In Brief
Gurmail Chand was convicted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act for possession of 10 kilograms of opium seized during a vehicle search on 16 October 1998. On appeal, he challenged the conviction arguing that the seizure witness testified against the seizure, the case property was not properly produced, and Section 57 of the NDPS Act was violated because the report was not sent within two days. The Supreme Court held that Section 57 is directory, not mandatory. Substantial compliance suffices when all relevant information is communicated to the superior officer, even without a formal report. The Court dismissed the appeal, finding the seizure lawful based on proper evidence and corroborating signatures.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.