NDPS | Inventory and FSL Report Alone Insufficient - Non-Production of Sample Parcels in Court: PH High Court Overturned  Conviction Under NDPS Act

In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the conviction of Nishan Singh alias Shana, who had been sentenced for possession of 11 quintals and 88 kilograms of poppy husk under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. The division bench, comprising Honourable Mr. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Honourable Mrs. Justice Sudepti Sharma, held that the non-production of key evidence—specifically, the sample cloth parcels tested by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL)—was fatal to the prosecution’s case. The appellant was acquitted, and his sentence was overturned.

The case originated from an incident on May 17, 2003, when police officials, acting on secret information, intercepted a truck driven by the accused, Nishan Singh, in the Sangrur district of Punjab. The truck was carrying 36 bags of poppy husk, each weighing approximately 32.5 kilograms. While Nishan Singh managed to flee the scene, his brother Sarbjit Singh was apprehended. Both men were charged under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, which deals with the illegal possession of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Sarbjit Singh was convicted in 2005, and Nishan Singh was arrested later. During the trial, the prosecution presented evidence including the inventory of the seized poppy husk and the FSL report confirming the presence of poppy husk. However, the actual sample cloth parcels that were sent to the FSL for testing were not produced in court, leading to an appeal against Nishan Singh's conviction.

Non-Production of Sample Parcels

The key issue in the appeal was whether the non-production of the examined sample cloth parcels—considered primary evidence under the NDPS Act—was a fatal flaw in the prosecution’s case. The appellant argued that the absence of these samples in court made it impossible for the charge to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. The defense further contended that the reliance on a certified inventory and FSL report alone, without the physical samples, was insufficient to meet the evidentiary standards required under the law.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, a certified inventory and the FSL report should be treated as primary evidence, and the destruction of the sample parcels after testing was permissible under the statutory provisions. The prosecution submitted that a Drug Disposal Committee had destroyed the examined parcels in accordance with the law, and thus, their production in court was not required.

The court carefully analyzed the statutory framework of the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52-A, which governs the disposal of seized narcotic substances and the admissibility of certified inventories as evidence. The court held that the mere production of a certified inventory and FSL report, without the accompanying physical samples, does not satisfy the legal requirements of proving the charge under the NDPS Act.

The court emphasized that the NDPS Act assigns the status of "primary evidence" to certified inventories and FSL reports only when representative samples are drawn in the presence of a magistrate and certified properly. It also reiterated the importance of adhering to the statutory procedure, which requires the production of physical samples in court as part of the chain of evidence.

In this case, the prosecution failed to produce the examined cloth parcels that were sent for FSL testing, and the court found that this was a crucial omission. The court noted:

“The non-production of the examined sample cloth parcels and reliance solely on the certified inventory and report of the Chemical Analyst do not suffice to prove the charge.”

The court further observed that the FSL report alone could not be treated as conclusive evidence, and the destruction of the sample parcels without their production in court undermined the integrity of the prosecution’s case.

Certified Inventory Under Section 52-A: Limited Scope

While Section 52-A allows for the disposal of seized narcotic substances and the use of certified inventories as evidence, the court clarified that this provision is not a blanket exemption from producing physical evidence. The court stated that unless the proper statutory procedure for the certification and disposal of evidence is followed—such as laboratory testing of the samples in the presence of a magistrate and subsequent certification—the inventory and FSL report cannot be treated as sufficient evidence on their own.

“In the absence of the examined sample parcels being produced in court, the inventory and FSL report alone do not constitute primary evidence. The failure to adhere to the statutory process for producing primary evidence was fatal to the prosecution’s case.”

Laboratory Testing and Representative Samples

The court also underscored the legal requirement for laboratory testing of representative samples in the presence of a magistrate. It noted that the prosecution’s case was further weakened by its failure to ensure that this procedure was followed. The NDPS Act mandates that representative samples must be tested and certified to ensure that the evidence is reliable and tamper-proof. Non-compliance with these requirements invalidates the evidence.

In this case, the failure to follow the proper procedure for drawing and testing representative samples in the presence of a magistrate led the court to rule in favor of the appellant. The court emphasized that:

“Laboratory testing of the representative sample parcels in the presence of a Magistrate is essential under the NDPS Act, and non-compliance with this procedure invalidates the certified inventory as conclusive evidence.”

Conclusion: Acquittal and Directions

As a result of the prosecution’s failure to produce key evidence and comply with the statutory procedures under the NDPS Act, the court quashed the conviction of Nishan Singh. The court allowed the appeal and ordered that the appellant be released unless required in another case. Additionally, the court directed the refund of any fine amount that had been deposited by the appellant.

The decision highlights the importance of strict adherence to the statutory procedures outlined in the NDPS Act, especially concerning the production and testing of evidence. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases involving the destruction of narcotic samples and the use of certified inventories in court.

Date of decision: 15/10/2024

Nishan Singh alias Shana v. State of Punjab