Ensuring Safe Custody of Seized Contraband: The Prosecution's Burden in NDPS Cases

In a significant judgment, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh underscored the imperative of strict procedural compliance in cases under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act), 1985. The court emphasized that the onus lies on the prosecution to establish the safe custody and handling of seized contraband, ensuring that the integrity of the evidence remains untainted throughout the investigative process. This ruling reinforces the foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence, where the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, without shifting the burden onto the accused.

Case Background

The case originated from a raid conducted in 2018 by the Kakapora Police Station in Pulwama district, acting on specific intelligence regarding the possession of narcotic substances by Abdul Hamid Bhat. The police claimed to have recovered a substantial quantity of contraband from Bhat's residence, including 104.4 kilograms of cannabis leaves and 1.2 kilograms of powdered charas. Subsequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 8 and 20 of the NDPS Act, leading to Bhat's arrest and the filing of a charge sheet before the Principal Sessions Judge, Pulwama. The trial court convicted Bhat, sentencing him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and imposing a fine of ₹1 lakh.

Appeal and Grounds of Challenge

Challenging the conviction, Bhat's counsel, Advocate Zahid Hussain Dar, raised several critical issues:

Non-Compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act: It was contended that the police failed to record the secret information in writing or convey it to superior officers, a mandatory requirement under the law.
Contradictions in Prosecution Witnesses' Testimonies: Discrepancies were highlighted regarding the place of sealing, the presence of the accused at the scene, and the location where the contraband was weighed.
Failure to Establish Safe Custody of Samples: The defense argued that the prosecution could not demonstrate that the samples remained untampered between the time of seizure and their delivery to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

Prosecution's Position

The government counsel, Syed Musaib, maintained that the prosecution had presented a cogent case, supported by consistent witness testimonies and adherence to procedural protocols. It was asserted that the seized contraband was properly sealed, documented, and forwarded to the FSL without any undue delay, thereby preserving the integrity of the evidence.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Sanjay Dhar, presiding over the appeal, conducted a meticulous examination of the case records, witness depositions, and procedural compliance. The court's analysis focused on the following key aspects:

Burden of Proof and Safe Custody
The court emphasized that in criminal jurisprudence, the burden of proof rests solely on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This principle extends to demonstrating that seized contraband remained in safe custody from the moment of seizure until its analysis. The court observed that the trial court had erroneously shifted this burden onto the accused, contrary to established legal principles.
Unexplained Gaps in Custody
A critical observation was the unexplained gap concerning the whereabouts of the seized samples between October 9, 2018, and October 30, 2018. The prosecution failed to provide any documentation or testimony clarifying the custody or storage conditions of the samples during this period. Such lapses cast serious doubts on the integrity of the evidence, as the possibility of tampering or contamination cannot be ruled out.
Chain of Custody Documentation
The court highlighted the absence of crucial records, such as the Malkhana Register entries and Daily Diary Reports, which are essential to establish an unbroken chain of custody. These documents serve as official logs detailing the handling, storage, and transfer of seized items within the police department. Their absence or non-production in court undermines the prosecution's case, as it fails to demonstrate that standard operating procedures were followed.
Role of Independent Witnesses
The court noted that the prosecution did not involve independent witnesses, such as local residents or neutral parties, during the seizure and sealing process. The presence of independent witnesses serves as a safeguard against potential fabrication or malpractice by law enforcement officials. Their absence in this case weakened the prosecution's position and raised questions about the credibility of the evidence presented.
Compliance with Statutory Provisions
The NDPS Act mandates strict compliance with procedural safeguards to prevent misuse and ensure fair trials. Sections such as 52, 52-A, and 57 outline specific protocols for seizure, sampling, and reporting. Non-compliance with these provisions can vitiate the prosecution's case. In this instance, the court found that the investigating agency had failed to adhere to these mandatory requirements, thereby compromising the integrity of the investigation.

Conclusion and Implications

Based on the aforementioned observations, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The court ordered the immediate release of Abdul Hamid Bhat, provided he was not required in any other case. This judgment serves as a critical reminder to law enforcement agencies and the prosecution about the paramount importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in NDPS cases. Failure to do so not only jeopardizes individual cases but also undermines public confidence in the criminal justice system.

The ruling reiterates that the burden of proof in criminal cases, including those under the NDPS Act, unequivocally lies with the prosecution. Establishing an unbroken chain of custody, involving independent witnesses, and maintaining meticulous records are essential components of a fair and just legal process. Any deviation from these standards can lead to the collapse of the prosecution's case, resulting in acquittals,