JOTHI @ NAGAJOTHIversusTHE STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

               [2025] 12 S.C.R. 488 : 2025 INSC 1417

                        Jothi @ Nagajothi
                                v.
            The State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 259 of 2025)
                             11 December 2025
             [Sanjay Karol and Vipul M. Pancholi,* JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024
       passed by the High Court, whereby the conviction and sentence
       imposed upon the appellant u/ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c)
       r/w 29(1) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
       1985 (NDPS Act) were affirmed.

                                 Headnotes†
       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –
       ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) – Prosecution case
       was that on receiving the information, appellant (A-2) and her
       husband (A-1) were intercepted – Police searched the vehicle
       and seized 23.500 kg of ganja, along with ₹21,140/- – Two
       samples of about 50g each were drawn, sealed and marked
       as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’ – PW-1 (Sub-Inspector) also recorded the
       confession of A-1 at the spot – Offences u/ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)
       (ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act were registered – A-1
       and A-2 were sent for remand – During investigation, PW-5
       (Inspector) forwarded the seized samples to the Court along
       with a requisition for chemical analysis – PW-6 (Scientific
       Officer) analysed the sample, detected cannabinoids and
       furnished the report – The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty
       u/ss.8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act,
       convicted them and imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment
       and a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for each count (sentences running
       concurrently) – The High Court confirmed the conviction
       and sentence imposed by the trial court – Aggrieved by the
       conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-2) has filed the
       present appeal:
       Held: In the present case, upon careful evaluation, the evidence
       of the official witnesses stands out as consistent and coherent –

* Author
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                              489

    Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police


     Their depositions corroborate each other on all material particulars
     and no material has been brought out in cross-examination to cast
     doubt on their credibility – The absence of independent witnesses
     cannot be said to weaken the prosecution case in any manner –
     Further, the appellant has failed to lay any foundational material
     to suggest that the sampling process was unreliable or that the
     integrity of the samples stood compromised – On the contrary, the
     record demonstrates a clear and unimpeached sequence of events:
     (i) the samples were drawn at the spot in the presence of PWs 1
     to 3, (ii) the sample packets were duly sealed with signatures and
     seizure details, (iii) the seized material, along with the samples, was
     produced before the Magistrate, and (iv) pursuant to the judicial
     order dated 20.10.2019, sample ‘S-1’ was forwarded to the Forensic
     Science Laboratory while ‘S-2’ was retained in judicial custody –
     The Scientific Officer (PW-6) affirmed that the seal on the packet
     received for analysis was intact and bore the correct identifying
     particulars – In addition, the chain of custody in the present case
     remains clear and continuous – At no stage has any evidence been
     brought out to indicate tampering, substitution or mishandling –
     The forensic report confirms the presence of cannabinoids in the
     sample, which stands in complete harmony with the seizure – In
     these circumstances, even assuming some deviation from the
     ideal procedure envisaged u/s.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 – The prosecution has demonstrated
     substantial compliance with the statutory requirements – Therefore,
     upon careful evaluation, the prosecution has proved, beyond
     reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in conscious possession
     of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity – There is no infirmity
     in the impugned judgment of the High Court. [Paras 22, 24, 26,
     27, 31, 33]

                               Case Law Cited
     Simranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 906;
     Yusuf @ Asif v. State, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328; Surinder
     Kumar v. State of Punjab [2020] 1 SCR 307 : (2020) 2 SCC 563;
     Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [2011] 2 SCR 888 : (2011) 3 SCC
     521; Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh [2025] 1 SCR 1524 :
     (2025) 8 SCC 452; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. [2008] 10
     SCR 379 : (2008) 16 SCC 417 – referred to.
490                                                         [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                                 List of Acts
       Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Code of
       Criminal Procedure, 1973.

                               List of Keywords
       Ganja; Chemical analysis; Confession; Seized samples;
       Cannabinoids; Independent witness; Mandate of s.52-A of Narcotic
       Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Sampling at spot;
       Evidentiary value of samples; Integrity of samples.

                             Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       259 of 2025
       From the Judgment and Order dated 27.06.2024 of the High Court
       of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.125 of 2021

                          Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellant(s):
       M.P. Srivignesh, Lakshman Raja. T, Sharavena Raghul Asr, Mithun
       Kumaar N, Gokul Athithya R P, Manu Srinath.
       Advs. for the Respondent(s):
       Sabarish Subramanian.

