The Supreme Court on Wednesday, September 16, set aside the convictions of two individuals in an NDPS Act case involving alleged possession of a commercial quantity of charas. The Court found serious defects in the NDPS Sample Chain Custody and held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken link for the seized contraband.
A Bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan identified an unexplained five-day gap in the custody of the seized samples.
The authorities forwarded the samples for FSL testing. However, the FSL received them five days later.
The Court also identified several other deficiencies. The sample packets lacked identifying marks and signatures. There was no corresponding maalkhana exit entry.
Further, the prosecution did not examine the carrier Constable. The Court also found total non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
Five-Day Gap In Sample Custody
The prosecution failed to explain where the samples remained between December 1, 2004 and December 6, 2004.
It also failed to identify who had custody of them during those five days.
The Supreme Court described this unexplained period as a grave discrepancy. It held that the gap broke the chain of custody required for reliance on the FSL report.
The Bench consequently set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment.
The High Court had upheld the trial court’s decision convicting the appellants despite the unexplained gap.
The Supreme Court referred to its 2011 judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh.
In that case, the prosecution could not account for the samples between their alleged dispatch and receipt at the laboratory. The Supreme Court had affirmed the acquittal.
Deficiencies In Sealing And Identification
The Supreme Court also examined the sealing and safe custody of the seized samples.
It said the prosecution must establish proper link evidence. Such evidence must show that the seizure officer properly sealed the samples extracted from the recovered contraband.
The prosecution must also prove that the samples remained safe and secure until they reached the FSL.
The relevant memos did not show signatures of the Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7) on the sample packets. They also did not show signatures of the panch witnesses or accused-appellants.
Further, authorities had not attached chits carrying specific identification marks to the packets.
Such marks could have helped identify the samples later. They could also have linked each sample to the contraband allegedly recovered from the respective accused.
The Court stressed the importance of credible oral and documentary evidence. The prosecution had to establish a complete chain of custody before relying on the FSL report.
Total Non-Compliance With Section 52-A
The judgment authored by Justice Mehta also examined compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.
The Court relied on Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 1033.
It noted that every instance of non-compliance with Section 52-A does not automatically defeat the prosecution case.
A minor procedural delay may not prove fatal when other evidence establishes the recovery.
However, total non-compliance remains relevant while assessing the safety and security of the samples.
That assessment covers the entire period from seizure until their deposit with the FSL.
In the present case, the seizure officer did not follow the procedure under Section 52-A. He made no effort to draw representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate.
The Supreme Court therefore found total non-compliance with Section 52-A.
Court Refers To Mehboob Shah Decision
The Bench also referred to Mehboob Shah v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 705.
That decision held that delayed compliance or non-compliance with Section 52-A does not automatically entitle an accused to acquittal.
The prosecution may still establish its case through sufficient material. It must show compliance with the mandatory search and seizure requirements under the NDPS Act.
Where an accused alleges non-compliance with Section 52-A, the prosecution must establish substantial compliance.
Alternatively, it must satisfy the Court that the non-compliance did not affect its case against the accused.
FSL Report Loses Significance
Applying these principles, the Supreme Court found that the prosecution had completely failed to preserve the link evidence.
The defects in the NDPS Sample Chain Custody affected the integrity and sanctity of the samples.
The Court consequently held that the FSL Report (Exhibit P46) had lost its significance. It therefore excluded the report from consideration.
Without the FSL report, no other legally admissible evidence established the nature of the substance allegedly recovered.
The prosecution could not prove that the substance was charas within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(a) of the NDPS Act.
It therefore failed to establish an essential ingredient required to attract the penal consequences under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
The Supreme Court held that the appellants’ convictions could not survive in the absence of this foundational evidence.
The Bench allowed the appeals and overturned the convictions of both appellants.
