Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(c)

Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)---

----S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotic substance---Reappraisal of evidence---Safe custody of narcotic and transmission of samples to the laboratory doubtful--Prosecution case was that 1800-grams Methamphetamine (ice) was recovered from the possession of accused---Testimonies of the prosecution's witnesses revealed material gaps and contradictions regarding the safe custody and transmission of the recovered substance from the spot to the Police Station and then samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Police Official, who allegedly conveyed the mirasila and case property to the Police Station on the basis of which FIR was registered, was neither cited nor examined as a witness---Nonproduction of said Police Official was a serious blow to the prosecution's case as in absence of his statement, there was no other evidence to prove safe transmission of the cases property and samples from the spot to the Police Station---Seizing Officer/complainant did not mention in his statement or in his cross-examination the specific act of sending the narcotic to the Police Station or to the Forensic Science Laboratory---Moharrir, admitted that the parcels were handed over to him by the Investigating Officer without the issuance of any receipt and he did not produce Register No.19 on record---Investigating Officer failed to mention the name of the person through whom the samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, although the Forensic Science Laboratory Report mentioned his own name---Moharrir also admitted not recording the statements of key persons under Section 161, Cr.P.C., and failed to exhibit any documentary trail evidencing a secure chain of custody of the samples from the spot to the Forensic Science Laboratory---In narcotics cases, due to the severity of punishment involved, the prosecution must establish an unbroken secure and reliable chain of custody of the recovered contraband from the point of seizure to its receipt at the Forensic Laboratory---Any lacuna or discrepancy in that regard rendered the entire process suspect and the report of the Chemical Examiner inadmissible or at the very least unreliable---In the case at hand, the prosecution had manifestly failed to discharge that burden---Unexplained and undocumented transmission of samples, non-examination of key witnesses, failure to produce chain-of-custody registers and contradictory statements of the prosecution witnesses cumulatively casted a serious doubt on the integrity of the evidence--Consequently, the Chemical Examiner's report became unsafe to rely upon and could not be made the sole basis for conviction---Appeal against conviction was allowed, in circumstances.