Unproved seizure and sample linkage cannot sustain an NDPS conviction.

The appellants were convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”) and sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine, on the allegation that 500 grams of charas had been recovered from each of them at Shyam Cinema Hall on 23 December 2011

The two independent seizure witnesses identified their signatures on the seizure list but denied that any seizure occurred in their presence

The seized substance was not produced at trial; no inventory or Magistrate-supervised sampling was undertaken under Section 52A, and the police-drawn sample reached the Forensic Science Laboratory about a year after permission to send it had been granted

The trial court convicted the appellants; they appealed

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that a narcotic substance was seized from the appellants’ possession

2. Whether the prosecution established that the sample tested by the Forensic Science Laboratory was the substance seized from the appellants and that it was charas

3. Whether the investigation by a member of the raiding party, and the defence material in Exhibit-A, affected the prosecution case

Under Sections 20(b)(ii)(B), 52A and 55 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution must prove possession of the prohibited substance and establish the integrity and identity of the seized material and the sample tested.

Section 52A provides for inventory, Magistrate certification and representative sampling in the Magistrate’s presence; under Union of India v. Mohanlal, sampling is to be conducted under the Magistrate’s supervision

Non-compliance with Section 52A is not automatically fatal, but under Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh, cumulative discrepancies that cast doubt on the physical evidence may prevent reliance on the statutory presumption under Section 54

Jitendra v. State of M.P., Vijay Jain v. State of M.P. and Vijay Pandey v. State of U.P. require cogent proof connecting the seized substance to the material tested; a laboratory report alone cannot establish that connection

Under Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, a confession to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act

An investigation by the informant or a raiding-party member does not, by itself, vitiate the trial; its effect depends on the facts and the weight of the evidence

The Court found the alleged seizure insufficiently established: the independent witnesses denied witnessing it, no contemporaneous station-diary or other documentary record corroborated the raid, and the official witnesses gave inconsistent accounts

The bulk substance was not produced, no Section 52A procedure was followed, and the prosecution offered no evidence tracing the sample’s custody during the lengthy interval before it reached the laboratory

The FSL report therefore did not connect the tested sample to any substance seized from the appellants; the alleged statement identifying the substance as charas was inadmissible

Although the investigation by a raiding-party member was not independently fatal, it added to the concern that the prosecution lacked independent verification.

The prosecution consequently failed to establish the foundational fact of possession necessary to invoke the statutory presumption

It allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted both appellants; their bail bonds were discharged and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded