Holding that an unexplained gap in sample transit and total non-compliance with statutory sampling procedures vitiate the prosecution’s case, the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan set aside the conviction and sentences of two men under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The Court ruled that where the link evidence establishing the chain of custody collapses, the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report must be discarded, leaving no legal basis to prove the seized substance was contraband.
Case Background
The case originated on November 29, 2004, when Inspector Rajesh Tiwari (PW-7), the Station House Officer at Police Station Gorakhpur in Jabalpur, recorded information in the Roznamcha that two individuals were carrying charas near Bandariya Tiraha. A police raiding party intercepted Abdul Rajik and Govind at the spot, allegedly recovering one kilogram of suspected charas from Abdul Rajik’s bag and 800 grams from Govind’s bag.
After conducting a preliminary field test by burning a small portion of the substance, the seizure officer suspected it to be charas, drew samples, prepared seizure memos, and arrested both individuals. FIR No. 949 of 2004 was registered at Police Station Gorakhpur under Sections 8, 18, 20, and 21 of the NDPS Act. Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed before the Special Court (Narcotics), Jabalpur.
During trial, the two independent panch witnesses, Mohan (PW-3) and Amit Sonkar (PW-5), turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. Nonetheless, relying on the testimony of the police officials and the FSL report (Exhibit P-46), the Special Judge (NDPS), Jabalpur, convicted both accused on September 5, 2006. Abdul Rajik was sentenced under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000. Govind was sentenced under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 80,000.
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur dismissed their appeals on November 26, 2010, affirming the convictions and sentences, which led the appellants to approach the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove the recovery of contraband through credible evidence and violated mandatory safeguards under Sections 42, 50, and 52-A of the NDPS Act. In the alternative, counsel submitted that the recovered contraband fell within intermediate quantity limits, rendering the sentences unduly harsh and disproportionate, and prayed for reduction of sentence to the period already undergone.
Opposing the appeals, counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh contended that police witnesses had no reason to falsely implicate the appellants. The State argued that the consolidated recovery exceeded commercial quantity, statutory provisions were properly observed, and both the trial court and the High Court had thoroughly evaluated the evidence, leaving no room for interference.
Court’s Analysis and Key Observations
Addressing the procedural objections first, the Supreme Court clarified that because the appellants were apprehended in an open public place carrying bags, Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act did not apply to the search and seizure.
However, the Court identified fatal defects in the link evidence and chain of custody. The seizure officer’s deposition and the seizure memo failed to clarify whether the recorded weights were gross weights including packaging or net weights of the contraband. Crucially, the seizure officer did not depose that the sample packets were sealed by him or that signatures, thumb impressions, or identifying chits were affixed to the packets. Furthermore, the sample packets were not separately produced or exhibited when the muddamal was presented in court.
The Court also observed that while the maalkhana register (Exhibit P-2C) recorded the entry of the samples on November 29, 2004, it contained no record of their exit to the FSL. The prosecution failed to produce road certificates or forwarding letters from the police station.
A severe discrepancy emerged regarding sample transit: the Superintendent of Police’s forwarding letter (Exhibit P-45) was dated December 1, 2004, naming Constable Ramkrishna as the carrier, but the FSL report (Exhibit P-46) and the maalkhana in-charge (PW-2) stated that the samples were received at the laboratory on December 6, 2004. The carrier constable was never examined, and the five-day gap remained completely unexplained.
Examining the legal requirements for custody and sampling, the bench observed:
“It is trite that the prosecution has to prove, by proper link evidence, that the samples extracted by seizure officer from the recovered contraband were properly sealed and remained in safe and secure condition from the time of seizure till their receipt at the FSL. Needless to say, for the FSL report to be admitted in evidence, the prosecution would have to establish, by credible oral and documentary evidence, the complete chain of custody essential to establish the integrity and sanctity of the samples.”
The Court reviewed earlier rulings in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif and Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, reiterating that while procedural non-compliance with Section 52-A or minor delays may not automatically vitiate a trial, total non-compliance remains a vital factor in evaluating link evidence.
Referring to Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal, the Court observed that failure to draw representative samples before a Magistrate strikes at the root of the prosecution case, rendering the sampling process doubtful. Citing State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh, the bench reiterated that an unexplained delay and gap in sample custody severely compromises sample sanctity in light of the severe penalties under the NDPS Act.
Applying these precedents, the bench observed:
“Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by this Court to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the link evidence has been totally breached leading total collapse of the sanctity and integrity of the samples. Resultantly, the FSL Report (Exhibit P-46) loses its significance and must be discarded from consideration. Once the FSL report is excluded from consideration, there is no other legally admissible evidence available to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants was charas within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(a) of the NDPS Act so as to attract the penal consequences under Section 20 thereof.”
The Court additionally dismissed the seizure officer’s claim of identifying charas by burning a piece at the spot, noting:
“There is no scientific material on record to establish that the nature or identity of the contraband could be determined as charas merely by burning a part thereof. Thus, in the absence of any scientific or other reliable material supporting such an identification, the testimony of the witness (PW-7) cannot, by itself, be relied upon to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants was charas.”
Decision
Finding that the prosecution failed to prove that the recovered material was charas, the Supreme Court held the convictions unsustainable in law and extended the benefit of doubt to both appellants.
The Court allowed Criminal Appeal Nos. 1561 of 2014 and 1562 of 2014, setting aside the trial court’s conviction order dated September 5, 2006, and the High Court’s judgment dated November 26, 2010. Appellants Abdul Rajik and Govind were acquitted of all charges, and their bail bonds were discharged.
Case Title: Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. (with Govind v. State of M.P.)
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1561 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No(s). 1562 of 2014
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Manmohan
Date: September 16, 2026
