Judgment Intelligence
Conviction Set AsideAbdul 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).
Five key highlights
- 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).
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).
