The Supreme Court has held that a seizure officer’s testimony identifying a substance as charas on the basis of a burning test cannot, by itself, establish its identity without scientific or other reliable material supporting that identification.

The Court acquitted two appellants in an NDPS prosecution after discarding the forensic report because the prosecution had failed to establish the samples’ integrity and chain of custody.

The Court was hearing two criminal appeals challenging a common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirming convictions and sentences imposed by the Special Judge (NDPS), Jabalpur. One appellant had been convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B), and the other under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C), of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

A Bench of Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan observed: “The story set up in the testimony of the Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7), that the suspected contraband was tested by burning a part thereof and that, on the basis of such test, the said officer could conclude that the substance was charas, is also unworthy of credence. 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.”

Advocate T. Mahipal appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Mrinal Gopal Elker appeared for the State.

Background

According to the prosecution, a police inspector received information that two persons were carrying charas in bags. A raiding party allegedly apprehended them at a public road junction in Jabalpur and found black, wick-shaped material wrapped in polythene. The officer burnt a small piece and suspected the material to be charas. The alleged recoveries weighed one kilogram and 800 grams. Samples were drawn, and a report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Sagar, subsequently identified the samples as charas.

The panch witnesses associated with the seizure did not support the prosecution and were declared hostile. The prosecution relied on police witnesses, particularly the seizure officer. The trial court accepted its version and imposed rigorous imprisonment of eight years on one appellant and ten years on the other, along with fines and default imprisonment. Their appeals were dismissed by the High Court.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellants challenged the credibility of the recovery and alleged non-compliance with Sections 42, 50 and 52-A of the NDPS Act. They alternatively sought reduction of their sentences to the period already undergone. The State maintained that the police had no reason to falsely implicate them, that the consolidated recovery exceeded the commercial quantity threshold, and that the mandatory safeguards had been followed.

Court’s Observations

The Court rejected the objections based on Sections 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, having regard to the circumstances of the search.

The Court observed: “Suffice it to say that, as the recovery was made from bags being carried by the accused-appellants who were apprehended from an open public place, neither Section 42 nor Section 50 of the NDPS Act would apply to the search and seizure made by the Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7).”

Turning to the alleged recoveries of one kilogram and 800 grams, the Bench examined how the quantities had been recorded in the seizure evidence.

The Court noted: “It is, however, relevant to note that neither the seizure memo nor the deposition of the witness (PW-7) specified whether the aforesaid weights represented the gross weight of the substance, including the packing material, or the net weight of the contraband.”

The Court found that the sample panchnamas did not record signatures or identifying marks on the sample packets that would connect them with the respective alleged recoveries. The FSL report likewise contained no reference to the packets bearing the appellants’ signatures or thumb impressions.

Explaining the deficiencies in the seizure officer’s evidence, the Court observed: “While describing the procedure for drawing and sealing the samples, the witness (PW-7) did not state that the sample packets were sealed by him or that any identifiable marks, such as the signatures or thumb impressions of the accused-appellants, the panch witnesses or the seizure officer (PW-7), were affixed to the sample packets themselves. Significantly, when the muddamal articles were produced before the Court during the evidence of the seizure officer (PW-7), the sample packets were not separately produced or exhibited.”

The Bench found that the police property-store register recorded the deposit of the samples but not their departure for the laboratory. Neither oral evidence nor the necessary station forwarding documents and road certificates established their safekeeping and movement. The store in-charge had not stated that the samples remained safe and sealed until dispatch.

The forwarding letter from the Superintendent of Police’s office and the laboratory’s receipt disclosed a five-day gap for which the prosecution offered no explanation of where, or in whose custody, the samples had remained. The constable identified as their carrier was not examined.

Setting out the evidentiary requirement, the Court held: “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.”\

Examining Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the Court explained that the provision safeguards sampling through a Magistrate’s supervision and certification of the inventory, photographs and sample list. Upon certification, these may constitute primary evidence, obviating production of the seized property at trial.

Referring to Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) and Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025), the Bench reiterated that procedural non-compliance does not automatically invalidate a trial or require acquittal. Whether, and to what extent, the accused suffered prejudice remains determinative.

The Court clarified: “This Court has held that minor lapses or procedural delay in compliance with the said provision may not, by itself, result in an automatic acquittal. However, total non-compliance would definitely be a relevant factor to be taken into account while assessing the mandatory requirement of proving that the samples were kept in a safe and secure condition, i.e., the link evidence from the time of seizure till the time the samples came to be deposited in the FSL.”

In this case, the Court found that no effort had been made to draw representative samples in a Magistrate’s presence, amounting to total non-compliance with Section 52-A.

The Court referred to Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal (2025), concerning failures in Magistrate-supervised sampling and certified inventory under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, and State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh (2011), concerning an unexplained gap in sample custody. It emphasised that both the sampling process and an unbroken chain of custody must be established before a forensic report can safely be relied upon.

Finding that the link evidence had completely failed in the present case, the Court discarded the FSL report. It also rejected the seizure officer’s burning-based identification because no scientific or other reliable material supported it.

Explaining why an essential ingredient of the offence remained unproved, the Court held: “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. In the absence of such foundational evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish an essential ingredient of the offence and, consequently, the conviction of the accused-appellants cannot be sustained.”

Conclusion

Allowing both appeals, the Supreme Court granted the appellants the benefit of doubt and set aside the trial court’s convictions and sentences and the High Court’s judgment affirming them. Both appellants were acquitted. As they were already on bail, the Court directed that they need not surrender and discharged their bail bonds. Pending applications were disposed of.

Cause Title: Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. with Govind v. State of M.P. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1001)

Appearances

Appellants: Advocates T. Mahipal and Saurabh Ajay Gupta; Advocates Ritik Gupta and Ayush Haritash.

Respondent: Advocates Mrinal Gopal Elker; Advocates Rajan K Chaurasia, Anurag Singh, Silpi S Swain and Shubhangi Gupta.

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: