MUMBAI, Sept. 27 -- The Bombay High Court has pulled up Customs and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) over procedural lapses in six international drug-smuggling cases, warning that deficiencies in the way the cases were handled could weaken the prosecutions and ultimately lead to acquittals. Justice Shyam C Chandak, in a common judgment granting bail to four foreign nationals held for more than four years, found that only two of the six notices served on the accused under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which requires informing a suspect of the right to be searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer, were properly framed, and that the seized drugs had been handled inconsistently for sampling. "Such a handling of the legal provisions and the Standing instructions, Standing Order and the NDPS-SSSD Rules, may lead the cases to acquittal," the court said, adding that continued lapses could mean that "the Government money spent and the Court's efforts made on such cases go in vain". The four accused, identified as Ugandan nationals Ronald Barisigara, Brandon Sulpisious Migadde and Halima Naiga, and Ghanaian national Raymond Anane Kyeremateng, had been in custody for more than four years, with little progress in their trials. The foreign nationals allegedly entered Mumbai carrying narcotics concealed inside their bodies. Barisigara allegedly expelled 95 capsules containing 1.235 kg of heroin after being intercepted in April 2022. Kyeremateng allegedly expelled 87 capsules containing 1.302 kg of cocaine in August 2022, while Migadde allegedly expelled 70 capsules containing 690 grams of cocaine in May 2022. Naiga allegedly expelled 74 capsules containing cocaine after being intercepted in July 2022. The remaining cases involved Sierra Leone national Abdulai Francis Bundu and Beninese national Avalibe Norbert Michel Semevo. The court examined the manner in which samples were drawn from the seized narcotics and found that the procedure was not consistent across the cases. In some instances, one capsule was tested before the remaining capsules were opened and their contents mixed. In others, each capsule was tested separately before the contents were pooled. In a third group, which included Migadde's case, all the capsules were mixed together before only a portion was tested. The procedural issues featured prominently in the bail pleas. In Barisigara's case, advocates Khushal Parmar and Sumant More pointed to discrepancies in the seals and recorded weight of the seized material and alleged that its contents were mixed before sampling. The plea described the discrepancy as one that "goes to the root of the matter". In Migadde's case, Parmar argued that the accused had not been properly informed of his rights before the search and alleged irregularities in the handling and inventory of the seized cocaine. The court also found deficiencies in some of the Section 50 notices. One notice, it noted, offered the accused the option of being searched before a particular Customs officer instead of clearly communicating the statutory choice of being searched before a magistrate or gazetted officer. The finding of procedural lapses, however, did not translate into relief for all six accused. The notices served on Bundu and Semevo were the only two found to be compliant, and given a clear prima facie case involving commercial quantities of contraband. Since they had also spent comparatively less time in custody than the other four, the argument of prolonged incarceration was not available to them either, and their bail applications were rejected. For the other four accused, the prolonged period of custody and the lack of progress in trial assumed significance. The court also directed senior Customs and DRI officials to ensure that statutory provisions and standing instructions governing search, seizure and sampling were followed from the outset. Justice Chandak observed that these safeguards had been in place for decades, yet the authorities failed to comply with them....