Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

NDPS | Failure to Re-Seal Examined Samples Breaks Chain of Custody, Weakening Prosecution's Case: Punjab and Haryana High Court Acquits Appellants

02 December 2024 6:45 PM

By: sayum


Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant judgment, acquitting Partap Singh alias Kala and another of charges under Sections 15 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The bench, comprising Justices Sureshwar Thakur and Sudepti Sharma, cited major procedural lapses, particularly in the sealing and chain of custody, as the basis for acquittal. However, the conviction under Section 483 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for counterfeiting a property mark was upheld.

The appellants were convicted by the Special Judge, Sangrur, on March 21, 2013, and sentenced to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment along with fines for offenses under Sections 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act. They were also sentenced to two years' imprisonment under Section 483 of the IPC. The case originated from a 2010 incident where the police, acting on a tip, intercepted a vehicle and recovered 158 kg of poppy husk.

The court highlighted a critical procedural failure: the chemical examiner at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) did not re-enclose the examined substances in sealed cloth parcels with FSL seals. Justice Thakur noted, "The omission to re-seal the examined stuff and affix the FSL seal breaks the chain of custody and raises doubts about the integrity of the evidence" [Para 17].

The lack of re-sealing left room for potential tampering and undermined the link between the seized contraband and the evidence produced in court.

The judgment pointed out that the prosecution failed to show that the bulk substance was homogeneously mixed before drawing samples for analysis. Citing precedents, the court emphasized, "If the entire bulk seizure is not homogeneously mixed, the charge pertaining to the total weight of the seizure remains unproven" [Para 24]. This procedural flaw further weakened the prosecution's case.

Reinforcing the principles laid out in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, the court reiterated that procedural safeguards must be strictly adhered to in NDPS cases to ensure fair trials. The absence of a proper chain of custody and procedural compliance entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

The court upheld the conviction under Section 483 IPC, as the prosecution sufficiently proved that the appellants had counterfeited a vehicle registration mark. The recovered vehicle's chassis and engine numbers matched an RC found at the scene, confirming the offense.

The court allowed the appeals in part, setting aside the convictions and sentences under Sections 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act, and acquitted the appellants of these charges. However, the conviction under Section 483 IPC was maintained. The appellants were ordered to be released if not required in any other case, after serving the sentence under Section 483. The court also directed the refund of any fines paid and appropriate handling of the case property according to the law.

This judgment underscores the paramount importance of procedural compliance in NDPS cases, reaffirming that breaches in the chain of custody and other procedural lapses can significantly undermine the prosecution's case. The decision to uphold the IPC conviction reflects the court's balanced approach in ensuring justice.

Date of Decision: October 23, 2024

 

Latest Legal News