Bombay High Court Acquits Nigerian National in NDPS Case: A Detailed Legal Examination of Procedural Violations Under Section 52A

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has acquitted Nigerian national Mathew Okako Okofor, who spent over eight years in custody under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court overturned his 2022 conviction after finding that the mandatory procedure for sampling seized narcotics—as required under Section 52A of the NDPS Act—was not followed by the investigating agency. This ruling reinforces the judiciary’s insistence on strict compliance with procedural safeguards in NDPS cases, given the stringent punishments involved.


Case Background and Arrest

Circumstances of Arrest

On August 2017, the Anti-Narcotics Cell’s Azad Maidan Unit arrested Okofor near the Dongri Bridge at Wadi Bunder, Mumbai. According to police officers:

  • Five Nigerian nationals were seen standing near the bridge “suspiciously”.

  • Four escaped; Okofor was apprehended.

  • A rexine bag in his possession allegedly contained a packet of white powder, identified as mephedrone.

  • The total seized quantity was 60 grams.

Two samples were allegedly drawn on the spot for forensic examination.


Trial and Conviction

Special NDPS Court Findings

In December 2022, the Special NDPS Court convicted Okofor under:

  • Section 8(c) NDPS Act – Prohibition of narcotic drug-related activities

  • Section 22(c) NDPS Act – Punishment for possession of psychotropic substances (commercial quantity)

He was sentenced to:

  • 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment

  • Fine of ₹1 lakh

By this time, he had already spent more than five years in custody, and he remained detained pending his appeal before the High Court.


High Court Appeal and Acquittal

On November 20, 2025, the Bombay High Court set aside Okofor’s conviction, observing gross procedural lapses in the sampling and certification process.

Key Finding: Violation of Section 52A NDPS Act

Okofor’s counsel, Advocate Anish Pereira, argued that:

  • Samples were drawn at the spot of arrest.

  • They were not drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, as mandated.

  • The seizure inventory was not certified by a Magistrate.

The High Court agreed with these submissions, relying on the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.


Statutory Provisions Involved

Section 52A, NDPS Act

This is the central statutory provision in the case.

Requirements under Section 52A:

  1. Samples of seized narcotic drugs must be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate.

  2. The Magistrate must:

    • Certify the correctness of the inventory.

    • Certify the photographs taken.

    • Supervise and certify the sampling process.

  3. Only such samples are admissible as primary evidence in trial.

In Okofor’s case, none of these steps were followed.


Section 8(c), NDPS Act

Prohibits activities involving narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances unless permitted under the Act.


Section 22(c), NDPS Act

Punishment for possession of a commercial quantity of psychotropic substances, with a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of 20 years imprisonment.


Constitutional Provisions Relevant to the Case

While the judgment is primarily statutory, certain constitutional safeguards form the foundation of the Court’s reasoning.

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Strict adherence to due process is essential, especially under draconian laws like the NDPS Act.

Failure to follow mandatory procedures under Section 52A amounts to:

  • Violation of fair trial rights

  • Arbitrary deprivation of liberty

Okofor spent over eight years in custody without a legally sustainable conviction.


Article 14 – Equality Before Law

Arbitrariness in procedure—such as ignoring mandatory statutory requirements—violates Article 14.

The High Court implicitly affirmed that investigators must follow statutory mandates uniformly, regardless of the accused’s nationality or circumstances.


Judicial Precedents Relied Upon

The High Court drew support from earlier Supreme Court rulings. These precedents establish that non-compliance with Section 52A makes the FSL report and samples legally useless.

1. Mohammed Khalid & Anr. v. State of Telangana (2023)

The Supreme Court held:

  • Samples drawn without a Magistrate’s presence are inadmissible.

  • FSL reports based on such samples are “nothing but waste paper”.

This specific phrase was quoted by the High Court in Okofor’s case.


2. Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016)

The Supreme Court emphasised:

  • Strict compliance with Section 52A is mandatory.

  • Non-compliance affects the integrity of the evidence.


3. State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh (2011)

Held that failure to comply with procedural safeguards in NDPS cases creates a fatal defect in the prosecution’s case.


4. State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh (1999)

Though dealing more with Section 50, the Supreme Court reiterated that NDPS procedures must be strictly followed because of the stringent punishments involved.


High Court’s Final Observations

Lack of Primary Evidence

The Court held that:

  • The samples were illegally drawn.

  • No Magistrate certified the seizure or sampling.

  • The inventory was not authenticated.

Thus, the prosecution failed to present primary evidence legally.

Consequent Acquittal

Setting aside the 2022 conviction, the Court directed:

“The appellant will be released forthwith, if not required in any other crime.”

Okofor walked free after more than eight years in prison.


Conclusion

The acquittal of Mathew Okofor underscores a crucial legal principle: strict compliance with procedural safeguards is the backbone of NDPS trials. Section 52A serves as a protective shield against wrongful conviction by ensuring transparency and judicial oversight during seizure and sampling.

The Bombay High Court’s verdict not only restores Okofor’s liberty but also reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding due process, especially in offences carrying severe penalties. Investigating agencies must treat procedural requirements not as formalities but as constitutional and statutory necessities.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

Equality Before Law

Rights of a Arrested Person in India

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores

Exploring Articles 236 to 238 of the Indian Constitution: A Contemporary Discourse