NDPS seizure and sealing: minor procedural delays or sample weight differences will not defeat conviction absent proof of tampering.

In NDPS cases, proof of seizure and sealing will ordinarily sustain the prosecution where the core recovery evidence remains materially consistent and the seals are found intact. Minor omissions in witness testimony, delay in preparing the test memo, custody of the seal, dispatch of samples, or differences in sample weights will not by themselves create reasonable doubt unless specific tampering or prejudice is shown. Custody of the case property in sealed condition was accepted as compliant, and the conviction was not founded on the Section 67 statement. On these facts, the court held that the alleged procedural lapses did not vitiate the prosecution and the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the recovery of heroin from the appellant's baggage was proved beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony; (ii) whether the alleged delay in preparation of the test memo, custody of the seal, dispatch of samples, and discrepancy in sample weights created a reasonable doubt or showed non-compliance with the NDPS procedure; (iii) whether the alleged violation of custody requirements under the NDPS Act and reliance on the statement under Section 67 affected the conviction.

Issue (i): whether the recovery of heroin from the appellant's baggage was proved beyond reasonable doubt notwithstanding alleged inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimony.

Analysis: The testimony of the customs officer and the panch witness remained materially unshaken on the core facts that the appellant identified the baggage, the cans were recovered from his suitcase, the cans contained polythene packets with brown powder, and the field test gave a positive result for heroin. Minor omissions or inability to answer peripheral details did not undermine the testimony on recovery, and no effective challenge was made to the essential recovery evidence.

Conclusion: The recovery of heroin was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction could not be disturbed on the ground of alleged contradictions.

Issue (ii): whether the alleged delay in preparation of the test memo, custody of the seal, dispatch of samples, and discrepancy in sample weights created a reasonable doubt or showed non-compliance with the NDPS procedure.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the contraband and samples were sealed at the spot and the seals were found intact when the samples reached the laboratory and when the case property was produced later. Preparation of the test memo on the next day was not treated as a legal requirement affecting validity, and no specific foundation of tampering was laid. The gap in time regarding dispatch and the difference in sample weights were held to be explainable by the manner of weighing and the greater precision of laboratory instruments.

Conclusion: The alleged procedural lapses did not create reasonable doubt and did not vitiate the prosecution case.

Issue (iii): whether the alleged violation of custody requirements under the NDPS Act and reliance on the statement under Section 67 affected the conviction.

Analysis: The case property was shown to have remained in sealed custody in the customs warehouse and was later shifted to the valuable godown when the new godown was allotted. The Court accepted that Section 55 compliance was not breached in a manner affecting the case. The conviction was not founded on the Section 67 statement, and the statement was not retracted during trial.

Conclusion: Neither the alleged custody issue nor the Section 67 statement displaced the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on all material grounds, the conviction and sentence were sustained, and the appellant was not entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS cases, once seizure and sealing are proved and the seals remain intact, minor procedural delays or discrepancies will not defeat the prosecution unless specific tampering or prejudice is demonstrated.

---