Abdul Rajik v. State of M.P., 2026

The case arose from the alleged recovery of charas from two accused, Abdul Rajik and Govind, in Madhya Pradesh.

The prosecution alleged that the appellants were intercepted while carrying bags containing suspected contraband.

Approximately 1 kilogram of suspected charas was allegedly recovered from Abdul Rajik.

Approximately 800 grams of suspected charas was allegedly recovered from Govind.

The Trial Court convicted Govind under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act.

Govind was sentenced to 8 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹80,000.

Abdul Rajik was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act.

Abdul Rajik was sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹1 lakh.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the convictions.

The accused thereafter approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court examined whether the prosecution had established an unbroken chain of custody connecting the material allegedly seized from the appellants with the samples tested by the Forensic Science Laboratory.

The Court found an unexplained five-day gap between the date on which the samples were allegedly forwarded for FSL examination and the date on which they were actually received by the laboratory.

The prosecution failed to explain where the samples remained and in whose custody they were kept during this period.

The Court also found that the sample packets lacked proper identification marks and signatures connecting them with the seized contraband.

There was no corresponding maalkhana exit entry establishing the movement of the samples from safe custody.

The Constable who allegedly carried the samples to the FSL was not examined.

The Court further found total non-compliance with Section 52-A NDPS Act regarding the drawing of representative samples before a Magistrate.

These deficiencies created serious doubts about whether the samples examined by the FSL were the same samples allegedly seized from the appellants.

The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the link evidence had completely broken down.

Once the FSL report lost its evidentiary value, there was insufficient legally admissible evidence to establish that the substance recovered from the appellants was charas.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Abdul Rajik and Govind.

The Court set aside their convictions and sentences imposed by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the required chain of custody of the seized samples.

A major deficiency was the unexplained five-day gap between dispatch of the samples and their receipt by the FSL.

The prosecution provided no satisfactory explanation regarding where the samples were kept or who had custody of them during this period.

The Court held that this unexplained gap seriously affected the integrity and sanctity of the samples.

The sample packets were also not shown to have been properly connected with the seizure through signatures or identification marks.

The absence of a maalkhana exit entry further weakened the prosecution's link evidence.

The Constable who allegedly transported the samples to the FSL was not examined.

The Court also found total non-compliance with Section 52-A NDPS Act.

The Court clarified that every instance of delay or non-compliance with Section 52-A does not automatically result in acquittal.

However, total non-compliance becomes significant when accompanied by deficiencies concerning sealing, identification and safe custody.

The cumulative effect of these defects resulted in a complete breakdown of the chain of custody.

Consequently, the FSL report became insignificant and had to be discarded.

Once the FSL report was excluded, there was no sufficient legally admissible evidence establishing that the recovered substance was charas.

Since an essential ingredient of the NDPS offence remained unproved, the convictions could not be sustained.

The appeals were therefore allowed and the appellants were acquitted.

The judgment reinforces the importance of link evidence in prosecutions under the NDPS Act.

Because NDPS offences carry stringent statutory consequences, the prosecution must establish the identity and integrity of the seized narcotic substance through reliable evidence.

The Court did not hold that every procedural irregularity automatically invalidates an NDPS prosecution.

Instead, it examined the combined effect of multiple deficiencies in the handling of the samples.

The unexplained five-day custody gap was particularly significant because the prosecution could not establish where the samples remained during that period.

This created uncertainty regarding whether the samples tested by the FSL were actually the samples taken from the seized contraband.

The absence of proper identification marks and signatures further weakened the connection between the seizure and laboratory examination.

The missing maalkhana exit entry meant that the prosecution lacked an important documentary link concerning the movement of the samples.

The non-examination of the carrier Constable created another gap concerning transportation of the samples.

The Court also considered the total failure to follow Section 52-A while assessing whether the prosecution had established secure custody.

The judgment distinguishes between minor procedural irregularities and defects that undermine the very foundation of the prosecution case.

The Court referred to the principles laid down in State of Rajasthan v. Tara Singh, concerning failure to account for custody of samples between dispatch and receipt at the laboratory.

The Court also considered the principles relating to Section 52-A discussed in Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif and Mehboob Shah v. State of Madhya Pradesh.

The central principle is that an FSL report is meaningful only when the prosecution establishes a reliable connection between the tested sample and the seized contraband.

Scientific confirmation cannot cure uncertainty about the identity or integrity of the sample itself.

The judgment therefore highlights the importance of proper sealing, identification, safe custody, maalkhana records, transportation and sampling procedures.

Ultimately, the prosecution failed to establish the foundational fact that the substance allegedly recovered from the appellants was legally proved to be charas, resulting in their acquittal.