Chain of custody in NDPS cases failed where seized contraband could not be linked reliably to the material produced in court.

Conviction under the NDPS Act could not be sustained where the prosecution failed to prove that the seized articles and sample packets produced in court were the same contraband allegedly recovered from the accused. The seizing witnesses and seizing officer could not clearly identify the material objects, and the chemical evidence did not satisfactorily connect the tested sealed envelopes with the articles before the court. Discrepancies in outward numbers and the absence of proof of movement through the muddemal register further broke the chain of custody. The accused was therefore entitled to benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved beyond doubt that the seized articles were the same contraband recovered from the appellant, and whether the conviction under Section 20(b) read with Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained.

Analysis: The evidence showed recovery of ganja from a rexine bag allegedly found in the taxi, but the seizing witnesses did not clearly identify before the Court the contraband or the sample packets produced in evidence as the very articles seized at the spot. The seizing officer also failed to identify the sample packets. The chemical analyzer's evidence established testing of sealed envelopes, but did not satisfactorily connect those envelopes with the articles produced before the Court. The discrepancy in outward numbers on the forwarding documents and the failure to prove movement of the samples through the muddemal register further weakened the prosecution case and created doubt about the identity and continuity of the seized material.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to benefit of doubt.

---