NDPS evidence integrity failures and non-independent witnesses led to the conviction being set aside.

Conviction under the NDPS Act cannot stand where the prosecution evidence contains material contradictions on sealing, deposit, transmission and custody of the seized sample, creating doubt about the integrity of the case property. A witness projected as independent was found to be known to the police party and was an SPO, while the material witness who carried the sample to the CFSL was not examined, supporting an adverse inference. These defects left the possibility of tampering unresolved, so the conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act could be sustained when the prosecution evidence showed serious discrepancies regarding sealing, deposit, transmission, and custody of the seized sample, and when no genuinely independent witness was associated with the recovery.

Analysis: The evidence disclosed material contradictions about the initials on the seals, the person to whom the seal was handed over, whether the CFSL form was deposited with the sample, and the custody of the sample before it reached the forensic laboratory. The public witness joined in the raid was found not to be independent, as he was known to the police party and was an SPO of the area. The material witness who carried the sample to the CFSL was not examined, permitting an adverse inference. These defects created a serious doubt about the integrity of the recovered case property and the sample, and the possibility of tampering could not be excluded.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and were set aside, resulting in acquittal of the appellant.

---