The prosecution must prove the integrity of the chain of custody by demonstrating that the contraband produced in court was the same as that retrieved from the police Malkhana; failure to do so justifies acquittal.

O R D E R

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State.

2. The respondent was convicted by the Special Court for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In an appeal preferred by the respondent, the High Court has passed an order of acquittal. The seized contraband was produced before the Court during the examination-in-chief of PW-1 (Head Constable Duni Chand). He identified the property as recovered from the scene of offence. He referred to the seals of the FSL. However, no evidence was produced by the prosecution to show that the property produced during the examination-in-chief of PW-1 (Head Constable Duni Chand) was the property retrieved from the Police Malkhana wherein it was kept in safe custody. The High Court held that it was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the seized property produced before the Court was the same which was seized and which was lying deposited in the Malkhana. The High Court observed that even the entry in the Malkhana register showing that the property produced before the Court was withdrawn from the Malkhana was not produced. Therefore, the High Court proceeded to acquit the respondent.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State has taken us through the evidence of PW-3 (Head Constable Rahul Rishi). He deposed that on 10th February, 2010, a parcel was deposited with him. He stated that the parcel was sent to the FSL on 10th February, 2010 for chemical analysis. He also invited our attention to the evidence of PW-4 (Constable Manjeet Singh) who carried the parcel to the FSL.

4. The finding of the High Court is that there was no evidence produced on record either by examining the officer in charge of the Malkhana or by producing the entry in the Malkhana register to show that the parcel which was produced before the Court in the evidence of PW-1 (Head Constable Duni Chand) was the same which was deposited in the Malkhana.

5. In absence of any evidence to show that the parcel produced before the Court was retrieved from the Malkhana, it is not possible to find fault with the finding recorded by the High Court as the burden was on the prosecution to prove that what was produced before the Court was retrieved from the Malkhana.

6. Therefore, the view taken by the High Court is certainly a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed accordingly.