Possession and Part Performance: Stamp Duty Compliance Is Non-Negotiable, Says Delhi High Court Calcutta High Court Declares Disciplinary Action as ‘Shockingly Disproportionate’, Orders Reduction in Rank for Petitioner No Profits, No Deduction — Section 33AC Must Precede 80-I Calculation in Shipping Tax Disputes: Bombay High Court Equity and Merit Must Coexist: Kerala High Court Rules on Regularisation of Temporary Forest Department Employees Lawyers Have No Right to Strike: Madras High Court in Contempt Case Encroachment is like committing a 'dacoity' against public resources: Delhi High Court. High Court Rejects Plea of Kindergarten School Against ESI Contribution Assessment Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Proceedings Citing 'Humanitarian Consideration' After Accused Marries Victim Procedural Delays Do Not Justify Condonation of Delay," Rules Delhi Consumer Commission in National Insurance Case Elements of Section 300 IPC Are Not Made Out: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Murder Conviction in 1987 Beating Case Registrar Cannot Be a Judge of His Own Cause: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Amendments MP High Court Upholds Prosecution for Forged Patta: 'Accountability in Public Office is Non-Negotiable Approval Must Be Granted for Altruistic Kidney Donations," Rules Madras High Court Grave Illegality in Appellate Remand: High Court of Rajasthan Orders Reassessment on Merits Commissioner Lacked Authority for Retrospective Cancellation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Educational Trusts' Registrations Intent is Crucial in Violent Crimes: Single Blow with Axe Does Not Imply Attempt to Murder," Rules Madhya Pradesh High Court

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

 

Similar News