NDPS sample integrity and mandatory safeguards must be proved; a retracted investigative statement cannot sustain conviction alone.

In NDPS prosecutions, failure to prove the integrity of the seized sample and compliance with mandatory safeguards on search, seizure, custody, and reporting creates reasonable doubt. The court noted that the sample handling was uncertain, the seal remained usable, forwarding documentation was missing, and the sample details did not fully tally, undermining trust in the recovery. It also held that an investigative statement, treated only as an extra-judicial confession and later retracted, could not by itself sustain conviction where the surrounding evidence was doubtful. The prosecution therefore failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction was set aside with acquittal granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the recovery and the samples allegedly drawn from the seized substance were reliable and free from doubt in view of the manner in which the case property and seal were handled; (ii) Whether non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act and reliance on the statement recorded during investigation could sustain the conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the recovery and the samples allegedly drawn from the seized substance were reliable and free from doubt in view of the manner in which the case property and seal were handled.

Analysis: The material showed that the samples were not promptly deposited with the warehouse, the seal remained available for reuse, the test memo was prepared later, and the sample received by the chemical laboratory did not tally exactly with the weight of the sample said to have been drawn. The absence of supporting forwarding documentation and the lack of reliable proof regarding custody and movement of the case property created a serious doubt about the integrity of the sample and the possibility of tampering.

Conclusion: The recovery sample was not proved to be trustworthy or representative, and this issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether non-compliance with the mandatory procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act and reliance on the statement recorded during investigation could sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The record did not establish lawful authorisation for the officers who conducted the search and seizure, and there was no satisfactory proof of compliance with the statutory requirements governing seizure, custody, and reporting. The statement recorded during investigation was treated as at best an extra-judicial confession, which could not by itself form the sole basis of conviction, especially when the surrounding evidence was doubtful and the statement had been retracted.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained on the basis of the impugned statement or the non-compliant investigation, and this issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, the conviction was set aside, and the accused was acquitted of all charges.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the NDPS Act, failure to establish the integrity of the seized sample and compliance with the mandatory safeguards relating to search, seizure, custody, and reporting creates reasonable doubt that cannot be cured by a retracted investigative statement standing alone.

---