, Section 52‑A compliance, chain of custody, and the non-derogable nature of the statutory minimum sentence in NDPS cases involving commercial quantity.

2. Factual and Procedural Background

2.1 The Seizure and Arrest

On 21 September 2019, PW‑1 (Sub‑Inspector of Police) received a piece of secret information that ganja was being transported on a two‑wheeler bearing registration number TN‑03‑M‑0585. Acting on this:

• PW‑1 reduced the information to writing and informed PW‑5 (Inspector);
• PW‑1, accompanied by PW‑2 and PW‑3 (constables), proceeded to intercept the vehicle;
• The appellant (A‑2) and her husband (A‑1) were apprehended;
• After allegedly informing them of their rights under Section 50 NDPS Act, the vehicle was searched
• 23.500 kg of ganja and ₹21,140/- in cash were seized;
• Two representative samples of about 50g each were drawn, sealed, and marked as "S‑1" and "S‑2"; and
• PW‑1 recorded the confession of A‑1 on the spot.

2.2 Post‑Seizure Procedure and Investigation

After returning to the police station:

• PW‑1 submitted a report under Section 57 NDPS Act to PW‑5;
• PW‑5 registered FIR No. 462/2019 under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) NDPS Act;
• Intimation memos were prepared, and A‑1 and A‑2 were sent for remand;
• PW‑5 took up the investigation:
• The seized material and samples were forwarded to the court;
• On a judicial order dated 20.10.2019, sample S‑1 was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and S‑2 retained in judicial custody;
• PW‑6 (Scientific Officer) received the sealed sample through PW‑4, found the seal intact, detected cannabinoids, and issued a chemical analysis report;
• PW‑5 recorded statements under Section 161 CrPC and deposited the seized cash in the RBI;
• A final report (charge-sheet) was filed against both accused.

2.3 Trial and Appeals

The prosecution examined six witnesses (PWs 1–6). Both A‑1 and A‑2 denied the incriminating circumstances in their examination under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC.

The trial court (C.C. No. 15 of 2020) convicted A‑1 and A‑2 under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) NDPS Act and sentenced each to:

• 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for each count (sentences to run concurrently); and
• Fine of ₹1,00,000/- on each count.

The Madras High Court, by its judgment dated 27.06.2024 in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, affirmed both the conviction and sentence, rejecting the defence contentions on lack of independent witnesses, sampling irregularities and discrepancies in sample weight.

Only A‑2 approached the Supreme Court, challenging both conviction and sentence.

3. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence. The key holdings are:

• Independent witnesses: Non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal where the official witnesses’ testimony is consistent, credible, and unshaken. The evidence of police officers cannot be discarded solely on account of their official status.
• Section 52‑A NDPS Act and sampling:
  • Section 52‑A is not a rigid technical mandate that requires samples to be drawn only in the presence of a Magistrate.
  • Relying on Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 8 SCC 452, the Court held that mere non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52‑A does not vitiate the trial unless the irregularity affects the integrity or identity of the seized material.
  • On-spot sampling, as done in the present case, is not per se illegal if the chain of custody and identity of the samples remain unimpeached.
• Identity and integrity of samples:
  • The alleged absence of markings "S‑1"/"S‑2" after label removal did not undermine the prosecution, because:
    • PW‑1 explained that markings were initially made;
    • The Magistrate’s order explicitly referred to S‑1 and S‑2;
    • PW‑6 confirmed that the seal was intact and particulars matched.
  • The chain of custody was clear and continuous; there was no evidence of tampering or substitution.
• Discrepancy in sample weight:
  • The reduction from "about 50g" to 40.6g was sufficiently explained by natural drying and loss of moisture over a 40‑day interval.
  • Relying on the High Court’s reasoning and Noor Aga v. State Of Punjab ((2008) 16 SCC 417), the Court held that minor variations in weight do not, by themselves, invalidate the prosecution case.
• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and sentencing:
  • The appellant’s personal circumstances—youth, first-time offender, and sole caregiver of a minor child—were acknowledged but held irrelevant to the Court’s power to reduce the statutory minimum sentence.
  • The Court categorically held that it has no discretion to impose less than the minimum 10-year sentence prescribed for commercial quantity under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act.
  • Humanitarian considerations can be raised before executive authorities for statutory remission, but cannot override legislative mandate in judicial sentencing.

