2026 INSC 1001 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1561 OF 2014

ABDUL RAJIK ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. ….RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1562 OF 2014

GOVIND .….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF M.P. ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. The instant appeals arise from the judgment

dated 26

th November, 2010 passed by the High Court

of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur

1 in Criminal Appeal

Nos. 1860 of 2006 and 2104 of 2006, whereby the

1

Hereinafter referred to as “High Court”.

2

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

appeals preferred by the appellants

2 came to be

dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 5

th September, 2006 passed by the

Special Judge (NDPS), Jabalpur

3, in Special Criminal

Case No. 1 of 2005, came to be affirmed.

3. The accused-appellants were convicted and

sentenced as under:

Criminal

Appeal

No.

Preferred

by

Convicted

under

Section

Sentence to

1860 of

2006

Govind 8 read with

20(b)(ii)(B) of

the Narcotics

Drugs and

Psychotropic

Substances

Act, 1985

4

Undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for 8

years and to pay

fine of Rs. 80,000/-

and in default, to

undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for

1.5 years.

2104 of

2006

Abdul

Rajik

8 read with

20(b)(ii)(C) of

the NDPS Act

Undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for

10 years and to pay

fine of Rs.

1,00,000/- and in

default, to undergo

Rigorous

Imprisonment for 2

years.

2

Hereinafter referred to as “accused-appellants”.

3

Hereinafter referred to as the “trial Court”.

4

For short, “NDPS Act”.

3

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

Brief facts

4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 29

th

November, 2004 at about 12:35 p.m., Inspector

Rajesh Tiwari (PW-7)

5, then posted as Station House

Officer, Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur District,

claims to have received credible information that two

persons, one of whom was disabled, were carrying

charas in bags and had alighted from an

autorickshaw near Bandariya Tiraha, Jabalpur. The

inspector/seizure officer (PW-7) recorded the

information in the Roznamcha at Serial No. 2397,

prepared the requisite panchnama and forwarded the

information to the City Superintendent of Police,

Gorakhpur, Jabalpur District. The Panch witnesses,

Mohan (PW-3) and Amit Sonkar (PW -5) were

thereafter engaged with the raiding party.

5. The raiding party proceeded to Bandariya

Tiraha, where the suspects were allegedly found

standing on the road, each carrying a bag. Upon

enquiry, they disclosed their identities as Abdul Rajik

and Govind, i.e., the appellants herein. Upon search

of the bags being held by the suspects, black wick-

5

Hereinafter referred to as “Inspector/Seizure officer”.

4

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

shaped material, wrapped in polythene, was found. A

preliminary physical examination of the substance

was conducted at the spot by burning a small piece

and it was suspected to be charas. The substance

recovered from the bag of Abdul Rajik weighed 1

kilogram, whereas the substance recovered from the

bag of Govind weighed 800 grams. Accordingly,

seizure memo was prepared, samples were drawn

and the accused-appellants were arrested.

6. Consequent to the search and seizure, First

Information Report No. 949 of 2004 came to be

registered on 29

th November, 2004 at about 5:45

p.m., at Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur District

for the offences punishable under Sections 8, 18, 20

and 21 of the NDPS Act. Investigation was conducted

and upon conclusion thereof, Chargesheet No. 897

dated 26

th December, 2004 came to be filed before the

Special Court (Narcotics), Jabalpur.

7. The prosecution case further is that the samples

were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory,

Sagar

6, and a report (Exhibit P-46) was received

concluding that the samples were of charas.

6

For short ‘FSL’.

5

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

8. Charges were framed for offences under Section

8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act

against Abdul Rajik, and under Section 8 read with

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) against Govind. Both pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined 8

witnesses and relied upon relevant documentary

evidence. Upon being confronted with the

circumstances appearing against them in the

prosecution evidence, the accused-appellants denied

the allegations and claimed innocence. In defence,

they examined 5 witnesses. It is pertinent to note that

Mohan (PW-3) and Amit Sonkar (PW-5), the Panch

witnesses associated with the seizure proceedings,

did not support the prosecution case and were

declared hostile. The prosecution, however, relied

upon the evidence of the police officials, particularly

of Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7), to establish the

search and seizure proceedings and the subsequent

steps of investigation. The trial Court accepted the

prosecution version and held that 1 kilogram of

charas had been recovered from the bag possessed by

Abdul Rajik and 800 grams from the bag possessed

by Govind.

