Introduction:

The Supreme Court of India has set aside the convictions of two individuals in a narcotics case involving the alleged recovery and possession of charas in a commercial quantity, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish the integrity and safe custody of the seized samples. The Court found that serious gaps in the chain of custody, including an unexplained five-day delay in the samples reaching the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), rendered the prosecution’s forensic evidence unreliable.

A bench comprising Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Manmohan delivered the judgment on September 16, 2026, in the connected appeals titled Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P. and Govind v. State of M.P., reported as 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 949. The bench set aside the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s judgment, which had upheld the trial court’s decision to convict the appellants under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

The case concerned allegations of possession of charas, a narcotic substance, in a commercial quantity. The prosecution’s case depended significantly on the recovery of the contraband and the forensic examination of samples allegedly drawn from the seized material. For a conviction under the NDPS Act to be sustained, the prosecution must establish not only the recovery of the substance but also its identity as a prohibited narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, as applicable to the offence charged.

Where the prosecution relies upon an FSL report to establish the nature of the seized material, the reliability of the samples sent for examination becomes crucial. The samples must be properly drawn, sealed, identified, preserved and transmitted to the laboratory in a manner that establishes their connection with the substance allegedly recovered from the accused.

The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the importance of this evidentiary requirement. A laboratory report identifying a substance as charas cannot independently establish the prosecution’s case if the prosecution fails to demonstrate that the material examined by the laboratory was the same material that had allegedly been recovered from the accused.

The dispute arose from serious deficiencies in the handling and documentation of the seized samples. The Court found that the prosecution had failed to explain where the samples remained between December 1, 2004, when they were allegedly forwarded for forensic examination, and December 6, 2004, when they were received by the FSL. This unexplained interval raised a fundamental question about the identity and integrity of the material examined.

The bench also identified other deficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence. These included the absence of identifying marks and signatures on the sample packets, the lack of a corresponding exit entry in the maalkhana records, the non-examination of the Constable who allegedly carried the samples to the laboratory, and the complete absence of compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

The cumulative effect of these deficiencies became central to the Court’s assessment of the prosecution’s case. The issue was not simply whether a procedural requirement had been overlooked, but whether the prosecution had established an unbroken evidentiary connection between the alleged recovery and the material examined by the FSL.

The NDPS Act provides a stringent legal framework for offences involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Section 20 prescribes punishment for specified offences involving cannabis, including charas. Section 2(iii)(a) defines cannabis in a manner that includes charas, or the separated resin obtained from the cannabis plant. Consequently, establishing that the substance allegedly recovered from an accused was charas was an essential element of the prosecution’s case in the present appeals.

Section 52-A of the Act deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and provides a statutory procedure involving inventory, photographs and representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate. The provision is intended to facilitate the proper documentation and preservation of seized material and to ensure that the samples relied upon during trial can be reliably connected with the original contraband.

The Supreme Court had previously considered the consequences of non-compliance with Section 52-A in several decisions. The legal position, as explained in the authorities discussed in the present case, is that every procedural delay or irregularity does not automatically require acquittal. However, where the prosecution completely fails to comply with the provision and cannot establish the safe custody and integrity of the samples through other reliable evidence, the deficiency may become decisive.

In the present case, the Supreme Court examined the prosecution’s handling of the samples against these principles. It concluded that the unexplained delay, defective identification, absence of essential custody records and total non-compliance with Section 52-A collectively destroyed the evidentiary reliability of the FSL report.

The decision is significant because it reiterates that the seriousness of an offence under the NDPS Act does not diminish the prosecution’s obligation to establish every essential ingredient through legally admissible and reliable evidence. A conviction cannot be sustained merely because the alleged offence concerns a serious narcotic substance or because the trial and appellate proceedings have continued for a considerable period.

The judgment therefore reinforces the importance of procedural safeguards in narcotics prosecutions, particularly where forensic evidence forms the foundation of the allegation.

Arguments of the Parties:

Appellants’ Position:

The appellants, Abdul Rajik and Govind, challenged the convictions upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, contending that the prosecution had failed to establish the reliability of the samples allegedly recovered from them. The central issue in their appeals was the failure to prove an unbroken chain of custody between the alleged seizure of the contraband and its examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The prosecution’s reliance on the FSL report was particularly significant because the report was intended to establish the identity of the seized substance as charas. The appellants’ challenge, as reflected in the Supreme Court’s findings, concerned whether the material examined by the laboratory could reliably be connected with the material allegedly recovered from them.

