Photo: TrendSPLEND via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)
Judgment Intelligence
Petition AllowedIrfan v. State of Rajasthan
2025:RJ-JD:6059
S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 5484/2024
- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 29 January 2025
- Bench
- Justice Farjand Ali
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sections 8, 22, 25, 52A; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 233, 313, 482; Standing Order No. 1/89
Final Outcome
Petition allowed and the order of 11.12.2023 quashed. A fresh 10-gram sample is to be drawn from the remaining 380 grams under the CJM's or JM's personal supervision, sealed and sent to the FSL with his seal impression; the FSL must report within 30 days (paras 27-28).
Key holdings
- Section 52A provides judicial oversight of seized drugs through a Magistrate-certified inventory, photographs and samples treated as primary evidence (paras 9-12).
- A fair trial includes the accused's right to seek verification of material evidence on which the prosecution rests (para 13).
- Time and cost must yield to justice; an accused may be made to bear costs only where the request is delayed or frivolous (paras 15-16).
- A fresh forensic test sought during prosecution evidence is not premature defence evidence but a check on the prosecution's own case (paras 22-24).
Brief Facts
The petitioner, accused of possessing 400 grams of MDMA under Sections 8/22 and 25 of the NDPS Act, was on trial before the Special Judge, NDPS Cases, Pratapgarh (para 2). Of the 400 grams, 20 grams were taken at the spot and sent to the FSL; he said that sample did not come from the contraband recovered from him but related to some other case (para 13). His applications of 28.04.2023 and 27.07.2023 for a sample to be drawn from the article in the maalkhana were rejected on 11.12.2023 (para 2). He challenged that order under Section 482 CrPC (para 1).
Court's Findings
The Court noted that Standing Order No. 1/89 lays down strict handling of seized drugs to prevent theft or substitution, and recorded that the seizure here did not follow it (para 4). Section 52A provides for a Magistrate-certified inventory, photographs and samples treated as primary evidence, its object being judicial oversight against tampering and substitution (paras 6-12). A fair trial includes the accused's right to seek verification of material evidence underlying the prosecution case; if his plea were true, the prosecution would fail (para 13). Drawing 10 grams before a judicial officer would cause the prosecution no prejudice: delay and cost must yield to justice, the trial was at a nascent stage, and the State bears prosecution costs (paras 14-16). The result would either fortify the prosecution or prevent a wrongful conviction (paras 17-18, 20). This was not premature defence evidence but a check on the prosecution's own case, and deferring it until after the Section 313 stage would only prolong the trial (paras 22-24). Refusing it would be a dereliction of judicial duty (para 21).
Legal Principle
An accused who credibly alleges that the sample tested did not come from the seized contraband may, as part of the right to a fair trial, have a fresh sample drawn from the remaining contraband under a Magistrate's supervision and tested, particularly while the trial is at an early stage (paras 13, 21, 24-25).
