Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the place from which the contraband was allegedly Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.137 of 2023 dt.25-08-2025 recovered, neglecting the foundational fact as to ownership or connection with the accused. On other part signatures of independent witnesses on the seizure list are present, the actual examination and corroborative evidence regarding their participation is absent. Additionally, PW-4 admitted in his deposition that he did not witness the essential sampling procedure, he had only signed documents presented to him, which renders his testimony ineffective to support the prosecution case. There are material contradictions regarding sampling as PW-3 stated that he prepared samples labelled L-1 and L-2, whereas the sample received at CRCL, Kolkata was marked S-1. It is submitted that PW-2 only admitted to drawing a single sample, leading to procedural confusion and non-conformity whereas PW-4 categorically admitted that he did not witness any recovery or sampling procedures and had merely signed documents presented to him, diluting the strength of his testimony as an independent witness.

16. It is further submitted that there was complete non- compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act, which mandates both prompt recording and forwarding of information received regarding the offense. As held in Karnail Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC 539 and reiterated in Darshan Singh vs. State of Haryana reported in (2016) 14 SCC 358 and Dharamveer Prasad vs. State of Bihar reported in (2020) 12 SCC 492 delayed compliance may be explained, but total non- compliance is impermissible and fatal to the prosecution's case, there is lapses in sampling and inventory procedures as no material on record establishes that samples of seized contraband were drawn in the presence of a Magistrate or that the inventory was certified by the Magistrate. Legal principle in Yusuf @ Asif vs. State reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1328 and Nadeem Ahamed vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2025 INSC 993 is categorical in holding that such deficiency vitiates the trial and renders the primary evidence inadmissible.

"(e) Most significantly, there has been a complete failure by the prosecution to comply with the important procedural requirement, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.15 A perusal of the record makes it clear that there was no effort whatsoever, either by the seizure officer (PW-2), or the officer-in-charge, to undertake the procedure of sampling and inventory in presence of a Magistrate, in light of the aforesaid provision. The trial Court also noted that the seizure officer (PW-2) has even failed to state as to whether any inventory list had been prepared at the time of the raid.

31. In this view of the matter, we are of the firm opinion that the FSL report loses significance on account of the flawed sampling procedure undertaken by the seizure officer (PW-2), coupled with the fact that there has been a total failure by the officer-in-charge to comply with the procedure provided under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.

32. In the wake of discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm opinion that the FSL report cannot be read in evidence and consequently, there is no acceptable evidence on record to prove that the article recovered from the accused-appellant was the narcotic drug heroin, as defined under the Schedule to the NDPS Act."