Abdul Rajik v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Supreme Court of India, 16 September 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 1001
Convictions for possessing charas were set aside: without an unbroken chain of custody of the samples the FSL report was discarded, and a burning test at the spot could not by itself prove the substance was charas.
Facts
On 29 November 2004 a police inspector at Jabalpur, acting on information, stopped the appellants Abdul Rajik and Govind at a public road junction. Their bags held black wick-shaped material which, after a small piece was burnt at the spot, was suspected to be charas: 1 kilogram from Abdul Rajik and 800 grams from Govind. Samples were drawn and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, which reported them as charas. The panch witnesses turned hostile and the prosecution relied on police evidence. The Special Judge (NDPS), Jabalpur convicted Abdul Rajik under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act (10 years) and Govind under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) (8 years). The High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissed their appeals, and they appealed by special leave.
Questions before the Court
- Did Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act apply to a search of bags carried by persons stopped in an open public place?
- Did the prosecution prove by link evidence that the samples remained sealed and safe from the time of seizure until they reached the FSL?
- Could the seizing officer's burning test prove that the substance was charas?
What the Court held
- Since the recovery was from bags carried by persons apprehended in an open public place, neither Section 42 nor Section 50 of the NDPS Act applied.
- The prosecution must prove a complete chain of custody showing the samples were sealed and kept safe from the time of seizure until receipt at the FSL. Here nothing showed the sample packets bore identifying marks, the maalkhana register showed no exit entry, and the five-day gap between the forwarding letter and receipt at the FSL was unexplained.
- Non-compliance with Section 52-A does not by itself vitiate the trial, but total non-compliance, as here where no samples were drawn before a Magistrate, is a relevant factor in judging whether safe custody of the samples was proved.
- With the link evidence breached, the FSL report had to be discarded, leaving no admissible evidence that the substance was charas under Section 2(iii)(a). Without scientific support, the officer's burning test could not establish its identity. The appellants were given the benefit of doubt and acquitted.
Why it matters
The judgment states that an FSL report in an NDPS case can be relied on only when the prosecution proves an unbroken chain of custody of the samples, and that total non-compliance with Section 52-A weighs in that assessment. It also holds that a field identification by burning a part of the substance, without scientific or other reliable material, cannot by itself prove that the substance is charas.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“It is trite that the prosecution has to prove, by proper link evidence, that the samples extracted by seizure officer from the recovered contraband were properly sealed and remained in safe and secure condition from the time of seizure till their receipt at the FSL. Needless to say, for the FSL report to be admitted in evidence, the prosecution would have to establish, by credible oral and documentary evidence, the complete chain of custody essential to establish the integrity and sanctity of the samples.”
“Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by this Court to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the link evidence has been totally breached leading total collapse of the sanctity and integrity of the samples. Resultantly, the FSL Report (Exhibit P-46) loses its significance and must be discarded from consideration. Once the FSL report is excluded from consideration, there is no other legally admissible evidence available to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants was charas within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(a) of the NDPS Act so as to attract the penal consequences under Section 20 thereof.”
“There is no scientific material on record to establish that the nature or identity of the contraband could be determined as charas merely by burning a part thereof. Thus, in the absence of any scientific or other reliable material supporting such an identification, the testimony of the witness (PW-7) cannot, by itself, be relied upon to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants was charas.”
“This Court has held that minor lapses or procedural delay in compliance with the said provision may not, by itself, result in an automatic acquittal. However, total non-compliance would definitely be a relevant factor to be taken into account while assessing the mandatory requirement of proving that the samples were kept in a safe and secure condition, i.e., the link evidence from the time of seizure till the time the samples came to be deposited in the FSL.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P.
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 1561 of 2014 (with Criminal Appeal No. 1562 of 2014)
- Decided
- 16 September 2026
- Bench
- Sandeep Mehta, Manmohan
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Sandeep Mehta, J.