4. Issues and Legal Questions

4.1 Core Issues Before the Supreme Court

1. Whether the absence of independent witnesses in a seizure conducted in a residential locality with multiple houses casts doubt on the prosecution case in an NDPS matter.
2. Whether drawing representative samples at the spot, without involvement of a Magistrate, constitutes non-compliance with Section 52‑A NDPS Act sufficient to vitiate the prosecution.
3. Whether alleged deficiencies in sample markings (S‑1/S‑2) and minor discrepancies in weight undermine the identity and integrity of the samples sent for forensic analysis.
4. Whether non-compliance with Sections 52‑A(2) and 52‑A(4) NDPS Act renders the samples inadmissible or fatally weakens the prosecution.
5. Whether the Court can reduce the statutory minimum sentence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) on humanitarian or mitigating grounds.

5. Precedents and Their Use in the Judgment

5.1 Non‑examination of Independent Witnesses

The Court relied on its established jurisprudence that non-association of independent witnesses is not inherently fatal, particularly in NDPS cases:

• Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563
  The Court reiterated that:
  the mere absence of independent witnesses does not lead to the conclusion that the accused has been falsely implicated.
  The testimony of official witnesses, if otherwise credible and consistent, can sustain a conviction.
• Jarnail Singh v. State Of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 521
  Here, the Supreme Court underscored that the evidence of official witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are police personnel. Their testimony is to be evaluated on the same principles as any other witness.

In the present case, these precedents are used to reinforce the High Court’s analysis that PWs 1–3 deposed consistently, and the defence did not even suggest in cross‑examination that independent witnesses were available but deliberately omitted. Thus, the absence of independent witnesses could not be used to doubt the prosecution version.

5.2 Section 52‑A NDPS Act and Sampling: Bharat Aambale

The Court’s treatment of Section 52‑A is anchored in:

• Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452

While the full text of that judgment is not reproduced, the present decision quotes and relies on paragraphs 56.5 and 56.6, which establish that:

• Mere non-compliance or delayed compliance with Section 52‑A is not, in itself, fatal to the prosecution;
• The question is whether such non-compliance has created discrepancies or doubts about:
  • the integrity of the seized substance; or
  • the identity of the samples sent for analysis;
• Even if some procedural lapses exist, if other oral and documentary evidence reliably proves seizure and conscious possession, conviction can still be upheld.

This is the primary doctrinal foundation for the Court’s rejection of the appellant’s argument that samples drawn at the spot, without Magistrate’s presence, were ipso facto illegal.

5.3 Distinguishing Simranjit Singh and Yusuf @ Asif

The appellant relied heavily on two recent NDPS decisions:

• Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906
• YUSUF @ ASIF v. STATE, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328

These cases had adopted a stricter view of compliance with Section 52‑A and emphasised the importance of Magistrate oversight and formal certification in sampling and disposal of seized contraband.

The Supreme Court in Jothi does not overrule these decisions; instead, it distinguishes them on facts. It notes that:

Thus, the doctrinal reconciliation is:

• Simranjit Singh and Yusuf @ Asif apply where factual infirmities—broken seals, unexplained delays, missing links in the chain of custody—render Section 52‑A compliance crucial;
• Jothi (relying on Bharat Aambale) emphasises that where the chain of custody is clear and seals are intact, the absence of Magistrate‑supervised sampling or technical deviations from Section 52‑A do not automatically vitiate the prosecution.

