MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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