The five-day gap between the alleged dispatch of the samples on December 1, 2004, and their receipt at the laboratory on December 6, 2004, formed an important part of this challenge. The prosecution had not explained where the samples were kept during this period or who had custody of them. In the absence of such an explanation, the appellants’ challenge raised a serious question about whether the samples had remained in the same condition from the time of seizure until their forensic examination.

The appellants also relied upon deficiencies in the documentation of the sample packets. The absence of identifying marks and signatures made it difficult to establish that the packets received by the FSL were the same packets allegedly prepared at the time of seizure. The lack of a corresponding maalkhana exit entry further weakened the documentary record of their movement.

Another important aspect was the non-examination of the Constable who allegedly carried the samples to the laboratory. The evidence of the person entrusted with transporting the samples could have formed part of the link evidence necessary to establish their safe transmission. In the absence of that witness, the prosecution’s account of the movement of the samples remained incomplete.

The appellants’ challenge also involved the failure to follow the procedure under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. The prosecution had not undertaken the procedure for drawing representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate. The issue was therefore not merely whether there had been a delay in complying with the statutory procedure, but whether the complete absence of compliance, when considered alongside the other evidentiary deficiencies, undermined the reliability of the forensic evidence.

Taken together, these circumstances called into question the evidentiary foundation of the convictions. The appellants’ case was that the prosecution could not establish that the substance examined by the FSL was the same substance allegedly recovered from them and, consequently, could not establish the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act.

The Supreme Court’s eventual decision accepted the significance of these evidentiary deficiencies. However, the available case summary does not reproduce the appellants’ complete written submissions or the precise oral arguments advanced by their counsel. The discussion of their position must therefore remain confined to the issues identified in the judgment.

Respondent-State’s Position:

The respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, defended the convictions that had been upheld by the High Court. The State’s position arose from the prosecution case concerning the alleged recovery and possession of charas in a commercial quantity and the reliance placed upon the forensic examination of the seized material.

The prosecution’s case depended upon establishing that the substance allegedly recovered from the appellants was charas within the meaning of the NDPS Act. The FSL report was relevant to this question because it was intended to identify the nature of the substance submitted for examination.

The legal controversy before the Supreme Court required consideration of whether the deficiencies in the handling of the samples were sufficient to undermine that evidence. In particular, the Court had to examine whether the unexplained delay in the samples reaching the laboratory, the deficiencies in the identification of the packets, and the absence of supporting custody records affected the prosecution’s ability to establish the identity and integrity of the samples.

The question of compliance with Section 52-A also required consideration. The applicable legal principles do not treat every delay or procedural irregularity under the provision as automatically fatal to a prosecution. Where the prosecution can otherwise establish the recovery and maintain reliable evidence of the identity and safe custody of the samples, a procedural lapse may not necessarily require acquittal.

The State’s defence of the convictions therefore had to be considered against the distinction between an irregularity in the procedure and a failure to establish the reliability of the evidence itself.

However, the available case summary does not set out the State’s detailed written submissions or oral arguments. It would consequently be inaccurate to attribute a specific explanation for the five-day delay, a particular justification for the missing maalkhana entry, or an express argument concerning the non-examination of the carrier Constable to the State.

The Supreme Court’s findings nevertheless establish the evidentiary deficiencies that ultimately proved decisive. The Court found that the prosecution had not explained the period during which the samples remained outside the laboratory, had not adequately established their identification and safe custody, and had not complied with Section 52-A. These findings formed the basis for discarding the FSL report and setting aside the convictions.

The Legal Question Before the Supreme Court:

The central question was whether the prosecution had established a reliable and complete chain of custody connecting the seized contraband with the samples examined by the FSL.

This question involved more than the formal preparation of seizure documents. The prosecution was required to demonstrate that the samples were properly drawn from the recovered material, securely sealed, identifiable through appropriate markings, preserved in safe custody and transmitted to the laboratory without any unexplained interruption in their handling.

A break in this chain could affect the evidentiary value of the laboratory report. If the prosecution could not establish that the material examined by the FSL was the same material allegedly recovered from the accused, the report could not safely be relied upon to prove the identity of the substance.

The Supreme Court was also required to consider the legal effect of total non-compliance with Section 52-A. The question was whether the failure to follow the statutory procedure, when considered alongside the deficiencies in the chain of custody, rendered the forensic evidence unreliable.

The appeals therefore required the Court to examine the relationship between procedural safeguards, evidentiary reliability and the prosecution’s obligation to prove the essential ingredients of an offence under the NDPS Act.

Court’s Judgment:

The Five-Day Gap in the Chain of Custody:

The Supreme Court’s principal finding concerned the unexplained gap between the alleged dispatch of the samples for forensic examination and their actual receipt by the FSL.

