Chain of custody in NDPS cases must be proved reliably; failure to link the tested sample to the seized article defeats conviction.

In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, the prosecution must prove an unbroken and reliable chain of custody for the seized substance. The Court found a serious gap in custody evidence: there was unexplained delay in production, no clear proof of who kept the article, whether it remained sealed, or how it was preserved before chemical examination. Because the record did not satisfactorily establish that the sample analysed was the very article recovered from the accused, the conviction could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the seized material was kept in proper custody and was the same article sent for chemical examination so as to sustain the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985.

Analysis: The seizure was followed by unexplained delay in production before the court, and the evidence did not establish who kept the article, whether it remained sealed, or how it was preserved till dispatch for chemical examination. The record disclosed a serious gap in the chain of custody, with discrepant and unconvincing evidence from the concerned officers. In such a prosecution, the court must be satisfied that the very article seized was the one analysed, and the absence of a reliable missing link makes the proof insufficient.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained because the prosecution failed to prove with satisfactory evidence that the seized article sent for chemical analysis was the same article recovered from the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the prosecution must establish an unbroken and reliable chain of custody for the seized substance; failure to prove that the sample analysed was the very article seized is fatal to the conviction.

---