6

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

9. Upon conclusion of the trial, the trial Court,

vide judgment and order dated 5

th September, 2006

proceeded to convict and sentence the a ccused-

appellants as indicated above.

7

10. Being aggrieved, the a ccused-appellants

preferred separate appeals before the High Court

which came to be dismissed vide common judgment

dated 26

th November, 2010. The said judgment is

under challenge in the present appeals by special

leave preferred by the accused-appellants.

Submissions of the parties

11. Learned counsel representing the accused-

appellants vehemently and fervently urged that the

conviction of the appellants as recorded by the trial

Court and affirmed by the High Court is

unsustainable in the eyes of law. The prosecution has

failed to prove the recovery of contraband from the

possession of the accused-appellants by leading

credible evidence.

12. It was further submitted that mandatory

provisions of Sections 42, 50, and 52-A of the NDPS

7

Para 3.

7

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

Act were not followed and hence, the conviction of the

accused-appellants deserves to be set aside.

13. In the alternative, it was urged that the

contraband recovered from the accused-appellants

falls within the category of intermediate quantity and,

therefore, the Courts below were not justified in

imposing the maximum sentence of 10 years upon

them. Learned counsel submitted that, having regard

to the nature and quantity of the contraband involved

and the facts and circumstances of the case, the

sentence imposed is unduly harsh and

disproportionate. It was, accordingly, prayed that, in

the event this Court upholds the conviction, the

sentence imposed upon the accused-appellants may

be suitably reduced and confined to the period

already undergone by them.

14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

State, on the other hand, opposed the submissions

advanced by learned counsel for the a ccused-

appellants. It was urged that Inspector /seizure

officer (PW-7) and the other members of the police

team had no reason whatsoever to falsely implicate

the accused-appellants. The consolidated weight of

the contraband recovered from the accused-

8

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

appellants weighs well above the commercial

quantity. Credible evidence was led by the

prosecution to prove that the mandatory provisions

of NDPS Act were duly complied with. Learned

counsel further urged that the trial Court as well as

the High Court have thoroughly appreciated the

evidence and recorded the conviction of the accused-

appellants by duly analysing the material available

on record and thus, the impugned judgments do not

suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by

this Court.

Analysis and Conclusion

15. We have heard learned counsel for the accused-

appellants as well as learned counsel appearing for

the respondent-State and have carefully considered

their respective submissions. We have also carefully

perused the impugned judgments and examined the

material available on record.

16. Suffice it to say that, as the recovery was made

from bags being carried by the accused-appellants

who were apprehended from an open public place,

neither Section 42 nor Section 50 of the NDPS Act

would apply to the search and seizure made by the

Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7).

9

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

17. The seizure was effected by Inspector Rajesh

Tiwari (PW-7) who stated that he apprehended the

accused-appellants, namely, Abdul Rajik and

Govind, while they were carrying charas in the bags

held by them. According to the seizure officer (PW-7),

the bags carried by the accused-appellants were

searched and were found to contain a sticky

substance in a wick-like shape, which was suspected

to be charas. The substance recovered from the bag

carried by Abdul Rajik weighed 1 kilogram, whereas

the substance recovered from the bag carried by

Govind weighed 800 grams. It is, however, relevant to

note that neither the seizure memo nor the deposition

of the witness (PW-7) specified whether the aforesaid

weights represented the gross weight of the

substance, including the packing material, or the net

weight of the contraband.

18. We now turn to the question of link evidence,

which is essential to establish the integrity and

sanctity of the samples allegedly drawn from the

seized contraband. The Inspector/seizure officer (PW-

7) while deposing about the procedure adopted for

drawing and sealing the samples from the

10

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

contraband seized from the possession of the

accused-appellants, stated as follows: -

“12. Two representative samples of 25 grams each

were drawn from respective quantities of the

property seized from the accused persons. Sample

Panchnama of Abdul Rajik was P-23, C to C part of

which bears my signature and thumb impression of

the accused. Sample Panchnama of the property

seized from Govind Khare is Ex. P-24, C to C part of

which bears my signature and D to D part bears

signature of accused Govind. Remaining material

was also sealed respectively in separate packets. The

panchnama of the seal by which material was sealed

is Ex. P- 25, C to C part of which bears my signature;

D to D part bears accused Govind Khare's signature

and E to E part bears specimen seal. Thumb

impression of Abdul Rajik was marked on it.”

19. The Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7) further

deposed regarding the seized packets of contraband

and the samples produced before the Court,

describing them in the following terms: -

“18. Seized packets of charas were opened in the

Court after being called from the Treasury. Witness

has stated that 950 gm of packet has been seized

from Abdul Rajik which is marked as "A" and second

packet containing 750gms of charas alleged to be

seized from accused Govind is marked as B. Two

large samples were marked as "C" and "D" and two

small samples were marked as "E" and "F"

respectively. On opening the "D" sample, a nylon bag

of yellow, red, blue colored stripes and one polythene

bag were found. Similarly, on opening the "C" article,

a polythene bag and a nylon bag of brown, orange-

colored stripes were found.”

11

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

20. A careful consideration of the aforesaid extracts

from the testimony of the Inspector/seizure officer

(PW-7) gives rise to serious concerns regarding the

identification and integrity of the samples allegedly

drawn from the seized contraband. While describing

the procedure for drawing and sealing the samples,

the witness (PW-7) did not state that the sample

packets were sealed by him or that any identifiable

marks, such as the signatures or thumb impressions

of the accused-appellants, the panch witnesses or the

seizure officer (PW-7), were affixed to the sample

packets themselves. Significantly, when the

muddamal articles were produced before the Court

during the evidence of the seizure officer (PW-7), the

sample packets were not separately produced or

exhibited.

21. We have carefully perused the sample

Panchnama (Exhibit P-23), under which the samples

were drawn from the substance seized from accused

Abdul Rajik and Exhibit P-24, under which the

samples were drawn from accused Govind. On a

perusal of the said Panchnamas, wherein reference is

made to the procedure for extraction of the samples,

we find that there is no indication in the memos that

12

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

the sample packets were secured under the

signatures of the Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7), the

panch witnesses and the accused-appellants, or that

any chits bearing particular identification marks

were affixed to the sample packets so as to enable

their subsequent identification and correlation with

the contraband seized from the respective accused.

22. In order to double-check whether the sample

packets bore the signatures/thumb impressions of

the accused-appellants or any other identifying

marks whereby the same could be connected to the

particular accused, we carefully perused the FSL

report (Exhibit P-46), wherein also there is no

reference to the sample packets bearing the

signatures/thumb impressions of the accused -

appellants.

23. The maalkhana in-charge, Ramnath Pandey

(PW-2), in his deposition, stated that the

Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7), handed over the

charas packets and the sample packets to him for

being deposited in the maalkhana on 29

th November,

2004. The witness (PW-2) proved the corresponding

maalkhana register entry (Exhibit P-2) and the

photocopy thereof (Exhibit P-2C).

13

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

24. The witness (PW-2) remained totally silent

during his examination -in-chief regarding the

forwarding/fate of the samples. In cross-

examination, he stated that on 6

th December, 2004,

sample packets were sent to the FSL for

scientific/chemical examination. A Constable from

the police station took the samples to the FSL. A draft

was prepared at the Office of Superintendent of Police

and then the samples were sent for examination.

25. Thus, apparently, the witness (PW-2) did not

refer to any document prepared at the police station

for forwarding the samples to the FSL. Furthermore,

the witness also did not state that the samples

remained safe and in sealed condition till the date

they were forwarded to the FSL.

26. Akhil Verma (PW -8) was posted as Sub -

Inspector at Police Station, Gorakhpur. He gave

evidence regarding the registration of the FIR against

the accused-appellants and the subsequent steps

taken by him during the investigation. He also stated

that the samples of charas seized from the accused-

appellants were sent to FSL for examination vide

Draft Exhibit P-45 of the Office of Superintendent of

Police. The report of examination was received and

14

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

was proved as Exhibit P-46. However, he was totally

silent as to the date on which the samples were

forwarded.

