Court acquits convict in drugs case, cites gaps in handling of evidence

The Punjab and Haryana High Court overturned the conviction of an accused in a case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act after citing critical procedural lapses in the handling of evidence by the prosecution. The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma made it clear that procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act were non-negotiable due to the severity of the penalties involved.

Appearing before the Bench, counsel for the appellant-accused Vipul Jindal said he was convicted by the Amritsar Special Court in 2013 for alleged possession of 480 gm smack and 5,000 intoxicating capsules. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 12 years along with Rs 1 lakh fine. The conviction was primarily based on the prosecution’s claims of recovery and the subsequent forensic examination of the seized contraband. The HC revisited the case upon appeal and scrutinised the chain of custody and compliance with procedural safeguards mandated under the Act. After hearing detailed arguments advanced by Jindal, the court found significant lapses in the handling of the case property-contraband undermining the reliability of the evidence.

The Bench took note of failure to re-seal contraband after examination. The forensic laboratory report confirmed the analysis of the sealed samples, but did not state whether the examined contraband was re-sealed with the laboratory’s seal before being returned to the investigating agency. The absence of re-sealing created a gap in the chain of custody, leaving room for potential tampering.

The Bench was of the view that the prosecution was unable to establish a seamless and unbroken chain of custody, from the seizure of the contraband to its presentation in the court. The court emphasised that strict compliance with such procedures was essential to rule out any possibility of interference.

The court reiterated that non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act directly affected the prosecution’s ability to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In such cases, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.