Section 43 vs Section 42 of NDPS Act: Tripura HC Upholds Conviction in NDPS Case

The Tripura High Court has upheld the conviction and five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence of Udairam Reang in a ganja seizure case, holding that Section 43 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act applies when contraband is seized from a person travelling in a vehicle at a public place. The Court rejected the defence argument that the search and seizure violated the mandatory safeguards under the Act and dismissed the appeal.

The judgment was delivered by Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud on October 5, 2026, in Smt. Kabirung Reang on behalf of Sri Udairam Reang v. State of Tripura, Crl. A. (J) No. 45 of 2026. The appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura, which had convicted Reang under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

The case arose from an incident on February 25, 2020, when the Officer-in-Charge of Kanchanpur Police Station received secret information that a passenger travelling in a vehicle bearing registration number TR-02-B-2635 was carrying ganja towards Dasda. The information was recorded in the station diary and communicated to senior officers. After obtaining authorisation, the police team stopped the vehicle at Barahaldi Naka Point in Kanchanpur and checked it.

During the search, police found two bags belonging to Udairam Reang. The bags contained two packets of dry ganja weighing three kilograms and four kilograms respectively, making a total recovery of seven kilograms. The seized substance was sent for forensic examination, which confirmed that it was ganja. Following the investigation and trial, the Special Judge convicted Reang and imposed the five-year sentence.

Before the High Court, the defence argued that the search and seizure had not complied with the NDPS Act. The appellant also questioned discrepancies in the witnesses’ statements, the preparation of the inventory under Section 52A, the chain of custody of the seized substance and the non-production of the malkhana register before the trial court. The defence contended that these shortcomings created doubts about the prosecution’s case and justified setting aside the conviction.

The State opposed the appeal, arguing that the police had followed the prescribed procedure and that the prosecution evidence consistently established the recovery of ganja from the appellant’s possession. It submitted that the defence had failed to discredit the witnesses or demonstrate any break in the chain of custody.

The principal issue before the High Court was whether Section 42 or Section 43 of the NDPS Act governed the search. Section 42 deals with the power to enter and search a building, conveyance or enclosed place in the circumstances specified by the provision. Section 43, on the other hand, deals with seizure and arrest in a public place or in transit and expressly includes public conveyances within the meaning of a public place.

The Court noted that the police had initially received information about an unidentified person travelling in a passenger vehicle with contraband. The identity of the appellant and his possession of the bags became known during the checking operation. Since the vehicle was stopped and searched at a public naka point, the Court held that Section 43 applied to the facts of the case. It relied on the distinction between Sections 42 and 43 recognised by the Supreme Court, including in Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana.

The High Court also found that the police had recorded the information, informed the superior officer and obtained authorisation before conducting the search and seizure. The Court accepted the evidence regarding the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and found that the prosecution witnesses’ accounts were supported by documentary evidence and the forensic report.

On the question of the missing malkhana register, the Court held that its non-production was not, by itself, sufficient to invalidate the prosecution case. The evidence established a continuous chain of custody, and there was no material showing that the seized substance or samples had been tampered with or substituted. The Court further observed that minor documentation omissions do not automatically invalidate a conviction when the overall evidence regarding recovery and possession remains reliable.

After reassessing the evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s findings did not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It accordingly dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of five years’ rigorous imprisonment.

The judgment clarifies the distinction between Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act in cases involving searches at public places. It also reiterates that an alleged procedural lapse, such as non-production of a malkhana register, must be assessed in the context of the entire evidence and the integrity of the chain of custody rather than treated as automatically fatal to the prosecution.