5.4 Weight Discrepancies and Sample Integrity

The Court also implicitly engages with:

• Rojesh Jagdamba Avasthi (referred to in the High Court’s extract)
  The High Court noted that even in that decision, the Supreme Court held that minor discrepancies in weight should not be over‑emphasised unless the discrepancy is "too enormous" or indicative of tampering.
• Noor Aga v. State Of Punjab & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 417
  Paragraph 98, referred to in the judgment, clarifies that:
  a slight difference in the weight of the sample is not so material as to undermine the prosecution case, and cannot by itself justify discarding otherwise reliable evidence.

These authorities support the conclusion that the difference between "about 50g" and 40.6g is within acceptable limits, particularly when explained by natural drying and supported by contemporaneous records.

5.5 Sentencing and Statutory Minimum

Although the judgment does not cite a specific precedent on sentencing, it rests on a well-settled principle: where a statute prescribes a mandatory minimum sentence, the court cannot go below it. In NDPS jurisprudence, this has been consistently applied to provisions like Section 20(b)(ii)(C).

The Court reinforces this position in explicit terms:

6. Legal Reasoning and Court’s Approach

6.1 Credibility of Official Witnesses and Lack of Independent Witnesses

The appellant argued that because the seizure occurred in a residential locality with 50–60 houses, the failure to secure any independent witness cast serious doubt on the genuineness of the seizure and the seizure mahazar.

The Court approached this issue in two steps:

1. Fact‑finding:
   • The High Court had noted that PWs 1–3 consistently stated that, despite houses being 50 metres away, no persons were available at the time of seizure.
   • No suggestion was made in cross‑examination that persons were in fact available or that police deliberately avoided independent witnesses.
2. Application of settled law:
   • Drawing from Surinder Kumar and Jarnail Singh, the Court reiterated that official witnesses’ testimony cannot be discarded merely for want of independent corroboration.
   • If the evidence of PW‑1, PW‑2 and PW‑3 is internally consistent, mutually corroborative, and not shaken in cross‑examination, it can be safely relied upon.

Thus, the Court refused to attach undue importance to the absence of independent witnesses and instead focused on the intrinsic reliability of the official witnesses.

6.2 Section 52‑A NDPS Act: From Technicality to Substantial Compliance

The central legal controversy was whether drawing samples at the spot, without a Magistrate’s presence, violated Section 52‑A in a manner fatal to the prosecution.

The appellant’s arguments were:

• Representative samples were drawn at the spot contrary to Section 52‑A;
• No Magistrate was present to certify or supervise sampling;
• Hence, the samples were "legally infirm" and could not form the basis of conviction.

The Court’s reasoning unfolds as follows:

1. Nature and purpose of Section 52‑A
   Relying on Bharat Aambale, the Court characterises Section 52‑A as prescribing a procedure for:
   • post‑seizure handling, inventory, photography, sampling and certification of seized narcotics, primarily to facilitate safe disposal; and
   • ensuring evidentiary reliability of samples and records.
2. Directory vs Mandatory:
   The Court accepts the reading that Section 52‑A, while important, is not so rigid that any deviation automatically nullifies the prosecution. Instead:
   • Non-compliance or delayed compliance is an irregularity, not necessarily an illegality;
   • Only where such irregularity leads to doubts about the identity or integrity of the material will it vitiate the prosecution.
3. Application to facts:
   Examining the record, the Court notes that:
   • Samples were drawn at the spot in the presence of PWs 1–3;
   • Packets were duly sealed and labelled with necessary particulars;
   • The seized material and samples were produced before the Magistrate;
   • By order dated 20.10.2019, the Magistrate sent S‑1 to FSL and retained S‑2 in judicial custody;
   • PW‑6 testified that the seal on the sample packet received was intact and matched the seal specimen.
4. Conclusion:
   With this chain of events, the Court holds:
   even assuming some deviation from the ideal procedure envisaged under Section 52‑A, such irregularity does not go to the root of the matter nor does it create any reasonable doubt regarding the authenticity of the seized contraband or the identity of the samples analysed.

Thus, the Court firmly rejects the notion that sampling must always be done before a Magistrate for the prosecution to succeed. What matters is substantial compliance and preservation of the integrity of the samples and chain of custody.

6.3 Sample Markings and Chain of Custody

The appellant attacked the chain of custody by arguing that when labels on the sample packets were removed at a later stage, the internal markings "S‑1" and "S‑2" were not visible, suggesting a possible break in identity.

The Court’s response:

• PW‑1 explained that markings had been placed at the time of seizure and any fading could be natural over time due to handling.
• The Magistrate’s order of 20.10.2019 explicitly identifies the packets as "S‑1" and "S‑2", providing strong contemporaneous judicial confirmation of identity.
• PW‑6’s testimony that the seals were intact and matched the specimen seal further reinforces that the sample analysed was the same as that seized.

Coupled with the absence of any evidence of tampering or substitution, the Court held that the chain of custody remained "clear and continuous" and the sample’s identity unimpeached.

6.4 Weight Discrepancy and Moisture Loss

Another line of attack was the reduction in the sample weight from "about 50g" (at seizure) to 40.6g (at FSL).

The Court, affirming the High Court’s reasoning, held:

• The prosecution case itself mentioned "about 50g", not exactly 50g, leaving room for slight variation from the start.
• The sample was seized on 21.09.2019, but sent to FSL on 30.10.2019, a gap of nearly 40 days.
• PW‑6’s report noted that the sample contained dry, broken fragments, indicating that natural drying had occurred.
• Loss of moisture over 40 days is a reasonable and scientifically plausible explanation for a reduction of roughly 10g.
• In light of Noor Aga and Rojesh Jagdamba Avasthi, such a minor discrepancy does not cast doubt on the identity or integrity of the sample.

The Court thus declined to infer any tampering merely from this weight variation.

6.5 Conscious Possession and Commercial Quantity

Although not elaborated in depth, the Court’s conclusion that the appellant was in "conscious possession" of a commercial quantity of ganja is based on:

• Her presence on the two-wheeler with A‑1 at the time of interception;
• The seizure of 23.500 kg of ganja from the vehicle;
• Consistent testimonies of PWs 1–3 as to the circumstances of seizure; and
• Absence of any plausible innocent explanation from the defence.

The quantity—23.500 kg—falls well within the statutory definition of "commercial quantity", triggering Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and its minimum sentencing framework.

6.6 Sentencing: No Judicial Discretion Below Statutory Minimum

The appellant urged mitigation on the basis that:

• She was only 24 years old at the time of the incident;
• She was a first-time offender with no previous criminal record; and
• She was the sole caregiver of a minor child, and had already undergone over 5 years and 9 months of imprisonment.

The Court responded candidly:

• It acknowledged the "circumstances" but held that NDPS prescribes a minimum mandatory sentence for commercial quantity offences;
• Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C), the Court is statutorily barred from reducing the sentence below 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment;
• Humanitarian considerations, though important, cannot empower the Court to contravene the legislative mandate;
• Any relief on compassionate or rehabilitative grounds must be sought via statutory remission before the appropriate executive authority.

This clean division between judicial sentencing power and executive remission power is a reaffirmation of separation of powers and fidelity to the text of the statute.