The bench noted that the samples were forwarded on December 1, 2004, but were received by the laboratory only on December 6, 2004. The prosecution had not provided any explanation regarding the location of the samples or the identity of the persons who had custody of them during this period.

The judgment authored by Justice Sandeep Mehta observed:

“The prosecution has offered no explanation whatsoever as to where and in whose custody the samples remained during the period between 1st December, 2004 and 6th December, 2004.”

The Court considered this omission a serious deficiency in the prosecution’s evidence. The five-day interval was not merely a delay in the completion of a procedural formality. It represented a period during which the prosecution had failed to account for the custody of the material upon which its forensic evidence depended.

In narcotics prosecutions, establishing the identity of the seized substance is essential. Where samples are sent for laboratory examination, the prosecution must demonstrate that they remained secure and identifiable throughout the process. Otherwise, the connection between the original seizure and the laboratory findings becomes uncertain.

The Court explained that the prosecution’s failure to account for the samples during the relevant period completely breached the chain of custody required to place reliance upon the FSL report.

The significance of this finding lies in the distinction between proving that a sample was dispatched and proving that the sample received by the laboratory was the same sample that had been seized. The former does not necessarily establish the latter.

A reliable chain of custody must account for the movement and preservation of the samples from the time of seizure until their receipt at the laboratory. Where a material interval remains unexplained, the prosecution must provide other credible evidence sufficient to establish that the identity and integrity of the samples were preserved.

In the present case, the prosecution failed to provide such an explanation. The Court therefore found that the unexplained five-day gap undermined the evidentiary reliability of the samples and the FSL report based upon them.

Failure to Establish Proper Sealing and Identification:

The Court also examined whether the prosecution had established that the samples were properly sealed and identifiable from the time of seizure until their receipt at the FSL.

The bench reiterated that the prosecution must establish, through proper link evidence, that the samples extracted from the recovered contraband were securely sealed and remained in safe custody throughout the relevant period.

This requirement is important because the evidentiary value of a laboratory report depends upon the reliability of the material examined. A report identifying a substance as charas cannot conclusively establish that the accused possessed charas unless the prosecution first establishes that the sample examined was connected with the alleged recovery.

The Court found that the seizure documents did not establish that the sample packets had been secured under the signatures of the Inspector or seizure officer, the panch witnesses and the accused-appellants.

The relevant records also did not indicate that identifying chits bearing particular marks had been affixed to the packets. Such markings would have assisted in establishing the identity of the samples and correlating them with the contraband allegedly recovered from the respective appellants.

The absence of these details weakened the prosecution’s ability to establish that the samples received by the laboratory were the same samples prepared at the time of seizure.

The bench emphasised that the prosecution must establish the complete chain of custody through credible oral and documentary evidence before relying upon an FSL report.

The requirement of proper identification is not a technical formality without evidentiary significance. It serves to establish continuity between the alleged recovery, the preparation of samples and their eventual forensic examination.

Where the prosecution fails to establish this continuity, the reliability of the laboratory findings becomes doubtful. The Court’s reasoning makes clear that the integrity of forensic evidence depends upon the reliability of the entire process through which the material is collected, preserved and examined.

Missing Maalkhana Entry and Non-Examination of the Carrier Constable:

The Court further identified the absence of a corresponding maalkhana exit entry as a significant deficiency.

The maalkhana is the place where seized property is ordinarily deposited for safe custody during the course of investigation. Records maintained in relation to the receipt and movement of seized articles can provide important evidence concerning their preservation and handling.

In a case involving forensic examination of seized narcotic substances, such records may help establish when the samples were removed from custody, who received them and whether their movement was properly documented.

The absence of a corresponding exit entry meant that the prosecution lacked an important documentary link in establishing the movement of the samples from the place of custody to the laboratory.

The Court also took note of the non-examination of the Constable who allegedly carried the samples to the FSL.

The carrier’s testimony could have been relevant to establishing the circumstances in which the samples were transported and delivered. In the absence of that evidence, the prosecution was unable to establish an important part of the chain of custody through the testimony of the person entrusted with the samples.

The Court did not treat these deficiencies as isolated omissions. They were considered alongside the unexplained five-day delay and the absence of proper identification and sealing of the sample packets.

Their cumulative effect was that the prosecution could not establish a reliable account of the samples’ handling from seizure until laboratory examination.

This cumulative approach is significant. A missing document or an unexamined witness may not necessarily invalidate every prosecution. However, where several deficiencies affect the same essential evidentiary link, their combined effect may render the prosecution’s case unreliable.

Total Non-Compliance With Section 52-A of the NDPS Act:

Another important aspect of the judgment concerned the complete failure of the seizure officer to follow the procedure cntemplated under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act.

Section 52-A provides a st