Supreme Court of India

NDPS Act

Supreme Court Acquits Two In NDPS Charas Case Over Broken Chain Of Custody Of Samples

Abdul Rajik and Govind vs. State of M.P. 2026 INSC 1001 Decided 16 September 2026

Published: 22 September 2026 · NyayVidhan · 2 min read

The Supreme Court has acquitted two men convicted under the NDPS Act, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the seized substance was charas. The forensic report was discarded because the chain of custody of the samples was broken, including an unexplained five-day gap, and no other admissible evidence identified the substance.

Supreme Court Acquits Two In NDPS Charas Case Over Broken Chain Of Custody Of Samples

Judgment Intelligence

Conviction Set Aside

Abdul Rajik and Govind vs. State of M.P.

2026 INSC 1001

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1561 of 2014 with Criminal Appeal No(s). 1562 of 2014

Court: Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision: 16 September 2026
Bench: Justice Sandeep Mehta, Justice Manmohan
Relevant Acts & Sections: Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 -- Sections 2(iii)(a), 8, 20, 42, 50 and 52-A

Final Outcome

Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside; both appellants acquitted with the benefit of doubt (paras 37-40).

Source Supreme Court of India, decided 16 September 2026

View PDF View Full Judgment Text

Key holdings

The prosecution failed to prove the substance was charas, so the convictions were unsustainable (para 37).
An unexplained five-day gap between the forwarding letter (1 December 2004) and FSL receipt (6 December 2004) broke the chain of custody (para 29).
Nothing proved that the sample packets were sealed and marked, or that their movement out of the maalkhana was recorded (paras 20-22, 27).
Non-compliance with Section 52-A is not an automatic ground for acquittal, but total non-compliance is a relevant factor (paras 31-33).
A field burn test cannot, without scientific material, establish that a substance is charas (para 36).

Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

Police in Jabalpur said they recovered charas from bags carried by Abdul Rajik and Govind on 29 November 2004. Samples went to the forensic laboratory (FSL), whose report (Ex. P-46) called them charas. The trial court convicted both under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, sentencing them to 10 and 8 years' rigorous imprisonment. The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the convictions in 2010.

Court's Findings

Sections 42 and 50 did not apply, as the recovery was from bags carried in a public place (para 16). But link evidence was missing: nothing showed the sample packets were sealed and marked (paras 20-22), and neither a police-station forwarding letter, road certificates nor a maalkhana exit entry was proved (para 27). The forwarding letter was dated 1 December 2004, yet the FSL recorded receipt on 6 December; the five-day gap was unexplained and the carrier constable was never examined (paras 28-29). No attempt was made to draw samples before a Magistrate under Section 52-A, which the Court called total non-compliance (para 33). The FSL report was discarded, leaving no admissible proof that the substance was charas (para 35). The officer's burn test had no scientific backing (para 36).

Legal Principle

Non-compliance with Section 52-A does not by itself vitiate a trial or mean automatic acquittal; prejudice is the test. But total non-compliance bears on whether samples were kept safe, and an unbroken chain of custody must be proved before an FSL report is relied on (paras 31-32, 34).

Precedents Relied Upon

Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif (2024) 11 SCC 372
Explained Discussed at ¶ 31-32
Mere non-compliance with Section 52-A or the Standing Orders does not by itself vitiate the trial; the test is prejudice, though total non-compliance is a relevant factor in judging the chain of custody.
Bharat Aambale v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) 8 SCC 452
Explained Discussed at ¶ 31-32
Mere non-compliance with Section 52-A does not by itself result in automatic acquittal; the extent of prejudice to the accused is determinative.
Nadeem Ahamed v. State of West Bengal 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1779
Applied Discussed at ¶ 34-35
Failure to draw samples before a Magistrate and the absence of a certified inventory under Section 52-A made the sampling doubtful and the FSL report unfit to be read in evidence.

View all precedents (4)

State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh (2011) 11 SCC 559
Applied Discussed at ¶ 34-35
An unexplained gap in the custody of samples between dispatch and receipt at the laboratory compromises their sanctity and casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

Topics: Section 42 Compliance (NDPS) Section 50 Compliance (NDPS) Section 52A Compliance (NDPS) Chain of Custody Forensic Evidence

Related Judgments

Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Acquits NDPS Convict: Broken Sampling And Wrongly Clubbed Quantities

5 August 2025

Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Upholds NDPS Conviction, Lays Down Ten-Point Guide On Section 52A Compliance

6 January 2025

Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court: Delay In Section 52A Compliance Alone Cannot Justify Bail Or Vitiate NDPS Trial

20 December 2024