27. Ramnath Pandey ( PW-2) exhibited the

maalkhana register (Exhibit P-2C) for proving the

deposit of the muddamal articles. A careful perusal of

the said document makes it clear that, though the

same records the entry regarding deposit of the

samples on 29

th November, 2004, no corresponding

entry exists in the maalkhana register regarding the

exit of the samples from the police station for being

carried to the FSL. Apparently, thus, none of the

witnesses examined by the prosecution stated about

the sanctity, safekeeping, or condition of the samples

in oral evidence nor did the prosecution prove any

document, viz., the forwarding letter of the police

station, the road certificates, etc., which are essential

documents pertaining to the link evidence necessary

for lending credence to the prosecution case

regarding safe custody of the samples from the time

of seizure till the same reached the FSL.

28. The only document produced by the

prosecution evidencing the transit of the samples was

the forwarding letter prepared at the Office of

15

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

Superintendent of Police (Exhibit P-45) which bears

the date 1

st December, 2004 and names Constable

Ramkrishna, Badge No. 414, as the carrier of the

samples. However, as noticed above, there is no

evidence on record to establish the movement of the

samples from the maalkhana at Police Station

Gorakhpur for being carried to the FSL, Sagar, on 1st

December, 2004. The prosecution has thus failed to

account for the custody and movement of the

samples from the date of deposit in the maalkhana

and their eventual receipt at the FSL.

29. There is yet another material inconsistency in

the prosecution case which further undermines the

prosecution’s case regarding the chain of custody.

The forwarding letter issued from the Office of

Superintendent of Police (Exhibit P-45) bears the date

1

st December, 2004 whereas the FSL report (Exhibit

P-46) records that the samples were received through

Constable Ramkrishna on 6

th December, 2004. Even

Ramnath Pandey (PW-2) in his oral evidence, stated

that the samples were sent to the FSL on 6

th

December, 2004. The prosecution has offered no

explanation whatsoever as to where and in whose

custody the samples remained during th e period

16

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

between 1

st December, 2004 and 6

th December, 2004.

This grave discrepancy and the gap of five (5) days,

completely breaches the link in the chain of custody,

which was required to be established if the

prosecution was desirous of placing reliance on the

FSL report (Exhibit P-46). However, neither was the

carrier Constable Ramkrishna examined in evidence

nor did the prosecution offer any plausible

explanation for the discrepancy referred to supra.

30. It is trite that the prosecution has to prove, by

proper link evidence, that the samples extracted by

seizure officer from the recovered contraband were

properly sealed and remained in safe and secure

condition from the time of seizure till their receipt at

the FSL. Needless to say, for the FSL report to be

admitted in evidence, the prosecution would have to

establish, by credible oral and documentary

evidence, the complete chain of custody essential to

establish the integrity and sanctity of the samples.

Additionally, the procedural safeguard provided

under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act is also a relevant

factor while evaluating whether the prescribed

procedure was duly followed and, if not, the effect of

17

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

such non-compliance on the finding of guilt recorded

against the accused-appellants.

31. We may note that this Court, in Narcotics

Control Bureau v. Kashif

8 and in Bharat Aambale

v. State of Chhattisgarh,

9 has held that mere non-

compliance of the procedure provided under Section

52-A of the NDPS Act or the Standing Orders/Rules

made thereunder may not, by itself, vitiate the trial

or result in an automatic acquittal. The determinative

factor would be whether, and to what extent, such

non-compliance has caused prejudice to the accused.

Section 52-A of the NDPS Act was incorporated in the

Act with the object of providing a statutory

mechanism to eliminate the possibility of

investigational taint in the procedure of drawing of

samples and to ensure expeditious disposal of seized

narcotic drugs. Under this provision , the

Investigating Agency is obligated to present the seized

contraband before the Executive Magistrate/Judicial

Magistrate, who is required to cause the

representative samples to be drawn in his presence

and certify the correctness of the inventory so

8

(2024) 11 SCC 372

9

(2025) 8 SCC 452

18

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

prepared, the photographs taken thereof and the list

of samples so drawn. Upon such certification, the

inventory, photographs and list of samples may be

treated as primary evidence of the seized goods,

thereby obviating the necessity of producing the

muddamal before the trial Court.

