Procedural lapses in evidence handling under the NDPS Act can lead to acquittal due to failure to meet the burden of proof.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.11.2004 passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, whereby appellant-Surjit Singh alias Meingal Singh-was convicted for an offence under Section 15 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’) and sentenced as follows:

2. The appellant challenges his conviction and sentence, urging that the findings of the learned trial Court rest upon infirm evidence, non-compliance with mandatory provisions of law, and disregard of material PUNEET SACHDEVA

2025.09.17 17:21 evidence led by the defence.

3. The case of the prosecution, may be briefly recounted.

4. On 15.04.2002, ASI Teja Singh (PW-4), accompanied by other police officials, was present near Village Kalkh in a Government jeep bearing registration No.PB-25-6798. Around 7:15 AM, a truck bearing registration No.PB-12B-1497, approached from Village Majri. The driver disclosed his name as Surjit Singh alias Meinga Singh.

5. On search of the toolbox of the said truck, two bags containing poppy husk were recovered. From each bag, two samples of 250 grams each were drawn and sealed with the seal “TS”, while the remaining contents, approximately 30 kilograms per bag, were separately sealed. The seal after use was handed over to ASI Dalip Kumar (PW-5).

6. The accused was arrested, and on production before SHO Sikandar Singh (PW-3), the case property was resealed with seal “SS” and deposited in the Malkhana. Subsequently, the sample parcels were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Punjab, Chandigarh.

7. After completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. was submitted, and the accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) was sent to trial. The learned Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana, after examining the witnesses and considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced him as already noted in the earlier part of this judgment.

8. Learned Amicus Curiae for the accused has assailed the conviction, urging that the prosecution case is riddled with legal and factual infirmities. The principal submissions made by the learned Amicus are as follows:

PUNEET SACHDEVA

2025.09.17 17:21 (i) The inventory of seized narcotics was prepared by the Investigating Officer himself, rather than by the Station House Officer (SHO), and was not certified by a Magistrate.

(ii) There is no order of the Magistrate authorizing the drawing of samples. The documents relied upon namely, Exhibit PH and Exhibit PH/1, do not bear the signatures of the Magistrate, showing that the samples were not drawn in his presence.

(iii) The FSL, vide communication dated 18.04.2002, noted irregularities in the parcels received. This, coupled with subsequent interpolations in the affidavits of MHC Gulab Singh (Exhibit PA) and MHC Major Singh (Exhibit PB), reveals tampering in the chain of custody.

(iv) The seal after use was not entrusted to an independent witness but remained within police custody. The sanctity of the seal, thus, stood compromised.

(v) DDR entries indicate that samples were dispatched on

18.04.2002, whereas FSL report (Exhibit PJ) records receipt only on 22.04.2002. This unexplained delay of three days fatally undermines the case of the prosecution.

(vi) The witnesses admitted that the contents of the two bags, which were allegedly containing the contraband, were not homogenised before sampling. In absence of such homogenization, the small samples allegedly sent to FSL cannot be deemed representative.

(vii) Despite the recovery having been made at a public place, no effort was made to join any independent witness.

(viii) The accused consistently pleade