                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

1.     This is an appeal challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed
       by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021,
       whereby the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant
       under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the Narcotic
       Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred
       as “the NDPS Act”) were affirmed.
2.     The Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2021 in C.C. No. 15
       of 2020, convicted the appellant and imposed 10 years’ rigorous
       imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000/- for each count (sentences
       running concurrently). The High Court upheld the same.
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                      491

     Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police


3.   The case of the prosecution was that on 21.09.2019, PW-1
     (Sub-Inspector) received secret information that ganja was being
     transported on a two-wheeler bearing TN-03-M-0585. PW-1 reduced
     this information into writing, informed PW-5 (Inspector) and proceeded
     with two constables, PW-2 and PW-3.
4.   The appellant (A-2) and her husband (A-1) were intercepted. After
     informing them of their rights under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the
     police searched the vehicle and seized 23.500 kg of ganja, along
     with ₹21,140/-. Two samples of about 50g each were drawn, sealed
     and marked as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’. PW-1 also recorded the confession
     of A-1 at the spot.
5.   After reaching the police station, PW-1 submitted a report to PW-5
     under Section 57 of the NDPS Act. On receiving the report, PW-5
     registered the F.I.R. No. 462/2019 dated 21.09.2019 for offences
     under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(C), 25 and 29(1) of the NDPS Act
     and prepared the intimation memos. A-1 and A-2 were sent for
     remand and PW-5 took up the investigation.
6.   During investigation, PW-5 forwarded the seized samples to the Court
     along with a requisition for chemical analysis. The samples were
     received by PW-6 (Scientific Officer) through PW-4. PW-6 analysed
     the sample, detected cannabinoids and furnished the report.
7.   Thereafter, PW-5 recorded the statements of PW-6 and the remaining
     members of the raiding team under Section 161 of the Code of
     Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the Cr.P.C”).
     The seized cash was deposited to the Reserve Bank of India. After
     completing the investigation, PW-5 filed the final report against A-1
     and A-2 for the aforesaid offences.
8.   The prosecution examined 6 witnesses. A-1 and A-2 were questioned
     under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C., during which they denied all
     incriminating circumstances.
9.   The trial court found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 8(c) r/w
     20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, convicted them and
     imposed 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,00,000/-
     for each count (sentences running concurrently).
10. Aggrieved thereby, A-1 and A-2 approached the High Court, which
    held that the Trial Court has rendered proper findings on the basis
492                                                         [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       of the materials placed by the prosecution to prove the case against
       A-1 and A-2. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by A-1 and A-2
       was dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by
       the trial court.
11. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant (A-2) has
    filed the present appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the prosecution
    case suffers from multiple infirmities. First, it is urged that the seizure
    took place in a residential locality containing about 50-60 houses,
    yet no independent witness was secured and only police witnesses
    attested the mahazar, thereby casting doubt on the genuineness of
    the seizure.
13. Secondly, it is submitted that the representative samples were drawn
    at the spot itself, contrary to the mandate of Section 52-A of the
    NDPS Act and without the presence or certification of a Magistrate,
    rendering the samples legally infirm. Reliance is placed on Simranjit
    Singh v. State of Punjab (2023 SCC OnLine SC 906) and Yusuf
    @ Asif v. State (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328) to urge that sampling
    at the spot vitiates the prosecution case.
14. Thirdly, learned counsel pointed to the absence of the markings ‘S-
    1’ and ‘S-2’ on the sample packets upon removal of labels, thereby
    questioning the identity and integrity of the samples sent for chemical
    analysis.
15. Fourthly, it is argued that there was non-compliance with the statutory
    requirements under Sections 52-A(2) and 52-A(4) of the NDPS Act,
    which vitiates the evidentiary value of the samples and undermines
    the prosecution case.
16. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned
    judgment is liable to be set aside.
17. In the alternative, it was urged that the appellant was only 24 years
    of age at the time of the incident, is a first-time offender with no
    prior criminal antecedents and is the sole caregiver of her minor
    child. On these mitigating considerations, learned counsel pleaded
    for remission or, at the very least, a reduction of the sentence to the
    period already undergone, which presently stands at over 5 years
    and 9 months.
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                          493

    Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police


18. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that all alleged
    discrepancies were minor, thoroughly explained and incapable of
    discrediting the prosecution case which stood firmly proved by the
    consistent testimony of official witnesses. The integrity of the samples
    was never compromised and the High Court had rightly rejected the
    appellant’s contentions.
19. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material
    available on record.
20. The contention of the appellant with regard to the absence of
    independent witnesses has been examined in detail by the High Court,
    noting that PWs 1-3 consistently deposed that no persons were present
    in the vicinity at the time of seizure, despite the presence of houses
    and no suggestion was made to the contrary in cross-examination.
    The relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment reads as under:
          “23. It is to be pointed out that it is the consistent view of
          the courts that non-examination of independent witnesses
          cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution version so long
          as the witnesses, who have been examined have deposed
          in unison. As stated above, P.W.s 2 and 3 have corroborated
          the evidence of P.W.1 on all material particulars. In fact,
          P.W.s 2 and 3 have deposed that though at a distance of
          50 mtrs., there are houses, yet no person was available
          and, therefore, P.W.s 2 and 3 were made witnesses to
          the seizure, it is not the case of the defence/appellants
          that the locality where the vehicle of the appellants was
          intercepted, there was frequent movement of pedestrians
          or vehicles so that there would have been no difficulty
          to obtain signatures from independent witnesses. There
          is no suggestion made in this regard to the witnesses
          by the defence at the time of cross examination and in
          the absence of any suggestion and eliciting a response,
          the mere non-examination of independent witnesses or
          attesting of the mahazar by the official witnesses could
          form the basis to doubt the prosecution version. Therefore,
          the said contention deserves to be rejected.”
21. This Court has consistently held that the non-examination of
    independent witnesses is not, by itself, fatal to the prosecution,
    particularly in prosecutions under the NDPS Act where operations
    often take place under challenging circumstances. In Surinder
494                                                        [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                          Supreme Court Reports


       Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020 (2) SCC 563), this Court reiterated
       that the mere absence of independent witnesses does not lead
       to the conclusion that the accused has been falsely implicated.
       Referring to Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab ((2011) 3 SCC 521),
       the Court underscored that the testimony of official witnesses cannot
       be discarded solely on the ground of their official status and that
       their evidence must be assessed on its own merits like that of any
       other witness.
22. In the present case, upon careful evaluation, the evidence of the official
    witnesses stands out as consistent and coherent. Their depositions
    corroborate each other on all material particulars and no material
    has been brought out in cross-examination to cast doubt on their
    credibility. The absence of independent witnesses, therefore, cannot
    be said to weaken the prosecution case in any manner.
23. The appellant’s primary submission is that the representative samples
    ought to have been drawn only before a Magistrate in terms of Section
    52-A of the NDPS Act and that sampling at the spot itself renders
    the entire prosecution void. This contention is legally untenable. In
    Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2025) 8 SCC 452, this
    Court has comprehensively clarified the scope, purpose and effect
    of Section 52-A. Most significantly, paragraphs 56.5 and 56.6 of the
    said judgment make it clear that mere non-compliance or delayed
    compliance with Section 52-A is not fatal unless the irregularity
    creates discrepancies affecting the integrity of the seized substance
    or rendering the prosecution case doubtful. Equally, even where some
    procedural lapse is shown, if the remaining oral or documentary
    evidence inspires confidence regarding the seizure and conscious
    possession, the conviction may still be upheld.
24. Applying these principles to the present case, the appellant has
    failed to lay any foundational material to suggest that the sampling
    process was unreliable or that the integrity of the samples stood
    compromised. On the contrary, the record demonstrates a clear and
    unimpeached sequence of events: (i) the samples were drawn at the
    spot in the presence of PWs 1 to 3, (ii) the sample packets were duly
    sealed with signatures and seizure details, (iii) the seized material,
    along with the samples, was produced before the Magistrate, and
    (iv) pursuant to the judicial order dated 20.10.2019, sample ‘S-1’
    was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory while ‘S-2’ was
    retained in judicial custody. The Scientific Officer (PW-6) affirmed
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                      495

    Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police


     that the seal on the packet received for analysis was intact and bore
     the correct identifying particulars.
25. The appellant’s contention that the markings ‘S-1’/’S-2’ were absent
    upon removal of labels also lacks merit. PW-1 explained that markings
    had been made and any fading could be attributed to normal handling
    over time. More importantly, the Magistrate’s order dated 20.10.2019
    itself expressly refers to the sample packets as ‘S-1’ and ‘S-2’,
    conclusively establishing their identity and dispelling any doubt. The
    Scientific Officer (PW-6) further confirmed that the sample received
    by the Laboratory corresponded to the seizure.
26. In addition, the chain of custody in the present case remains clear
    and continuous. At no stage has any evidence been brought out to
    indicate tampering, substitution or mishandling. The forensic report
    confirms the presence of cannabinoids in the sample, which stands
    in complete harmony with the seizure.
27. In these circumstances, 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. The prosecution has demonstrated substantial
    compliance with the statutory requirements and the integrity of the
    material evidence stands fully preserved. Accordingly, the appellant’s
    contention founded on non-compliance with Section 52-A is rejected.
28. The decisions in Simranjit Singh (supra) and Yusuf @ Asif (supra)
    are distinguishable on facts, as both involved serious doubts regarding
    identity of samples, broken seals and unexplained discrepancies.
    None of those infirmities have been proved by the appellant in the
    present case.
29. The reduction in weight (from “about 50g” to 40.6g) is sufficiently
    explained by natural drying and loss of moisture, a fact also recorded
    by PW-6 in the Analysis Report, which notes that the sample
    contained dry, broken fragments. The High Court rightly held that
    minor variations in weight, particularly where the sample quantity
    is described as “about”, do not affect the identity or integrity of the
    sample. The relevant observations of the High Court read as follows:
          “31. The deposition of P.W.5 proves that he received
          a quantity of 40.6 grams in one sealed cover from the
          court, as evidenced by Ex.P-9. The letter of P.W.6, which
496                                                       [2025] 12 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          has been annexed with Ex.PP-9 also reveals that two
          samples of about 50 grams each were taken for the
          purpose of chemical analysis. Therefore, not only there
          is corroboration, but there is not too much variance in
          the quantity sent for chemical analysis and, therefore,
          the contention that the samples, which were alleged to
          have been sent were not the ones that were drawn out of
          M O.3 does not merit acceptance. The minor discrepancy
          in the quantity does not have much relevance, moreso,
          when it is the specific case of the prosecution that about
          50 grams was taken as sample and not exactly 50 grams.
          32. Further, it should also not be lost sight of that the
          initial seizure and recovery was made on 21.09.2019 and,
          thereafter, on 30.10.2019, on the orders of the court, one of
          the sample packet, viz., S-1 was sent for chemical analysis.
          The time lapse between 21.9.2019 and 30.10.2019 also
          has to be taken into consideration while the weight of the
          sample is considered as the freshness of the sample on
          21.9.2019 would have waned by 30.10.2019, as even the
          recording of P.W.5 in Ex.P-9 shows that the leaves along
          with the seeds were found broken, which clearly shows
          that the samples, which were received by P.W.5 were dry.
          The seizure had been made on 21.9.2019 and the sample
          was sent on 30.10.2019 and during the interregnum 40
          day period, the sample would have dried and the loss of
          moisture in the sample would have been the cause of
          reduction in weight of the sample from about 50 grams to
          40.06 grams Therefore, the reduction in weight, not being
          too enormous, the decision in Rojesh Jagdamba Avasthi
          case would not be of any assistance to the appellants.
          Further, even in the said decision, the Supreme Court had
          held that minor discrepancies in the weight could not be
          given too much weightage so long as the discrepancy in
          the weight is not too enormous. Therefore, the contention
          of the appellants with regard to discrepancy in weight,
          creating a doubt with regard to the samples does not
          merit acceptance.”
30. This Court, in Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr. ((2008) 16 SCC
    417), has similarly observed in paragraph 98 that a slight difference
    in the weight of the sample is not so material as to undermine the
[2025] 12 S.C.R.                                                     497

    Jothi @ Nagajothi v. The State, Rep. By the Inspector of Police


     prosecution case, and cannot by itself justify discarding otherwise
     reliable evidence.
31. Therefore, upon careful evaluation, the prosecution has proved,
    beyond reasonable doubt, that the appellant was in conscious
    possession of 23.500 kg of ganja, a commercial quantity. The minor
    procedural irregularities pointed out do not affect the core of the
    prosecution case. The chain of custody remains intact and sampling
    and sealing have been sufficiently established.
32. The appellant urges this Court to consider her youth, lack of prior
    criminal history and responsibility towards her minor child. While
    we are not unmindful of the appellant’s circumstances, the NDPS
    Act prescribes minimum mandatory sentences for possession of
    commercial quantity. The Court has no discretion to reduce the
    sentence below the statutory minimum under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
    of the NDPS Act. Humanitarian considerations, though relevant for
    executive remission, cannot override statutory minimum punishment
    mandated by the legislature. Thus, no interference with sentence
    is permissible.
33. For the said reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment
    of the High Court. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial
    Court and affirmed by the High Court call for no interference.
34. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
35. The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 8(c) r/w
    20(b)(ii)(C) and 8(c) r/w 29(1) of the NDPS Act, as imposed by the
    Trial Court in C.C. No. 15 of 2020 and affirmed by the High Court
    in Crl.A. No. 125 of 2021, are hereby upheld.
36. The appellant, however, is at liberty to pursue any remedy available
    in law for statutory remission before the appropriate authority.
37. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal dismissed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan