Mandatory NDPS search safeguards and intact chain of custody were essential; doubt over both led to acquittal.

In NDPS prosecutions, failure to follow mandatory search safeguards and maintain a reliable chain of custody can vitiate conviction. The Court found that the accused was not offered the statutory option of being searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate, and the seized parcel produced in court bore no seals, creating doubt about possible tampering in the malkhana. Because strict compliance with these safeguards is essential in a case carrying severe punishment, the prosecution evidence was treated as unsafe. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for possession of narcotic substance could be sustained when the mandatory safeguards for search under the NDPS Act were not followed and the seized case property was not properly preserved.

Analysis: The search of the appellant's person was not preceded by an offer that he could be searched before a gazetted officer or magistrate, as required by the mandatory protection under the NDPS Act. The Court also noted that the seized parcel produced in court bore no seals, creating a genuine doubt about the integrity of the recovered substance and the possibility of tampering in the malkhana. In a prosecution carrying severe punishment, strict compliance with the statutory safeguards and proper preservation of the case property were treated as necessary to sustain a conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained. The appellant was given the benefit of doubt and was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, non-compliance with mandatory search safeguards and an unreliable chain of custody for the seized article can create sufficient doubt to vitiate the conviction, entitling the accused to acquittal.

---