Chain of custody and conscious possession failures undermined the NDPS prosecution over charas recovery from a motorcycle dicky.

Recovery of charas from a motorcycle dicky was found unsafe to sustain because the prosecution failed to prove a reliable recovery and custody chain, proper malkhana deposit, clear sealing, and timely dispatch of the sample to the laboratory. The court treated the case as a chance recovery rather than a prior-information search, so the prior-authorization safeguards were not applied in the same manner as a planned search; however, the remaining evidentiary gaps still undermined the prosecution case. With no proof of ownership of the motorcycle, no seizure of the vehicle, and insufficient evidence of conscious possession, the burden under the NDPS Act was not discharged and the conviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for recovery of charas from the dicky of the motorcycle could be sustained in view of the alleged non-compliance with search and seizure safeguards, the absence of reliable link evidence, delay in sending the sample to the laboratory, and failure to prove conscious possession.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on a chance recovery from the motorcycle and not on prior information, so the court held that the safeguards relating to prior authorization were not attracted in the same manner as in a pre-planned search. However, the record showed material gaps in the proof of recovery and custody. The recovery memo did not satisfactorily explain how the contraband was weighed at the spot, there was no reliable evidence of deposit in malkhana with supporting register entry, the seal used on the seized articles was not clearly proved, and the laboratory report did not establish an intact and identifiable chain of custody. The sample also remained unexplained for the intervening period before dispatch to the forensic laboratory. The motorcycle allegedly used for concealment was not seized, ownership was not proved, and the evidence was insufficient to establish conscious possession beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the prosecution failed to discharge the burden required in a prosecution under the NDPS Act.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

---