Negative first forensic report and risk of tampering made the NDPS conviction unsustainable despite a later second sample test.

An NDPS conviction based on recovered opium was found unsafe where the first chemical examination of the sample was negative, a later second report was obtained with judicial permission, and the surrounding facts raised a real risk of tampering. The Court noted that the only independent witness was not examined, the witness appeared to be a stock witness, and the seals remained with police officials rather than an independent person. It further held that, absent a statutory NDPS mechanism for a second test, a later report can be relied on only in exceptional circumstances after the initial adverse report is convincingly displaced. The later CFSL report was not preferred and the conviction and sentence were unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be sustained when the first sample examined by the Chemical Examiner was negative, a later second sample sent with judicial permission yielded a contrary opinion, and the surrounding circumstances created a real possibility of tampering with the bulk contraband.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence showed recovery of opium from a truck allegedly driven by the accused, but the only independent witness associated at the time of search was not examined and the record suggested that he was a stock witness. The seals used on the sample parcels and the bulk parcel were retained by police officials, not by an independent person, and the first sample sent to the Chemical Laboratory, Amritsar returned a negative result. Although the NDPS Act does not provide a statutory mechanism for sending a second sample in the manner expressly provided under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 or the Insecticides Act, 1968, a second test can be justified only in exceptional circumstances and the prosecution must first demolish the initial adverse report before relying on the later report. Here, there was no convincing material to establish connivance between the accused and the first analyst, and the possibility of manipulation of the bulk contraband in police custody could not be ruled out.

Conclusion: The later report from the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad could not be preferred over the initial negative report, and the conviction and sentence were unsustainable. The appeal was allowed and the accused was acquitted.

---