Two letters from the Narcotics Control Bureau’s Delhi unit went unanswered by its Chandigarh unit. The Rouse Avenue Court has called this a serious lapse in an NDPS prosecution and said it deserves the attention of the NCB Director.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Finding a Filipino national guilty under Section 23(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 in a case concerning about 560 grams of charas, a Delhi trial court has separately recorded that the Chandigarh unit of the Narcotics Control Bureau did not cooperate with the Delhi unit during the probe [NCB v. Nympha De Jesus].
The judgment in SC No. 5/2017 was delivered on September 17, 2026 by Special Judge (NDPS-07) Sandeep Yadav of the Rouse Avenue Courts.
Two requests, no reply
The Delhi zonal unit of the NCB had written to the Chandigarh unit on December 10, 2015 and November 23, 2016, seeking material including the customer application form and call detail records. The Court noted that the record showed those requests were not answered, and observed:
“It is surprising that one official of NCB at Chandigarh is not cooperating with other official of NCB at Delhi in connection with investigation of present case.”
Judge Yadav then recorded that the lapse was not confined to the individual officer concerned:
“This serious lapse on the part of officials involved in the investigation of this case deserves the attention of Director, NCB.”
The prosecution’s account
According to the prosecution, the NCB received intelligence in November 2015 about narcotics in a parcel at a courier facility in Delhi. On inspection, about 560 grams of charas was allegedly found concealed inside a black book. The parcel was addressed to a person in Brighton, United Kingdom. The prosecution relied on the accused’s passport details and on the testimony of a postal assistant at the Connaught Place Post Office, who identified the accused as the person who booked the parcel. The accused was charged under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with Section 23(b) of the NDPS Act.
Finding of guilt, sentence pending
The Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused guilty under Section 23(b) of the NDPS Act. As the judgment records that the accused is to be heard on the point of sentence, the quantum of punishment was yet to be decided when it was delivered. This is a trial court finding and is open to challenge before the higher courts. The accused is presumed innocent in any proceeding where guilt has not been established, and nothing in this report expresses a view on the merits beyond what the Court itself held.
Why the order matters
Narcotics prosecutions often depend on documents held by more than one unit of the same agency, such as subscriber forms and call records. The judgment is a reminder that unanswered inter-unit requests can leave gaps in the record, and that the trial court expects the agency’s leadership to be told when that happens.
The Court did not hold that the lapse affected the outcome of this trial. Its remark is directed at the conduct of the officials involved, and the Director of the NCB has not, on the record of this judgment, responded to it.
Case Title: NCB v. Nympha De Jesus [SC No. 5/2017]
Bench: Special Judge (NDPS-07) Sandeep Yadav, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi
Date of Judgment: September 17, 2026
Appearances: Senior Public Prosecutor Shantanu Jugtawat and Special Public Prosecutor Manish Gupta for the NCB; Advocate Gaurav Chandok for the accused