Main accused escaped: Court slams ‘casual’ investigation, frees 5 in 833 kg ganja case

5 min readNew DelhiJul 7, 2026 12:30 PM IST

The court said that it is constrained to record its dissatisfaction and strong disapproval of the manner in which the investigation has been conducted by the DRI. (Image generated using AI)

Criticising a narcotics investigation that was built on “casualness and indifference,” the Chhattisgarh High Court recently acquitted five men in a case involving the seizure of 833 kilos of ganja. The court rebuked the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for “systematically violating” mandatory NDPS Act safeguards, ordering a departmental inquiry after revealing that the prime suspect had actually escaped from DRI custody.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal were hearing a batch of criminal appeals filed by five accused against their convictions by the Special NDPS Court, Raipur, challenging judgments dated July 25, 2024 and November 17, 2025, under which the accused had been sentenced to up to 15 years’ rigorous imprisonment for offences under the NDPS Act.

“The record reveals not merely procedural irregularities but a systematic disregard of the mandatory safeguards incorporated under the NDPS Act…These are not mere technical defects but violations of statutory safeguards repeatedly held by the Supreme Court to be mandatory in nature…Such conduct demonstrates a disturbing degree of casualness and indifference by officers entrusted with extraordinary powers under one of the most stringent penal statutes,” the court said on July 1.

What came as a “shock” to the court was the facts that the prime accused had escaped the DRI’s custody. “If an accused allegedly involved in the trafficking of a commercial quantity of narcotic drugs can escape from the premises of the investigating agency, it reflects a complete collapse of vigilance, supervision and institutional discipline within the agency,” it added.

Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Ravindra Kumar Agarwal said that the investigation suffers from glaring lapses at every material stage. (Image enhanced using AI)

Search, seizure under cloud

The prosecution case arose from a DRI operation on October 3, 2021. Officials claimed they intercepted a truck carrying 833.271-kg ganja concealed beneath sacks of puffed rice while it was travelling from Andhra Pradesh to Mathura in Uttar Pradesh.

According to the DRI, the truck was being escorted by a Mahindra XUV carrying other accused persons allegedly involved in the trafficking operation. Following the trial, four accused were convicted in July 2024, while the truck owner was separately convicted in November 2025 after his arrest in February that year.

Allowing all five appeals, the high court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt because the investigation suffered from fundamental defects affecting the search, seizure, sampling and preservation of evidence.

Story continues below this ad

The bench noted that although the truck was allegedly intercepted at Tourenga Forest Check Post in Gariyaband, no panchnama, seizure memo, spot map or any contemporaneous record was prepared there. Instead, the truck was taken nearly 160 kilometres away to the DRI office in Raipur before the search and seizure proceedings were conducted.

According to the court, conducting the entire exercise at a different location cast serious doubt on the sanctity of the alleged recovery and opened the possibility of manipulation between interception and seizure.

‘Glaring lapses’

The court is constrained to record its dissatisfaction and strong disapproval of the manner in which the investigation has been conducted by the DRI.

The investigation suffers from glaring lapses at every material stage, including failure to prepare proceedings at the place of interception, non-compliance with the statutory requirements under Sections 42, 52-A and 57 of the NDPS Act, serious deficiencies in the search, seizure, sampling and sealing process, failure to preserve the sanctity of the chain of custody, and preparation of documents which, in view of the evidence on record, have become highly doubtful.

Sections 42, 52-A and 57 of the NDPS Act, which require authorised officers to record and communicate prior information, prepare a magistrate-certified inventory and draw samples of the seized contraband in accordance with law, and promptly report the search and seizure to their superior officers.

Investigations under the NDPS Act demand the highest standards of fairness, professionalism and strict adherence to the procedure established by law.

Any deviation therefrom not only jeopardizes the rights of the accused but also seriously undermines the credibility of the criminal justice system and frustrates the very object of the Act.

Court orders DG-level inquiry

Taking serious note of the lapses, the bench directed the registry to immediately forward a copy of the judgment to the Director General of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi.

The director general has been directed to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the conduct of all officers who supervised the investigation, including the circumstances that enabled the principal accused to escape from DRI custody, fix accountability on erring officials and take action in accordance with law.

Story continues below this ad

The court also asked the DRI chief to strengthen supervisory mechanisms and organise periodic training programmes so that future NDPS investigations are conducted with the fairness, professionalism and strict statutory compliance expected of a premier national investigating agency.

Vineet Upadhyay is an Assistant Editor with The Indian Express, where he leads specialized coverage of the Indian judicial system.

Expertise

Specialized Legal Authority: Vineet has spent the better part of his career analyzing the intricacies of the law. His expertise lies in "demystifying" judgments from the Supreme Court of India, various High Courts, and District Courts. His reporting covers a vast spectrum of legal issues, including:

Constitutional & Civil Rights: Reporting on landmark rulings regarding privacy, equality, and state accountability.

Criminal Justice & Enforcement: Detailed coverage of high-profile cases involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED), NIA, and POCSO matters.

Consumer Rights & Environmental Law: Authoritative pieces on medical negligence compensation, environmental protection (such as the "living person" status of rivers), and labor rights.

Over a Decade of Professional Experience: Prior to joining The Indian Express, he served as a Principal Correspondent/Legal Reporter for The Times of India and held significant roles at The New Indian Express. His tenure has seen him report from critical legal hubs, including Delhi and Uttarakhand. ... Read More

Tags:

Chhattisgarh High Court

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence

NDPS Act