Safe Custody Must Be Proved from Seizure Until Dispatch; Intact Seals at Laboratory Not Enough Where IO Retained Contraband and Seal Witness Was Withheld: Punjab and Haryana High Court Sets Aside NDPS Conviction for Unproven Chain of Custody
Case Name: Jaspal Singh and Another v. State of Punjab
Date of Judgment: September 11, 2026
Citation: CRA-S No. 55-SB of 2008
Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Mandeep Pannu
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the prosecution in an NDPS case must establish the safe custody and integrity of the seized contraband from the moment of recovery until its dispatch for chemical examination. Merely proving that the sample ultimately reached the Chemical Examiner with seals intact is insufficient where the prosecution fails to satisfactorily account for the custody of the case property during the intervening period.
The Court found that the case property had not been deposited with the Malkhana Head Constable and remained in the custody of the Investigating Officer, who was also the Station House Officer, for approximately two days. Simultaneously, the independent witness to whom the seal was allegedly entrusted was withheld from examination. These circumstances, viewed alongside material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence, created reasonable doubt regarding the preservation of the contraband and the manner of its alleged recovery.
The Court clarified that neither the non-examination of an independent witness nor the retention of the case property by the Investigating Officer is invariably fatal in isolation. However, where such defects operate cumulatively and the prosecution fails to establish an unimpeachable chain of custody, a conviction under the NDPS Act cannot be sustained.
Summary: The appeal arose from FIR No. 95 dated November 8, 2005, registered at Police Station Raman, Punjab, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The prosecution alleged that a police party headed by SI Balwant Singh was conducting patrol duty near village Ramsra when it stopped a white Maruti car occupied by Jaspal Singh and Gurcharan Singh.
According to the prosecution, a white plastic bag was lying on the front seat between the two occupants. After the accused opted to have the search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer, DSP Jaspal was called to the spot. A search allegedly resulted in the recovery of opium weighing one kilogram and 200 grams. A sample was separated, and the sample parcel and remaining contraband were sealed by SI Balwant Singh. The seal was stated to have been handed over to Major Singh, who had been associated with the proceedings as an independent witness.
Following receipt of the Chemical Examiner’s report identifying the substance as opium, the accused were prosecuted under Section 18 of the NDPS Act. By judgment dated December 6, 2007, the Special Judge, Bathinda, convicted both accused and sentenced each of them to rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months with a fine of ₹1,000.
In appeal, the appellants questioned the reliability of the recovery and the integrity of the link evidence. They contended that Major Singh, the purported independent witness and custodian of the seal, was never examined and was merely given up by the prosecution as having been won over. The defence evidence also suggested that Major Singh had repeatedly been associated as an independent witness in other police cases.
The appellants further argued that the seized property was not immediately deposited in the police Malkhana. SI Balwant Singh, who had conducted the recovery and investigation and was also serving as the SHO, admitted that the case property remained in his custody. It was forwarded for chemical examination only after an intervening period of approximately two days.
The State maintained that the official witnesses had consistently proved the recovery and that testimony given by police officials could not be discarded merely because of their official status. It submitted that the non-examination of an independent witness was not fatal and that the parcels had been received by the Chemical Examiner with their seals intact, with no direct evidence of tampering.
The High Court found the non-examination of Major Singh significant because his role was not merely formal. Apart from allegedly witnessing the recovery, he was the person to whom the seal had purportedly been entrusted after the case property was sealed. His evidence was therefore material to establish both the genuineness of the recovery proceedings and the fact that the seal remained outside the reach of the Investigating Officer.
Relying upon Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2011 (1) RCR (Criminal) 486, the Court observed that even where an independent witness is stated to have been won over, the prosecution ought to produce him so that he may be confronted with his earlier statement and the truthfulness of the prosecution case may be tested. The prosecution could not simply withhold a material witness whose evidence bore directly upon the recovery and safe custody of the seal.
The Court also relied upon Hukam Chand v. State of Punjab, 2025 LawFinder (P&H) 8005, to emphasise that the prosecution must prove that the original seal remained in the safe custody of the independent witness so as to eliminate a reasonable possibility of tampering with the sample or bulk contraband.
The custody of the seized property created a further serious infirmity. The case property was neither deposited with the MHC immediately after recovery nor placed beyond the Investigating Officer’s control. Instead, the same officer who conducted the recovery and investigation retained it for approximately two days before its further transmission. As the person allegedly holding the seal was not examined, the prosecution failed to satisfactorily account for the security of both the contraband and the seal during this crucial period.
The High Court held that proof of intact seals at the stage when the sample reached the Chemical Examiner did not, by itself, complete the chain of custody. The prosecution was required to account for safe custody at every material stage beginning with the seizure and continuing until dispatch for forensic examination.
The Court also noticed discrepancies between the statements of SI Balwant Singh and DSP Jaspal concerning the presence of other persons at the spot, the preparation of documents and the physical surroundings of the alleged place of recovery. While these discrepancies might have appeared minor if examined independently, they assumed significance when considered with the non-examination of the seal witness, the alleged repeated use of that witness in other police cases and the Investigating Officer’s retention of the case property.
The Court reiterated that the testimony of police officials may lawfully form the basis of conviction and that an investigation does not become illegal merely because the officer effecting the recovery also conducts the investigation. The acquittal was instead based on the cumulative effect of the evidentiary deficiencies. Given the stringent consequences of conviction under the NDPS Act, the prosecution was required to prove the foundational facts and link evidence with a high degree of confidence. Its evidence fell short of that standard.
Decision: The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated December 6, 2007 passed by the Special Judge, Bathinda. Jaspal Singh and Gurcharan Singh were acquitted of the charge under Section 18 of the NDPS Act by extending the benefit of doubt.