Chhattisgarh High Court overturns NDPS convictions, two women acquitted for lack of custodial proof

June 13, 2001 : The Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside earlier convictions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act after finding serious gaps in the prosecution’s handling of seized evidence. In a judgment delivered by Justice R.S. Garg, the court overturned a 1999 trial court conviction that had sentenced Savitri (aka Shobha) and Sunita (aka Sushila/Chanda) to terms of imprisonment and fines, and ordered their immediate release if they were not wanted in any other case.

The facts as recorded by the trial court were straightforward: on October 7, 1999, police received an informer’s tip that the two women were carrying ganja. Officers reached the spot, searched the accused with the consent recorded on a written notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and seized two kilograms of ganja from Savitri and 900 grams from Sunita. Samples were sealed and later sent to the forensic lab, which reported they matched ganja. Following the lab report, police filed charges and the trial court convicted.

On appeal the High Court reviewed key procedural points the defence had raised. Counsel for the accused argued the Section 50 notices were defective because they should have been served individually; they also alleged possible enmity by a police constable and, crucially, challenged the chain of custody for the seized material and the samples sent to the forensic lab. The Court examined precedent and statutory requirements, including the role of the officer-in-charge and Section 55 of the NDPS Act, which requires the police station officer to take charge of seized articles and allow his seal on samples.

Justice Garg accepted that written notices under Section 50 were produced and bore the signatures or writings of the accused, and therefore rejected the submission that notice was not properly given. The Court also found no supporting evidence for the vague claim of police enmity.

The turning point came on the question of custody and sealing. Although the forensic laboratory’s report confirmed the identity of the samples at the time of receipt, the High Court found the prosecution failed to prove that the seized articles and laboratory samples had been kept intact and under proper seal from the time of seizure until dispatch to the lab. The officer-in-charge’s affirmative steps under Section 55 — specifically, producing the seized articles before the station head for affixing the official seal and maintaining clear malkhana (property room) entries — were not established on the record. The prosecution did not examine the malkhana moharrir or produce custodial entries that would demonstrate uninterrupted, sealed custody. Several eyewitnesses turned hostile at trial and the investigating officer’s testimony did not adequately show preservation of the seal and secure custody.

Drawing on Supreme Court and High Court precedents emphasizing the importance of maintaining the sanctity of seized parcels and samples, the court held that non-compliance with the statutory safeguards left reasonable doubt about the identity and integrity of the seized material. On that basis the court concluded the prosecution had not discharged the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt and ruled in favour of the appellants. The trial court’s convictions were set aside, the appellants were acquitted, and the High Court ordered their release if no other charges detained them.

This judgment underscores a recurring theme in NDPS litigation: procedural compliance in search, seizure, sealing and custodial records is not mere formality. Proper documentary proof and reliable witness testimony about where seized articles were kept, who handled them, and whether official seals remained intact are often decisive. In this case, the absence of malkhana entries and of testimony establishing continuous, sealed custody was sufficient to tip the scales in favour of the accused.

Case Details : Criminal Appeal No. 171/2001, Savitri and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Shri Prafull Bharat, Adv. For State: Shri Deep Kesharwani, Adv.