Allahabad High Court: FSL Report Only Corroborative In Nature Once Investigating Officer Has Found Sufficient Evidence To Prosecute Accused

The Allahabad High Court held that once the Investigating Officer (IO) has found sufficient evidence to prosecute the accused, the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report would only be corroborative in nature.

The Court held thus in an Application filed by the accused who sought bail in a case registered under Sections 8 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

A Single Bench of Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal observed, “… it is clear that charge-sheet is filed by completion of an investigation. Once Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence to prosecute an accused for offence for which First Information Report has been registered, the FSL report, therefore, would only be corroborative in nature to the material collected and filed along with charge-sheet by Investigating Officer. Hence, report of FSL further received on a subsequent stage would be covered under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.”

The Bench noted that the investigation as far as owner of the vehicle is concerned is still going on and the FSL report which was given by laboratory in December 2023 has been made part of the case diary in June 2024.

Advocate Amber Khanna represented the Applicant/Accused while AGA represented the Opposite Party/State.

Case Background

The Applicant-accused was in jail since November 2023. The counsel for the accused submitted that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act were not complied with and the ground of arrest at the time of arrest was not disclosed to him. The accused was cleaner of a truck from which the contraband was allegedly recovered.

He was working as a daily wager by the owner/driver of the vehicle on a daily wage of Rs. 500/- per day. It was contended that the accused had a wife, three daughters, and a son and there was no one to look after them. It was further submitted that the alleged contraband does not belong to the accused and he was not in conscious possession of the same. Hence, the accused sought bail before the High Court.

Reasoning

The High Court in the above context of the case, said, “The argument raised that applicant is entitled for bail as FSL report is not part of case diary cannot be accepted as Section 293 of Cr.P.C. provides for filing of certain report of government scientific experts. Sub-section (4) of Section 293 provides for Government scientific experts which encompasses the report of Chemical Examiner or Assistant Chemical Examiner to Government. The report submitted by Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, U.P., Ramnagar, Varanasi is covered by sub section 4(a) of Section 293.”

The Court added that the report so submitted is only corroborative in nature to the material collected and filed along with charge-sheet by Investigating Officer and there is no denial to the fact that report has not come from FSL confirming the contraband seized as ganja.

“Having considered the argument raised from both sides, I find that the contraband (ganja) has been seized above the commercial quantity from the vehicle in which the applicant was sitting and claims to be cleaner and was in conscious possession of the said contraband. The reliance placed upon the various decisions are distinguishable from the facts of the present case”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Bail Application.

Cause Title- Randhir v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:156046)

Appearance:

Applicant: Advocates Amber Khanna, Raj Kumar Khanna, Ram Kripal, and Sandal Khanna.

Opposite Party: AGA

Click here to read/download the Judgment