Material chain-of-custody breaks and discrepancies sustain an NDPS acquittal.

The prosecution alleged that police intercepted a vehicle on 4 January 2009 and recovered two kilograms of charas from a bag carried by Labh Singh, who was travelling with three co-accused.

It further alleged that Deepak and Dinesh had supplied the contraband, relying principally on alleged disclosure statements, house-identification proceedings and call-detail records.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused charged under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act; the State appealed.

Two co-accused had died during trial, and the appeal concerned the four respondents.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that charas was recovered from the vehicle occupants and that the respondents were connected with the alleged possession and supply of the contraband

Whether the evidentiary deficiencies concerning the alleged disclosures, search proceedings, recovery documentation and chain of custody justified affirming the acquittal

Whether the appellate court should interfere with the Trial Court’s acquittal

Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act required proof of the charged offences, while Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act governed the admissibility of information leading to discovery; the alleged disclosure statements implicating the suppliers were not proved on the record.

The Court also considered the prosecution’s failure to comply with Section 42 of the NDPS Act in relation to the alleged prior information and house search, and the safeguards for search proceedings under Section 100 CrPC.

The prosecution must establish a reliable evidentiary link between seized contraband and the substance analysed by the FSL; material breaks or contradictions in that chain may create reasonable doubt.

An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and appellate interference is unwarranted where the prosecution has not proved guilt through cogent, reliable evidence.

The Court found no reliable evidence connecting Deepak and Dinesh to the alleged supply: the disclosure statements were absent from the record, the house search yielded nothing, and the investigating officer admitted that the relevant SIM cards were not verified as belonging to them.

As to the alleged recovery, the Court noted the failure to associate independent witnesses despite the circumstances, inconsistencies in the witnesses’ accounts, and unexplained conflicts about when and where the accused were arrested and searched.

More significantly, the malkhana record did not establish dispatch of the remaining bulk; the dispatch road certificate was not produced, the carrier described seals different from those used in the case, and the reported bulk weight differed by 100 grams from the alleged remaining quantity.

Taken cumulatively, these deficiencies left the identity and evidentiary continuity of the FSL-tested substance unproved and created reasonable doubt.

The State’s appeal was dismissed.

The respondents were directed to furnish bonds of ₹25,000 each, with one surety in the like amount, under Section 481 BNSS for six months; the contraband was to remain intact during the specified limitation and notice period.