Chain of custody defects and unsafe sampling undermined narcotics conviction despite chance recovery treatment

In a narcotics prosecution based on chance recovery, prior-information safeguards under Sections 42 and 50 were treated as inapplicable on the facts, but the prosecution still had to prove a reliable chain of custody and substantial compliance with post-seizure safeguards. The record failed to show proper sealing, storage, sampling, malkhana accounting, or timely dispatch of samples to the forensic laboratory, and the delay in the forensic process further undermined the material's genuineness. These cumulative defects made the recovery and forensic result unsafe to sustain the statutory presumption, leading to setting aside of the conviction and sentence and the appellant's acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act could be sustained in the absence of compliance with the safeguards relating to search, seizure, custody, sampling and dispatch of seized articles.

Analysis: The appellant was arrested on what was treated as a chance recovery, so the Court held that strict compliance with the prior-information requirements under Sections 42 and 50 was not attracted on the facts. Even so, the prosecution was required to establish a reliable chain of custody and substantial compliance with the safeguards governing post-seizure handling of contraband. The record did not show where the seized articles were kept, whether they were properly sealed, whether samples were drawn in accordance with the prescribed procedure, or whether the articles were produced and accounted for through the malkhana. There was also unexplained delay in dispatching the samples to the forensic laboratory and further delay in preparing the report, creating doubt about the genuineness of the material examined. In view of these cumulative infirmities, the recovery and the forensic result were held unsafe to sustain the statutory presumption and conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---