NDPS Act: Sample Parcels Sent To FSL Necessarily Required To Be Sealed And Produced In Court After Examination:..
🔷 1. Context under the NDPS Act
The NDPS Act, 1985, governs offences related to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. It provides strict procedural safeguards to ensure:
Fairness in investigation and trial,
Prevention of tampering or substitution of evidence,
Protection of the accused’s rights.
One key safeguard is the handling of seized narcotic substances sent for chemical analysis at the FSL.
🔷 2. Sample Parcel Requirement
When narcotic substances are seized, the investigating officer must:
Prepare a sample parcel from the seized consignment,
Seal the sample properly,
Send the sealed sample parcel to the FSL for analysis.
🔷 3. Why Is Sealing and Proper Handling Important?
To maintain the integrity and authenticity of the evidence,
To prevent tampering, contamination, or substitution,
To ensure the sample tested at the FSL is the same as seized by the police,
To maintain chain of custody, crucial for admissibility in court.
🔷 4. Legal Provisions
Section 42 of the NDPS Act lays down the procedure for search, seizure, and custody of narcotic substances.
Rule 55 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 prescribes the procedure for sending seized samples to FSL.
The sample must be properly sealed, signed by the officer, and received by FSL officials with acknowledgment.
🔷 5. Production of Sample Parcel in Court
After FSL examination, the sealed sample parcel is required to be produced in court during trial.
This allows the court and the parties to verify the authenticity of the sample tested.
Ensures the chain of custody is intact and the accused is not prejudiced.
🔷 6. Failure to Comply
If sample parcels are not sealed properly or not produced in court, it can lead to:
Doubts about the authenticity of the evidence,
Possibility of tampering or substitution,
Evidence being excluded or given less weight,
In extreme cases, acquittal of the accused.
🔷 7. Relevant Case Law
✅ State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh (1999) 2 SCC 172
Supreme Court held that sealing of the sample parcel before sending to FSL is mandatory.
The court stressed that non-sealing or improper sealing would vitiate the evidence.
Production of the sealed sample in court is necessary for maintaining chain of custody.
✅ Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) 14 SCC 489
The Court reiterated the importance of strict compliance with procedure under NDPS.
It held that the sample parcel sent to FSL must be sealed, signed, and produced in court.
Failure leads to presumption of tampering and can result in acquittal.
✅ Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India (2012) 5 SCC 368
Supreme Court emphasized that non-production of the sample parcel before the court after FSL examination amounts to violation of natural justice.
The court observed that the sample tested in FSL and produced in court must be the same substance seized.
✅ Sukhdev Singh v. State of Haryana (2010) 9 SCC 682
Court held that the procedure of sending samples to FSL must be strictly followed, including proper sealing and production.
The integrity of the sample is paramount to uphold the prosecution’s case.
🔷 8. Summary of the Legal Position
| Requirement | Reason |
|---|---|
| Sealing of sample parcel | Prevent tampering; maintain authenticity |
| Signing by officer and receipt | Maintain chain of custody |
| Sending sealed sample to FSL | For independent chemical analysis |
| Production of sealed sample in court | Verify evidence; protect accused rights |
🔷 9. Practical Implication
Investigating officers must strictly adhere to procedural safeguards while handling narcotic evidence. Courts have consistently ruled that any deviation from the mandatory procedure, especially regarding sealing and production of sample parcels, may jeopardize the prosecution's case.
🔷 10. Conclusion
Under the NDPS Act, sending sample parcels to FSL in sealed condition and producing them in court after examination is a mandatory requirement. This ensures the integrity and reliability of the evidence and safeguards the rights of the accused. Non-compliance with these procedures can lead to acquittal on the ground of chain of custody breach.
RELATED Blog
0 comments