32. This Court has held that minor lapses or

procedural delay in compliance with the said

provision may not, by itself, result in an automatic

acquittal. However, total non-compliance would

definitely be a relevant factor to be taken into account

while assessing the mandatory requirement of

proving that the samples were kept in a safe and

secure condition, i.e., the link evidence from the time

of seizure till the time the samples came to be

deposited in the FSL.

33. Having gone through the evidence led by the

prosecution, we find that no effort whatsoever was

made by the Inspector/seizure officer (PW -7) to

undertake the procedure provided under Section 52-

A of the NDPS Act for drawing representative samples

in presence of a Magistrate and thus, there is total

non-compliance with the said provision.

19

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

34. This Court, in Nadeem Ahamed v. State of

West Bengal

10, held that the failure to draw

representative samples in the presence of a

Magistrate and the absence of a certified inventory,

in breach of Section 52 -A of the NDPS Act,

constituted lapses striking at the very root of the

prosecution case and rendered the integrity of the

seizure and sampling process wholly doubtful .

Consequently, the FSL report was held unfit to be

read in evidence. Likewise, in State of Rajasthan v.

Tara Singh

11, this Court affirmed an acquittal where

the prosecution had failed to account for the custody

of the seized samples between their alleged dispatch

and their receipt at the laboratory. The Court

emphasised that, having regard to the severity of the

penalties prescribed under the NDPS Act, the

questions as to how and where the samples were

stored and when they were dispatched and received

at the laboratory assume considerable significance.

The Court held that an unexplained gap in the

custody of the samples, compromises their sanctity

and casts a serious doubt on the prosecution case.

10

2025 SCC OnLine SC 1779.

11

(2011) 11 SCC 559.

20

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

These decisions, therefore, underscore that the

prosecution must establish the integrity of the

sampling process as well as an unbroken chain of

custody of the samples before the FSL report can

safely be relied upon.

35. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by

this Court to the facts of the present case, it is clear

that the link evidence has been totally breached

leading total collapse of the sanctity and integrity of

the samples. Resultantly, the FSL Report (Exhibit P-

46) loses its significance and must be discarded from

consideration. Once the FSL report is excluded from

consideration, there is no other legally admissible

evidence available to establish that the substance

allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants was

charas within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(a) of the

NDPS Act so as to attract the penal consequences

under Section 20 thereof. In the absence of such

foundational evidence, the prosecution has failed to

establish an essential ingredient of the offence and,

consequently, the conviction of the accused -

appellants cannot be sustained.

36. The story set up in the testimony of the

Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7), that the suspected

21

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

contraband was tested by burning a part thereof and

that, on the basis of such test, the said officer could

conclude that the substance was charas, is also

unworthy of credence. There is no scientific material

on record to establish that the nature or identity of

the contraband could be determined as charas

merely by burning a part thereof. Thus, in the

absence of any scientific or other reliable material

supporting such an identification, the testimony of

the witness (PW-7) cannot, by itself, be relied upon to

establish that the substance allegedly recovered from

the accused-appellants was charas.

37. As an upshot of the discussion made

hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the

prosecution has failed to prove that the substance

recovered from the accused-appellants was charas.

Consequently, the conviction of the accused -

appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and

affirmed by the High Court, is unsustainable in law.

The accused-appellants are, therefore, entitled to the

benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted of the

charges.

38. Resultantly, the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 5

th September, 2006 passed

22

CRL. APPEAL NO(S). 1561/2014 with connected matter

by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court vide

common impugned judgment dated 26

th November,

2010, are hereby set aside.

39. The appellants, namely, Abdul Rajik and

Govind, are acquitted of the charges. The appellants

are on bail and need not surrender. Their bail bonds

stand discharged.

40. The appeals are allowed accordingly.

41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

.….……………………J.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)

....…………………….J.

(MANMOHAN)

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 16, 2026.