NDPS Act Commercial Quantity, Yet Acquittal: What Hobiqul Islam v. State of Assam Teaches Us About Procedure

There’s a persistent myth in Indian criminal law circles that “commercial quantity” under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is practically a guaranteed conviction. A recent ruling from the Gauhati High Court dismantles that assumption in the clearest possible terms. In Hobiqul Islam v. State of Assam, decided on 24 August 2026, the Court acquitted two men who had been sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment — despite the seized narcotics adding up to a quantity well within the “commercial” bracket. The reason wasn’t a dispute over the drugs themselves. It was a dispute over how the police handled the case file.

The Case at a Glance

Case Title: Hobiqul Islam v. State of Assam, with the connected matter Nijut Bormoholia v. State of Assam
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal No. 144/2026 with Criminal Appeal No. 192/2023
Court: Gauhati High Court
Bench: Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita
Date of Judgment: 24 August 2026

What Happened: The Facts of the Case

The prosecution’s story began with a routine police operation. Acting on a tip-off about the transportation of ganja, police set up a naka (checkpoint) and intercepted a vehicle carrying the appellants. A search of the vehicle allegedly turned up around 30 kg of suspected cannabis.

The case escalated from there. Based on disclosure statements made by the appellants after their arrest, police say they recovered an additional 75 kg of suspected cannabis from a residence linked to an associate. Combined, the two recoveries totalled roughly 105 kg — comfortably inside the commercial quantity threshold for cannabis under the NDPS Act.

On this basis, a charge sheet was filed under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 — the provision that applies specifically to commercial quantity offences and carries some of the harshest penalties in the statute. The trial court convicted both accused and sentenced each of them to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh.

The Appeal: What the Defence Argued

On appeal, the defence didn’t try to argue that no drugs existed. Instead, they attacked the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence itself, arguing that:

• The seized ganja was never produced before the trial court, and no inventory of it was ever formally exhibited.
• There was no material showing that samples of the contraband were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, as the law requires.
• The seizure witnesses themselves did not support the prosecution’s version of events.
• The prosecution had failed to establish a proper chain of custody for the samples that were supposedly tested.

The State pushed back, arguing that the conviction rested on credible ocular (eyewitness) evidence and that oral testimony from prosecution witnesses was enough to establish both seizure and conscious possession.

Why the Seizure Witnesses Didn’t Hold Up

This is where the case turned. Under Indian criminal procedure, “independent” seizure witnesses are meant to actually watch the police recover contraband and sign the seizure memo on the spot, as a safeguard against fabricated evidence. When the Gauhati High Court examined this evidence, it found the opposite had happened.

One witness testified that he could not even say what was written on the papers he had signed. Another stated that his signature on the seizure list was obtained at his own residence — he had never gone to the location where the ganja was allegedly recovered. A third admitted his signature was taken at the police station itself, not at the seizure site. A fourth witness likewise confirmed he had never visited the place of recovery.

The Court concluded plainly: none of the seizure witnesses had been able to prove the fact of recovery and seizure of the contraband from the appellants. In other words, the paperwork existed — but the procedure it was supposed to document apparently never happened the way it was recorded. Live Law

The Section 52A Problem

The second, and arguably more decisive, failure was procedural. Section 52A of the NDPS Act lays down a mandatory process for how seized narcotics must be inventoried, sampled, and certified — typically requiring the involvement of a Magistrate to prevent tampering, substitution, or loss of the seized material before trial.

The High Court found that no inventory of the seized contraband had been prepared as required under Section 52A. There was nothing on record to show that samples were drawn before a Magistrate; instead, the material suggested the samples were drawn at the police station itself. The Court also noted that the seized contraband was never produced before the trial court, and what ultimately happened to it could not be determined from the case record at all.

The Bench was unambiguous about the consequence of this lapse, holding that the Section 52A procedure had not been followed by the investigating agency in this case at all.

Why Procedure Matters More Than People Think

This ruling reinforces a principle that the Supreme Court itself has emphasised in a string of recent NDPS judgments: because the Act prescribes exceptionally harsh punishment — sometimes running into decades of imprisonment — the procedural safeguards built into it aren’t optional box-ticking. They exist precisely because the penalties are so severe.

The Gauhati High Court’s reasoning in Hobiqul Islam tracks this logic closely. It held that any lapse in mandatory procedure works against the prosecution, not the accused, because the burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt includes proving that the evidence itself is reliable. A “commercial quantity” label on a chargesheet is only as strong as the chain of custody and documentation behind it. If that chain breaks, the label alone cannot sustain a conviction.

The Court’s Final Word

Taking both failures together — witnesses who could not credibly testify to the recovery, and a complete failure to follow Section 52A — the Court held that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court could not be sustained. It set aside the trial court’s judgment, acquitted both appellants, and directed their release forthwith, provided they were not wanted in any other case.

Key Takeaways for Readers

• Commercial quantity is not an automatic conviction. The prosecution still has to prove seizure and possession beyond reasonable doubt, with credible, procedurally sound evidence.
• Independent witnesses must actually witness the seizure. Signatures obtained after the fact, at a police station or a witness’s home, defeat the entire purpose of having independent witnesses.
• Section 52A compliance is treated as mandatory, not a mere formality — failure to follow it can, on its own, seriously damage a prosecution case.
• Chain of custody matters. If seized contraband is never produced in court and its fate cannot be traced through the record, that gap works in the accused’s favour.

Conclusion

Hobiqul Islam v. State of Assam is a reminder that in NDPS cases, the weight of the substance seized is only half the story — the weight of the evidence behind it is the other half, and often the more decisive one. For law students, defence practitioners, and anyone following narcotics jurisprudence in India, this Gauhati High Court ruling is a textbook illustration of how procedural rigour under Sections 52A and the seizure-witness requirement can outweigh even a commercial quantity finding.

This article is for general legal awareness and does not constitute legal advice. Readers facing an NDPS matter should consult a qualified criminal lawyer.