7. Complex Legal Concepts Simplified

7.1 Key NDPS Provisions Involved

• Section 8(c) NDPS Act
  Prohibits the production, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transport, use, etc. of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the Act.
• Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act
  Deals specifically with the punishment for possession, etc. of cannabis (ganja) in commercial quantity. For commercial quantity:
  • Minimum sentence: 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment;
  • Maximum sentence: 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment;
  • Fine: also prescribed within minimum and maximum limits.
  The minimum is mandatory; courts cannot impose less.
• Section 29(1) NDPS Act
  Penalises abetment and criminal conspiracy to commit NDPS offences. A person involved in planning, facilitating, or otherwise participating in an NDPS crime can be punished as if they had committed the offence themselves.
• Section 25 NDPS Act (mentioned in FIR but not central in final reasoning)
  Relates to allowing premises, conveyances or places to be used for the commission of an NDPS offence.
• Section 50 NDPS Act
  Gives a right to a person to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, primarily where a personal search is involved. In this case, it is mentioned that the accused were informed of their rights under Section 50 before the search.
• Section 52‑A NDPS Act
  Provides a special procedure for:
  • Preparation of inventory of seized narcotics;
  • Photography and drawing samples;
  • Certification by a Magistrate;
  • Allowing safe disposal of the bulk while ensuring that certified inventory/photos/samples are treated as primary evidence at trial.
  In this judgment, the Court treats deviations from the "ideal" Section 52‑A procedure as non-fatal, so long as they do not create real doubt regarding the identity or integrity of the seized substance or samples.
• Section 57 NDPS Act
  Requires the officer making an arrest or seizure under the NDPS Act to make a full report to his immediate superior officer within 48 hours. It is generally treated as directory but important.

7.2 Key CrPC Provisions

• Section 161 CrPC
  Allows the police to examine witnesses during investigation and record their statements (not signed by the witness). These statements are used to test the credibility of witnesses at trial.
• Section 313(1)(b) CrPC
  Requires the court to personally question the accused about any incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence. The accused can explain or deny those circumstances. It is not evidence under oath but can be used to support or contradict the prosecution’s case.

7.3 Other Important Concepts

• Mahazar
  A contemporaneous seizure memo or panchanama prepared at the time of seizure, describing the items seized, place, time, and witnesses present. In NDPS cases, the seizure mahazar is crucial for establishing the legality and authenticity of the seizure.
• Conscious Possession
  In NDPS law, mere physical proximity to contraband is not enough; the prosecution must prove that the accused had:
  • Physical control over the substance; and
  • Knowledge of its presence and nature.
  This combination is referred to as "conscious possession".
• Commercial Quantity
  The NDPS Act and accompanying notifications specify thresholds. If the quantity of the seized drug exceeds the "commercial quantity" threshold, harsher mandatory minimum sentences apply (as in Section 20(b)(ii)(C)). For ganja, 23.500 kg is clearly commercial.
• Chain of Custody
  Refers to the documented and reliable sequence of custody, control, transfer, analysis and disposition of evidence. In NDPS cases, it must be shown:
  • Who seized the contraband;
  • How it was sealed and labelled;
  • Where it was stored;
  • How and when it was transported to the Magistrate or FSL;
  • That the seals remained intact and unchanged.
  A clear chain of custody bolsters the prosecution; breaks in it create doubt.
• Minimum Mandatory Sentence
  When a statute prescribes that "shall not be less than X years", it imposes a minimum mandatory sentence. Courts cannot impose a lower sentence, regardless of mitigating circumstances, unless the statute itself permits relaxation (e.g., via a proviso or special power).
• Statutory Remission
  A power vested in the executive (usually under prison rules, remission policies or statutory provisions like the Code of Criminal Procedure) to remit or reduce the sentence. While the court cannot go below the statutory minimum, the executive may, under certain schemes, remit part of the sentence.

8. Impact and Significance of the Judgment

8.1 For NDPS Investigations and Prosecutions

The judgment provides significant comfort to law enforcement agencies:

• On‑spot Sampling Validated: It confirms that drawing samples at the place of seizure is not inherently illegal, even if a Magistrate is not present. This is practically important because:
  • Field operations often occur at odd hours or in remote locations;
  • Immediate sampling may be necessary for logistical and security reasons.
• Substantial Compliance Standard: The decision continues the trend of moving from a rigid "technical compliance" view of Section 52‑A to a "substantial compliance" approach. The focus is on:
  • Integrity of seals;
  • Continuity of chain of custody; and
  • Credible testimony of officials.
• Independent Witness Requirement Softened: Reiterating Surinder Kumar and Jarnail Singh, the Court makes clear that failure to secure independent witnesses, by itself, will not derail a prosecution, provided official witnesses stand firm in cross‑examination.

