The Supreme Court has acquitted two men convicted in a narcotics case after finding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody for the samples allegedly drawn from the seized substance. The Court held that once the forensic science laboratory report was excluded from consideration, there was no legally admissible evidence proving that the substance recovered from the accused was charas.
The Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan observed that the prosecution must establish through credible oral and documentary evidence that samples drawn from seized contraband were properly sealed and remained safe and secure from the moment of seizure until their receipt at the forensic laboratory. On the facts before it, the Court concluded that this essential link evidence had been completely breached, destroying the sanctity and integrity of the samples.
Buy Now: E-Magzine On Landmark Supreme Court Judgements Under Limitation Act Till 2025 : PART-1
According to the prosecution, an inspector posted as Station House Officer at Police Station Gorakhpur in Jabalpur received information on November 29, 2004 that two persons, one of whom was disabled, were carrying charas in bags after alighting from an autorickshaw near Bandariya Tiraha.
A police team allegedly reached the spot and found Abdul Rajik and Govind standing on the road with one bag each. A black, wick-shaped substance wrapped in polythene was recovered from the bags. Police suspected it to be charas after burning a small portion at the spot.
The substance recovered from Abdul Rajik’s bag was stated to weigh one kilogram, while the substance recovered from Govind’s bag was said to weigh 800 grams. The Court, however, noted that neither the seizure memo nor the seizure officer’s testimony clarified whether these figures represented the net weight of the alleged contraband or the gross weight inclusive of the packaging material.
An FIR was registered for offences under Sections 8, 18, 20 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Special Court at Jabalpur.
The trial court convicted Abdul Rajik under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Govind was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) and sentenced to eight years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 80,000. The Madhya Pradesh High Court subsequently upheld both convictions.
During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and relied on documentary material, while the accused examined five witnesses in defence. Significantly, both panch witnesses associated with the alleged seizure did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile.
The trial court nevertheless relied principally on the evidence of the police officials, particularly the inspector who conducted the seizure, to accept the allegation that one kilogram and 800 grams of charas had respectively been recovered from the two accused.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellants contended that the alleged recovery had not been proved through reliable evidence and that the mandatory requirements of Sections 42, 50 and 52A of the NDPS Act had not been followed. The State defended the concurrent findings and argued that the police officers had no reason to falsely implicate the accused.
The Supreme Court rejected the objection founded on Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. It noted that the accused were apprehended in an open public place and that the alleged contraband was recovered from bags carried by them. Consequently, neither Section 42 nor Section 50 governed the search and seizure in the case.
The Court, however, found serious defects in the identification, sealing, safekeeping and movement of the samples. These defects, coupled with total non-compliance with Section 52A, proved fatal to the prosecution.
The seizure officer claimed that two representative samples of 25 grams each had been drawn from the substance attributed to each accused and that the remaining material had been separately sealed. But the Supreme Court found that the officer did not state that he had sealed the sample packets themselves or that the signatures or thumb impressions of the accused, panch witnesses or seizure officer had been placed on those packets.
The sample panchnamas also did not indicate that the sample packets were secured under the signatures of the concerned persons or that slips carrying particular identification marks were affixed to correlate each sample with the substance allegedly seized from a particular accused.
The Court additionally examined the FSL report and found no reference to the sample packets bearing the signatures or thumb impressions of the accused. It also noted that the sample packets were not separately produced or exhibited when the seized articles were produced during the seizure officer’s evidence.
These deficiencies created serious doubt over whether the samples examined by the laboratory could reliably be connected with the material allegedly recovered from Abdul Rajik and Govind.
The police maalkhana in-charge testified that the seized packets and sample packets were deposited with him on November 29, 2004. Although the corresponding register entry recorded their deposit, there was no entry showing the samples leaving the police station for transmission to the FSL.
The witness did not state in his examination-in-chief how or when the samples were forwarded, nor did he testify that they remained intact and sealed until dispatch. In cross-examination, he said that a police constable had taken the samples to the FSL on December 6, 2004.
The investigating officer referred to a forwarding document from the office of the Superintendent of Police, but did not state the date on which the samples were sent. The prosecution also failed to prove a police-station forwarding letter, road certificate or other document accounting for the samples’ movement from the maalkhana to the forensic laboratory.
The Supreme Court found a further material inconsistency in the dates. The forwarding letter issued by the office of the Superintendent of Police was dated December 1, 2004 and identified Constable Ramkrishna as the carrier. The FSL report, however, recorded that the laboratory received the samples through the constable only on December 6, 2004.
The prosecution offered no explanation as to where the samples were kept, or in whose custody they remained, during the five-day interval. Constable Ramkrishna was also not examined as a witness.
The Bench held that this unexplained gap completely breached the chain of custody that the prosecution was required to prove before it could rely on the FSL report.
The Court underlined that a forensic report can be acted upon only after the prosecution establishes the complete journey and integrity of the samples through dependable oral and documentary evidence. It must prove that the samples drawn from the recovered material were properly sealed and remained in safe custody until their receipt by the laboratory.
The Supreme Court also found total non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. No attempt was made to produce the seized substance before an Executive or Judicial Magistrate and have representative samples drawn in the Magistrate’s presence.
The Bench explained that Section 52A creates a statutory safeguard designed to eliminate the possibility of contamination or manipulation in the sampling process and to facilitate the expeditious disposal of seized narcotic substances. Under the provision, a Magistrate certifies the inventory, photographs and list of samples, which may then be treated as primary evidence.
Referring to its earlier rulings in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif and Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, the Court clarified that every failure to comply with Section 52A or the relevant standing orders does not automatically invalidate a trial or require an acquittal. The decisive question is whether the lapse caused prejudice to the accused.
Minor procedural lapses or delay may not by themselves prove fatal, the Court said. Total non-compliance, however, becomes an important consideration while assessing whether the prosecution has established that samples remained safe and secure from seizure until deposit with the forensic laboratory.
The Bench also referred to Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal, in which the failure to draw samples in a Magistrate’s presence and the absence of a certified inventory were held to strike at the root of the prosecution case. It further relied on State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh, which stressed the importance of accounting for where seized samples were stored and when they were dispatched and received, particularly because the NDPS Act imposes severe penalties.
After finding the chain of custody broken, the Supreme Court held that the FSL report lost its evidentiary value and had to be discarded. The prosecution was then left only with the seizure officer’s claim that the substance was identified as charas after a portion was burned at the spot.
The Court rejected this claim as unreliable. It found no scientific material on record demonstrating that a substance could be conclusively identified as charas merely by burning part of it. The seizure officer’s testimony, standing alone, could therefore not prove the nature of the alleged contraband.
Since no other legally admissible evidence established that the recovered substance was charas within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(a) of the NDPS Act, an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 20 remained unproved.
The Supreme Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the substance allegedly recovered from the appellants was charas. It accordingly extended the benefit of doubt to both men and set aside the trial court’s September 5, 2006 judgment as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s November 26, 2010 decision affirming it.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
