NDPS | Delay in Sending Seized Samples to FSL Raises Tampering Suspicions: Rajasthan High Court Acquitted Accused

Rajasthan High Court acquitted appellants , who had been convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, and sentenced to 14 years' rigorous imprisonment for the possession and trafficking of Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets. The Court found significant procedural lapses, including the non-compliance with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which requires the presence of a Magistrate during the inventory, sampling, and certification of seized contraband, and set aside their conviction.
The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, District Anoopgarh, under Sections 8/22 and 8/29 of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing and trafficking Tramadol Hydrochloride Tablets. The prosecution's case revolved around an incident from 26 March 2020, when police officials, during a routine COVID-19 lockdown patrol, stopped and apprehended Premchand carrying a white plastic bag containing the said contraband.
The police seized 1kg 100g of Tramadol tablets, filed FIR No. 68/2020, and sent the samples for forensic testing. Premchand was accused of purchasing the drugs from his co-appellant, Trilokchand, though no contraband was recovered from Trilokchand’s possession.
The trial court convicted both appellants and sentenced them to 14 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1,50,000 each. In default of payment, they were to serve an additional 3 years of rigorous imprisonment. The appellants challenged this decision on several grounds, particularly focusing on procedural lapses by the prosecution.
The High Court, presided over by Justice Birendra Kumar, focused on the prosecution's failure to comply with Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which mandates the presence of a Magistrate during the sampling and certification of seized narcotics. This procedural safeguard is designed to ensure the integrity and legality of the handling of contraband. The Court noted that:
"The seized material was not sealed in the presence of a Magistrate, nor were the samples taken in the presence of a Magistrate. There was no photography or videography of the process, which violates Section 52A."
Citing previous Supreme Court rulings, including Mangilal vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2023 INSC 634) and Union of India vs. Mohanlal & Anr. (AIROnline 2016 SC 770), the Court emphasized that the failure to follow Section 52A not only violated the mandatory legal procedure but also vitiated the trial.
Lack of Independent Witnesses Casts Doubt on Prosecution’s Credibility
Another key issue raised by the defense was the absence of independent witnesses during the search and seizure operation. Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) mandates that independent, respectable local residents be present during such operations to ensure transparency and fairness. However, the prosecution relied solely on police witnesses, raising concerns about the impartiality of the evidence.
“No independent witnesses were present during the search, which further weakens the credibility of the prosecution’s case. The entire operation relied on police personnel, which casts doubt on the authenticity of the prosecution's claims.”
The Court found that no effort was made by the prosecution to explain why independent witnesses were not present during the search and seizure, further eroding the reliability of the evidence presented.
Delay in Sending Samples to FSL Suggests Possible Tampering
In another significant finding, the Court noted that the samples of the seized contraband were not sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) within the mandated 72-hour period. Instead, there was an unexplained delay, which created a suspicion of possible tampering with the samples.
“The delay in dispatching the samples to the FSL, without any adequate justification, raises serious concerns about the integrity of the evidence. This delay undermines the trustworthiness of the prosecution’s case.”
Citing relevant legal precedents, the Court concluded that the delay in sending the samples created doubt regarding the chain of custody and the genuineness of the contraband seized.
In its final judgment, the Court summarized the numerous procedural failures on the part of the prosecution, including the non-compliance with Section 52A, the absence of independent witnesses, and the delay in sending the samples for forensic analysis. It found that these lapses were sufficient to vitiate the fairness of the trial, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
The appellants, who had already served 4.5 years in jail, were ordered to be released immediately upon executing bonds, ensuring their availability if any appeal is made against this judgment. Justice Birendra Kumar ruled that:
“The conviction of the appellants is hereby set aside. Let the appellants be set free at once on execution of bonds. The prosecution's case, marred by significant procedural lapses, is not sustainable.”
The Rajasthan High Court’s judgment underscores the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act and the CrPC to ensure fair trials. The case also highlights how procedural lapses, such as non-compliance with Section 52A, the absence of independent witnesses, and delays in evidence handling, can lead to the acquittal of individuals convicted under serious charges, such as narcotics trafficking.
Decision Date: 19 October 2024