Presence of Chemical Examiner Is Not Mandatory—Their Report Is Legally Admissible Under Section 293 CrPC”: Supreme Court Clarifies in NDPS Conviction Appeal

“There is no requirement of law that the Chemical Examiner must be examined in every NDPS trial, if the report is otherwise admissible under Section 293 of the CrPC” —  In a noteworthy clarification of criminal procedure under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), the Supreme Court of India held that the non-examination of the Chemical Analyst does not render the prosecution’s case weak, so long as the chemical analysis report is duly submitted and legally admissible under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Supreme Court categorically ruled that the High Court erred in ordering a retrial based on the sole ground that the Chemical Examiner was not called as a witness, when no such obligation is mandated by law.

“Section 293 CrPC Gives Legal Sanctity to Expert Reports—Calling the Analyst Is Not a Legal Compulsion”

The judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra, for the Bench also comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, emphasized the proper interpretation of Section 293(1) CrPC, which explicitly provides that certain reports by Government Scientific Experts are admissible without the necessity of calling the expert as a witness.

Referring directly to the provision, the Court said: “The CrPC recognizes that the report of a Chemical Examiner to the Government, or any other notified scientific expert, may be used as evidence without summoning the author, unless the court specifically directs otherwise.”

In this case, the Chemical Examiner’s report confirming that the seized substance was “Ganja” was submitted in accordance with law, and no serious challenge was raised by the defence during the trial regarding its authenticity or conclusions. Therefore, the Court held:

“There is no such requirement of law that Chemical Examiner would have to be called in each NDPS case to prove the report when it is otherwise admissible under Section 293 CrPC.”

High Court’s Assumption That Chemical Analyst Must Testify is Legally Erroneous

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), while overturning the conviction and directing a retrial, had opined that the absence of testimony from the analyst weakened the evidentiary chain. It treated the omission as a procedural lapse fatal to the prosecution's case.

The Supreme Court forcefully rejected that assumption, stating that: “The High Court fell into clear legal error in treating the non-examination of the Chemical Examiner as an omission sufficient to direct retrial, especially when there was no allegation of fabrication or inconsistency in the report itself.”

Accused Has No Automatic Right To Demand Analyst’s Examination Unless Doubts Raised

The Bench also made it clear that unless the defence raises specific doubts about the methodology, findings, or authenticity of the analyst’s report, the prosecution is not obligated to produce the analyst in court.

“In the absence of any express request by the defence for summoning the Chemical Examiner, or any attack on the veracity of the report, the prosecution is well within its right to rely upon the report under Section 293.”

In doing so, the Court protected the balance between judicial efficiency and procedural fairness, and discouraged unnecessary prolongation of trials merely on technical grounds.

Expert Reports Are Part of Legal Machinery, Not Optional Add-Ons

This ruling is a reaffirmation of the statutory design of Criminal Procedure, where certain expert documents are intended to have intrinsic evidentiary value, without the need for routine oral corroboration. Section 293 CrPC was enacted with the legislative intent to avoid unnecessary delays in cases involving scientific reports from credible government labs.

“The purpose of Section 293 is to ensure that reports by notified Government Experts carry evidentiary weight by default unless and until specifically challenged by the parties.”

Retrial Directed on Non-Existent Grounds — Supreme Court Restores Appeals for Fresh Consideration

Rebuking the High Court’s retrial order as “unwarranted and misconceived”, the Supreme Court restored the criminal appeals filed by Kailas and co-accused Raju before the High Court for fresh consideration. It directed the High Court to dispose of the appeals preferably within six months, based on the existing trial record and evidence.

The judgment ensures that technicalities do not obstruct substantive justice, particularly in serious cases under special statutes like the NDPS Act.

Date of Decision: September 15, 2025