8.2 For Defence Strategy in NDPS Cases

The decision narrows some of the more technical lines of challenge that defence lawyers have been using:

• Challenges based solely on lack of independent witnesses will have limited traction unless accompanied by positive evidence suggesting false implication or serious contradictions in official testimony.
• Section 52‑A non-compliance arguments must be specific and substantive:
  • Defence must show how an irregularity created real doubt about identity or integrity of samples;
  • Mere assertion that sampling was done "at the spot" or without Magistrate will not suffice.
• Minor discrepancies in weight, unexplained by context, will not be enough; the defence must demonstrate that the variation is unusually large or suspicious, or that seals were broken or altered.

8.3 For Trial and Appellate Courts

The decision provides a structured framework:

• Evidence Evaluation: Courts are encouraged to:
  • Assess the coherence and consistency of official witnesses;
  • Examine whether there is any positive material indicating tampering, substitution, or manipulation;
  • Avoid acquittals based purely on hyper‑technical objections to procedure where the core evidence is reliable.
• Sentencing Constraints: Trial and appellate courts are reminded that:
  • They cannot reduce the sentence below statutory minima in commercial quantity cases;
  • Mitigating circumstances may influence the choice between minimum and maximum, but not below the minimum.

8.4 Humanitarian Concerns and Executive Remission

The Court’s express reference to the appellant’s liberty to seek "statutory remission before the appropriate authority" is significant. It:

• Recognises the harsh impact of mandatory minimums, particularly on young, first-time offenders and caregivers;
• Signals the appropriate institutional path for relief—executive, not judicial;
• Encourages use of remission, parole and rehabilitation measures as complementary to strict sentencing regimes in NDPS law.

This nuanced stance balances the legislative policy of deterrence with some room for individualised justice through executive discretion.

9. Conclusion

Jothi @ Nagajothi v. State consolidates and clarifies several key strands of NDPS jurisprudence:

• It reaffirms that reliable and consistent testimony of official witnesses can sustain an NDPS conviction even without independent witnesses, particularly where no cross‑examination suggests their untrustworthiness.
• It adopts and applies the Bharat Aambale understanding of Section 52‑A: procedural deviations in sampling and post‑seizure handling are not automatically fatal; only those that affect the integrity or identity of the seized substance or samples can vitiate a prosecution.
• It distinguishes Simranjit Singh and Yusuf @ Asif by confining their stricter consequences to cases with broken seals, missing links in the chain of custody, or substantial doubts regarding sample identity.
• It downplays minor discrepancies in weight, especially when explicable by drying and use of approximate measures like "about 50g", aligning with Noor Aga and Rojesh Jagdamba Avasthi.
• On sentencing, it unmistakably reiterates that courts cannot go below the statutory minimum for commercial quantity offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act. Compassionate factors must instead be channelled through executive remission mechanisms.

In doctrinal terms, the judgment furthers a "substantial compliance" approach to NDPS procedural requirements, anchored in the protection of evidentiary integrity rather than rigid formality. In institutional terms, it marks a clear division between judicial fidelity to statutory minimum sentences and executive power to moderate their impact through remission.

As NDPS prosecutions continue to form a significant portion of the criminal docket, Jothi is likely to be cited frequently on issues of sampling, Section 52‑A compliance, chain of custody, and sentencing in commercial quantity cases. It underscores that in NDPS trials, the decisive questions are not technical perfection but whether the evidence convincingly proves conscious possession of contraband beyond reasonable doubt, while respecting the boundaries set by Parliament on punishment.