Chain of custody in NDPS cases must be proved before the FSL report can sustain a conviction.

In NDPS prosecutions, the reverse burden operates only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts, including a reliable chain of custody for the seized sample. Where the sample produced in court could not be confidently linked to the contraband allegedly recovered, because of gaps in the Malkhana record, illegible seal signatures, unexplained delay in production, hostile independent witnesses, and other custody defects, the prosecution case was rendered doubtful. Even though the FSL report confirmed opium and Section 50 compliance was shown, the identity of the sample remained unproved beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was therefore set aside and the accused received the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained when the identity of the seized sample produced in court was doubtful and the prosecution evidence on custody and production of the sample created a reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The prosecution under the NDPS Act carries a reverse burden, but the prosecution must first establish the foundational facts and compliance with the statutory safeguards before the burden shifts. The Court noted that the sample was allegedly deposited in the Malkhana on the same day, yet the entry relating to its removal for production in court was blank, the signatures on the seal had become illegible, and there was no satisfactory explanation for the delay of about one year in producing the sample before the court. Although the FSL report confirmed opium and there was compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the hostile testimony of the independent witnesses, the abnormal gap below the signatures on the seizure memo, and the doubtful correlation between the sample seized and the sample produced in court cumulatively created a serious doubt about the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained on such doubtful evidence, and the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the sample examined in the laboratory was the very contraband allegedly recovered from the appellant, so the conviction was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In NDPS prosecutions, once the identity and chain of custody of the seized sample become doubtful, the FSL report loses probative value and the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt notwithstanding the reverse burden of proof.

---