Retesting Under NDPS Act Is Not a Matter of Right — It’s a Matter of Rare Necessity: Rajasthan High Court Quashes FIR After Clean FSL Report

“When Even the Forensic Lab Finds No Drugs, Continuing NDPS Case Becomes Abuse of Process”, - In a significant judgment reaffirming the strict evidentiary standards under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, on 7 April 2025, quashed an FIR registered under Sections 8/22 & 29 of the NDPS Act after forensic reports revealed that no contraband substances were found in the alleged seizure.
In the case Justice Farjand Ali not only quashed the FIR and ordered the release of the petitioners but also laid down strict guidelines against casual requests for re-testing or re-sampling of seized substances, warning that such requests are not permissible under the NDPS Act except in "extremely exceptional" circumstances.
On a tip-off, police raided the house of Sadaram in Village Liyadara, Sanchore District, where they allegedly recovered 3.376 kg of a substance suspected to be Mephedrone (MD), an electronic weighing machine, sealing machine, and cash. Two family members—Budharam and Bhanwarlal—attempted to flee but were apprehended on the spot.
Initial FSL tests, however, found no presence of any psychotropic or narcotic substance. The seized material was termed a neutral substance, devoid of any criminal relevance under the NDPS Act.

“Suspicion Cannot Be a Substitute for Evidence”
Justice Ali emphasized that: “The case was registered on suspicion of possession of contraband. However, this suspicion has not been confirmed by the report of the chemical examiner.”
Even a second round of testing on control samples C1, C2, and C3, conducted out of abundant caution, confirmed that there was no trace of Methamphetamine (MDMA), opium alkaloids, or any other narcotic drugs.

“Retesting Is Not a Right — It Is a Rare Exception”
In a remarkable exposition on the misuse of retesting requests under the NDPS Act, the Court held:
“No application for retesting or re-sampling can be entertained thereafter [after 15 days of the FSL report]. In the absence of any compelling circumstances, any form of re-sampling and retesting is prohibited under the NDPS Act.”
Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Thana Singh v. CBN (2013) 2 SCC 590, Justice Ali reiterated:
“The NDPS Act itself does not permit re-sampling or retesting. Courts have wrongly allowed such applications without appreciating the legislative intent to avoid delays and contamination of evidence.”
He added that the absence of any provision like Section 25(4) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or Rule 56 of the Central Excise Rules, which allow limited retesting, shows that the legislature deliberately omitted such a right under the NDPS Act.
The Court remarked that the prosecution had no legal leg to stand on once the chemical reports confirmed no contraband, and continuing the proceedings would be a gross abuse of the criminal justice process.
“In view of the legal as well as factual position that no contraband is recovered in this case, the Misc. Petition deserves to be allowed.”

Directions Issued for Future Compliance: Taking proactive steps to ensure uniformity in NDPS proceedings, the Court issued the following directions:
1.    Director General of Police, Rajasthan to ensure that all SHOs are made aware of these legal principles within 60 days.
2.    Registrar General of the High Court to circulate this order to all Judicial Officers handling NDPS cases to strictly adhere to these guidelines.
3.    Re-testing requests to be allowed only within 15 days of receipt of the FSL report and only in exceptional circumstances by a well-reasoned judicial order.
This ruling is a landmark decision reaffirming the procedural rigour under the NDPS Act, which insists on scientific precision before subjecting individuals to severe criminal liability. It sends a clear message to investigative agencies that “allegation of narcotics” must be backed by hard forensic evidence—mere suspicion or quantity is not enough.
“The NDPS Act is a stringent law with strict sentencing provisions. Therefore, its application must be equally stringent when it comes to proof of substance.”

Date of Decision: 7 April 2025