Court Finds Break in Chain of Custody, Section 52-A Non-Compliance and Deficiencies in Sealing and Identification of Samples
NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 17 :
The Supreme Court has set aside the convictions of two men in a nearly two-decade-old case involving the alleged recovery and possession of commercial quantities of charas, holding that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken and reliable chain of custody of the seized substance.
A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan allowed the appeals filed by Abdul Rajik and Govind, overturning the judgments that had upheld their convictions in the case.
The Court particularly took note of an unexplained five-day gap between the alleged dispatch of the seized samples for forensic examination and their receipt at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). According to the Court, the prosecution failed to explain where and in whose custody the samples remained during this period.
FIVE-DAY GAP RAISED SERIOUS DOUBTS OVER SAMPLE CUSTODY
The Court observed that the prosecution was required to establish a complete chain showing that the samples drawn from the seized contraband remained properly sealed, securely stored and were the same samples ultimately examined by the FSL.
The records, however, did not satisfactorily account for the samples during the period between December 1, 2004 and December 6, 2004.
The Supreme Court held that the unexplained gap seriously affected the prosecution’s ability to establish the integrity and identity of the samples relied upon to prove the alleged offence.
NO PROPER IDENTIFICATION MARKS FOUND ON SAMPLE PACKETS
The Court also pointed to deficiencies concerning the sealing and identification of the sample packets.
It noted that the relevant documents did not establish that the packets had been secured with the signatures of the seizure officer, panch witnesses or the accused. There was also no adequate indication that identification chits or marks had been affixed to the packets to connect them with the contraband allegedly recovered from the accused.
The Court emphasized that the prosecution must provide credible oral and documentary evidence demonstrating that the samples remained safe and identifiable from the time of seizure until their examination by the FSL.
SECTION 52-A NDPS ACT PROCEDURE NOT FOLLOWED
Another significant factor was the prosecution’s failure to undertake the procedure prescribed under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act for drawing representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate.
The Court noted that there had been total non-compliance with the statutory procedure in the case.
At the same time, the judgment clarified that every instance of delayed or imperfect compliance with Section 52-A does not automatically result in an acquittal. The significance of such non-compliance has to be assessed along with the other evidence concerning the recovery and safe custody of the seized material.
FSL REPORT COULD NOT SUSTAIN PROSECUTION CASE
After examining the deficiencies collectively, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the necessary link between the material allegedly recovered from the accused and the samples examined by the FSL.
Consequently, the Court held that the FSL report could not be relied upon to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the appellants was charas within the meaning of the NDPS Act.
With the FSL evidence losing its evidentiary value, the Court found that there was insufficient legally admissible evidence to establish an essential ingredient of the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.
CONVICTIONS SET ASIDE AFTER TWO DECADES
The Supreme Court accordingly allowed the appeals and set aside the convictions of Abdul Rajik and Govind after approximately 20 years of litigation.
The judgment was delivered in Abdul Rajik v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Govind v. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 949.
The ruling underscores the importance of maintaining a properly documented chain of custody in NDPS prosecutions, particularly where forensic samples form a crucial part of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.(KNC)