Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898

Section: 161, 173, 342, 382B

Law: Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997

Section: 9(1)(C)

SUMMARY
The High Court allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 9(1)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken, safe, and reliable chain of custody of the recovered narcotics and sample parcels from the place of recovery to the Punjab Forensic Science Agency. Serious contradictions and inconsistencies were found in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses regarding custody, handling, transmission, and deposit of the case property and samples. Crucially, statements of key witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded with an unexplained delay of more than one month, while some material witnesses’ statements were either not recorded at all or were incomplete, giving rise to a strong possibility of afterthoughts and improvements. The investigating officer admitted multiple investigative lapses, including delayed recording of statements and failure to properly document the movement of case property. In narcotics cases, where stringent punishments are prescribed, the prosecution is required to prove every link of the chain of custody beyond reasonable doubt; any missing or doubtful link is fatal to the prosecution case. As these defects created serious and reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant, resulting in his acquittal.

TAG LINE
Breaks in the chain of custody and delayed Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements are fatal in narcotics prosecutions.

ORDER;