Police Seal Tampering Sinks NDPS Case: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Acquittal In 950 Grams Opium Recovery

"The Entire Re-Sealing Was A Farce, Never Actually Done, And Was A Cover-Up By The Police", Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur dismissed the State of Haryana's appeal against the acquittal of accused persons in an NDPS case involving recovery of 950 grams of opium, holding that brazen tampering with case property seals and a cryptic Section 313 CrPC examination had fatally broken the chain of custody, rendering the prosecution's case legally untenable.

On December 26, 2001, a police party headed by ASI Ramesh Kumar intercepted a scooter carrying three persons — Malha Ram (driver), Matu Ram (middle seat, carrying a bag), and Mahabir (pillion). When signalled to stop, the driver braked suddenly and a packet slipped from Matu Ram's bag. Upon checking, the police recovered 950 grams of opium packed in six packets. Samples were drawn, sealed with the ASI's personal seal bearing the monogram "RKM," and the accused were produced before the officiating SHO of the police station. The third occupant, Mahabir, was later discharged from the proceedings. The Sessions Court acquitted both Malha Ram and Matu Ram, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient. The State of Haryana challenged the acquittals before the High Court in 2005. During the pendency of the appeal over two decades, Matu Ram expired — causing the appeal against him to abate — and Malha Ram became untraceable, necessitating appointment of a Legal Aid Counsel.

Tampering With Case Property Seals — A Fundamental Break In Chain Of Custody

The Court identified seal tampering as the pivotal defect that demolished the prosecution's entire chain of custody. The prescribed procedure required that after seizure, the case property sealed with ASI Ramesh Kumar's seal "RKM" be re-sealed by the officiating SHO Surat Singh with his seal "SS." However, the evidence unravelled a contradictory and damning picture.

PW2, the constable who carried the samples to the FSL, admitted in cross-examination that when the samples were handed to him, they bore seal impressions of "RKM" and "VK" — not "SS." PW7, Inspector Vijay Kumar, who was the substantive SHO but was admittedly absent from the police station at the relevant time, admitted that earlier the seal was recorded as "VK" and was later substituted with "SS." He claimed to have initialled the cutting but could not explain how his personal seal "VK" came to be used by other officers in his absence.

The Court dissected this contradiction with precision, observing that since Vijay Kumar was not present in the police station, there was no occasion or reason for the seal "VK" to appear on the re-sealed case property. The officiating SHO Surat Singh had categorically deposed that he re-sealed the property with his seal "SS." The FSL report, however, described the seals as "RKM" and "SS," which conflicted with the testimonies of PW2 and PW7 who had mentioned "VK."

"It appears that resealing was an empty formality, and the police party had used the seal of the SHO VK, but they did not realise that since VK was not present in the police station, then they exchanged it with SS, who was officiating as SHO. It means the entire exercise of resealing was done by the investigator or other police officers without even taking into confidence the SHO."

The Court found that the entire re-sealing exercise was carried out by investigating officers without the SHO's knowledge or presence, and that the subsequent correction was an attempt at concealment. Since the FSL report described seals that were inconsistent with sworn testimonies at critical junctures in the chain, the Court concluded that link evidence between the opium seized at the spot and the sample tested in the laboratory stood completely broken.

"The entire re-sealing was a farce, never actually done, and was a cover-up by the police. Thus, on this ground alone, the link evidence is missing and the prosecution has failed to connect the recovered opium with what was sent to the laboratory for testing."

The Court held that without a credible laboratory report establishing that the substance tested was the very substance seized and not tampered with, no reliance could be placed on the FSL report. The prosecution failed on this ground alone.

Cryptic Section 313 CrPC Examination — An Independent Ground Of Illegality

The Court further identified a separate and independent illegality in the manner the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC. The purpose of Section 313 is to afford the accused a meaningful opportunity to explain incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them. The Court noted that the questions put to the accused regarding link evidence — specifically, how the case property was taken from the police station and deposited there, how PW3 Omprakash (the Malkhana Head Constable) had kept the samples in safe custody with no access to others, and how PW2 Dharampal subsequently collected the samples and transported them to the FSL without any tampering — were either not put at all or were put in a cryptic, incomplete manner that rendered a meaningful answer impossible.

"The questions that were raised regarding link evidence in 313 CrPC are also cryptic, and it is not possible for an accused to have answered the same."

The Court held that this failure was not a mere irregularity but created a positive illegality vitiating the prosecution case. Ordinarily, such a defect might have warranted remand for fresh examination under Section 313 CrPC. However, since the main accused Matu Ram — the person who was actually carrying the bag from which opium was recovered — had expired, remand was legally impermissible and factually futile. The Court therefore treated this as an additional, independent ground for upholding the acquittal.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the State's appeal and upheld the acquittals, finding that the prosecution had failed on two independent but equally decisive grounds. First, the seal tampering and the contradictions between the testimonies of PW2, PW7, and the officiating SHO PW1 irreparably broke the chain of custody between the seized opium and the FSL-tested sample. Second, the cryptic and incomplete Section 313 CrPC examination deprived the accused of a genuine opportunity to meet the incriminating link evidence, amounting to an illegality that independently vitiated the prosecution case. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused were ordered to be discharged. The judgment underscores that in NDPS prosecutions, strict adherence to sealing protocols and a complete, meaningful Section 313 examination are not procedural niceties but substantive safeguards — the failure of either can be fatal to the State's case.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2026