‘Burning Is No Way To Identify Narcotic Drug’: SC Acquits Two In Charas Case

The Supreme Court has said burning a substance is not a scientific method capable of reliably identifying it as a narcotic drug, as it acquitted two men in a case involving the alleged recovery of 1.8 kg of ‘charas’ from them in Madhya Pradesh in November 2004.

A Bench of Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan held that the testimony of the Inspector/seizure officer, who claimed that the suspected contraband was tested by burning a part of it and that he identified it as charas on that basis, was not worthy of credence.

“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,” the Bench said.

Court further held that in the absence of scientific or other reliable material supporting such identification, the testimony of the seizure officer alone could not establish that the substance recovered from the accused was charas.

Why did the Supreme Court acquit the two men?

Court found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the substance recovered from Abdul Rajik and Govind was charas. It therefore held that their conviction by the trial court, which was later affirmed by the high court, could not be sustained in law.

“The accused-appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted of the charges,” the Bench said, while setting aside the 2006 and 2010 judgments of the trial court and the high court.

The appellants had been arrested on November 29, 2004, from Jabalpur with two bags containing the alleged contraband. Rajik had been sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, while Govind had been sentenced to eight years.

What were the problems with the seizure and samples?

The Supreme Court also found several discrepancies concerning the seizure, identification and custody of the samples allegedly drawn from the seized substance.

It noted that neither the seizure memo nor the deposition of the seizure officer specified whether the weights mentioned represented the gross weight of the substance, including the packing material, or the net weight of the alleged contraband.

Court further found no indication in the seizure memos that the sample packets were secured under the signatures of the Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7), the panch witnesses and the accused-appellants.

There was also no indication that chits bearing particular identification marks were affixed to the sample packets to enable their subsequent identification and correlation with the contraband allegedly seized from the accused.

The Bench also perused the FSL report and noted that it made no reference to the sample packets bearing the signatures or thumb impressions of the accused-appellants.

How did the gap in sample custody affect the prosecution case?

Court found that the prosecution had failed to establish the complete chain of custody of the samples before they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).

The malkhana in-charge did not refer to any document prepared at the police station for forwarding the samples to the FSL. The witness also did not state that the samples remained safe and sealed until they were forwarded to the laboratory.

“None of the witnesses examined by the prosecution stated about the sanctity, safekeeping, or condition of the samples in oral evidence nor did the prosecution prove any document, viz., the forwarding letter of the police station, the road certificates, etc., which are essential documents pertaining to the link evidence necessary for lending credence to the prosecution case regarding safe custody of the samples from the time of seizure till the same reached the FSL,” the Bench said.

Court also pointed out that the prosecution had offered no explanation as to where and in whose custody the samples remained between December 1 and December 6, 2004.

“This grave discrepancy and the gap of five (5) days, completely breaches the link in the chain of custody, which was required to be established if the prosecution was desirous of placing reliance on the FSL report,” it said.

TheBench said that for an FSL report to be admitted in evidence, the prosecution must establish, through credible oral and documentary evidence, the complete chain of custody necessary to establish the integrity and sanctity of the samples.

What did the Supreme Court say about Section 52-A of the NDPS Act?

The court also found total non-compliance with the procedural safeguards under Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).

It noted that no effort had been made by the Inspector/seizure officer to follow the procedure under Section 52-A for drawing representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate.

The Bench relied on its 2025 judgment in Nadeem Ahamed v State of West Bengal, which held that failure to draw representative samples in the presence of a Magistrate and the absence of a certified inventory, in breach of Section 52-A, constituted lapses striking at the root of the prosecution case and rendered the integrity of the seizure and sampling process doubtful.

It also relied on State of Rajasthan v Tara Singh (2011), in which the Court held that an unexplained gap in the custody of samples compromises their sanctity and casts serious doubt on the prosecution case.

What was the effect on the FSL report?

In the present case, the Bench said the link evidence had been “totally breached”, leading to the collapse of the sanctity and integrity of the samples.

“It is clear that the link evidence has been totally breached leading to total collapse of the sanctity and integrity of the samples. Resultantly, the FSL Report loses its significance and must be discarded from consideration,” the Bench said.

Once the FSL report was excluded from consideration, Court found there was no other legally admissible evidence to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the accused was charas within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(a) of the NDPS Act, attracting the penal consequences under Section 20.

“In the absence of such foundational evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish an essential ingredient of the offence and, consequently, the conviction of the accused appellants cannot be sustained,” the Bench said.

Court accordingly allowed the appeals and acquitted Abdul Rajik and Govind.

Case Title: Abdul Rajik Vs State of MP

Bench: Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan

Date of Judgment: September 16, 2026