Chain of custody and link evidence in NDPS cases must be strictly proved; conviction failed for evidentiary doubt.

In an NDPS prosecution, the Court found the recovery and possession of opium were not proved beyond reasonable doubt because of major contradictions in the CFSL form, seal handling, and link evidence. The Court reaffirmed that strict proof of foundational facts and an unbroken chain of custody are essential in narcotics cases, and held that the defects created a serious possibility of tampering or interpolation. Delay in sending the sample was not fatal, and Section 42 did not apply because the recovery was from a public place, but these points did not cure the evidentiary infirmities. The conviction and sentence were therefore unsustainable, and the appellant was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the recovery and possession of opium beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction under the NDPS Act.

Analysis: The prosecution case was found doubtful because of major contradictions regarding preparation and execution of the CFSL Form, the handling of seals, and the absence of reliable link evidence establishing that the sample examined by the laboratory was the same sample allegedly recovered from the appellant. The Court held that, in NDPS cases, strict proof of foundational facts and an unbroken chain of custody are essential, and the defects in the present case created a serious possibility of tampering or interpolation. The Court also held that delay in sending the sample was not fatal and that Section 42 was not applicable because the recovery was from a public place, but these aspects did not cure the serious infirmities in the prosecution evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence could not be sustained. The appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---