Delayed FSL examination is not fatal where prompt forwarding and intact seals establish chain of custody.

The appellant was prosecuted for possessing 4.2 kg of ganja for sale, allegedly recovered from him on 5 July 2020 at about 18:45 hours, constituting an offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”).

The detecting officer, accompanied by police personnel and a Gazetted Officer, conducted the search; ganja was allegedly recovered from a plastic sack held by the appellant.

Two samples of 25 grams each were drawn, sealed, and produced before the court along with the seized property.

The contraband was produced before the court on 6 July 2020, and samples were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (“FSL”) on 22 July 2020. The FSL examined them on 24 July 2023 and reported that they contained ganja; the seals were intact and tallied with the specimen seal.

The Special Court convicted the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹20,000, and two months’ rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine, with set-off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

In appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant challenged the conviction principally on the grounds of delay in FSL examination and discrepancy in the weight of the samples.

Whether the Special Court was justified in finding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act?

Whether the delay in FSL examination and the difference between the weight of the samples at the time of seizure and at laboratory examination created a reasonable doubt regarding the identity and integrity of the contraband?

Whether the conviction or sentence imposed by the Special Court required appellate interference?

The Court applied Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, which criminalises possession of ganja exceeding the small quantity but below the commercial quantity, and Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governing the appeal.

The Court also considered the procedural safeguards reflected in the search, seizure, sampling, sealing, production, and forwarding of the contraband, including the accused’s right to personal search in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and the reporting requirement under Section 57 of the NDPS Act.

Relying on Sahid K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 (2) KLD 190, and the principles referred to from Dehal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2010 KHC 4631, and Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, 2008 KHC 5054, the Court held that a minor difference in weight is not necessarily fatal where different weighing instruments may have been used, natural drying or weight loss may occur, the samples were securely sealed, and the seals reached the laboratory intact and duly tallied.

The Court further held that delay in scientific examination is not, by itself, fatal when the seized material is promptly produced before the court, forwarded to the laboratory without unexplained delay, and there is no evidence of tampering or prejudice to the accused.

The Court found the evidence of the detecting officer and accompanying officers regarding the recovery of 4.2 kg of ganja to be categorical and reliable.

Their testimony was corroborated by the attestors to the search list and seizure mahazar, as well as by other official witnesses.

The appellant’s challenge based on the FSL delay failed because the contraband was produced before the court the day after seizure and the samples were forwarded to the FSL on 22 July 2020; the FSL report confirmed that the packets were intact and that their seals tallied with the specimen seal.

The fact that the samples were scientifically examined only in 2023 was attributed to the workload and infrastructural limitations of FSLs, without any demonstrated possibility of tampering or prejudice.

The discrepancy between the initial sample weight of 25 grams and the FSL-recorded weights of 19.8256 grams and 21.8600 grams was treated as insignificant in light of the use of different weighing machines and the possibility of natural drying of ganja over time.

Since the integrity of the sealed samples was established and no infirmity was shown in the prosecution evidence, the weight difference did not create a reasonable doubt.

The Court also declined to reduce the sentence, noting the appellant’s involvement in six other crimes and his subsequent involvement in another NDPS case.

The delay in FSL examination and the minor discrepancy in sample weights were held insufficient to undermine the chain of custody or the prosecution case.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment, fine of ₹20,000, and default sentence of two months’ rigorous imprisonment were confirmed.

The appellant’s bail bond was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender before the Special Court forthwith; failing surrender, the Special Judge was directed to execute the sentence.