Citation : 2025 Bar Bench – CGHC 935 : 2025:CGHC:60149
The Chhattisgarh High Court on December 11, 2025, set aside a conviction in a major narcotics case, acquitting 27-year-old Ashish Kumar Pandey after finding serious gaps in the prosecution’s handling of seized evidence. The appeal arose from a 2019 recovery of more than a tonne of suspected ganja from a truck allegedly driven by Pandey; he had been convicted by a special NDPS court in Dantewada and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a ₹1 lakh fine. The High Court, however, concluded that irregularities in the collection, custody and documentation of samples undermined the trustworthiness of the forensic report and of the case as a whole.
The facts as recorded by the police show that on June 21, 2019, information led officers to stop a truck at Gumma on the main road and recover 28 sealed packets of suspected ganja, which were weighed and sampled at the scene. The prosecution’s account describes homogenization of the recovered material and preparation of 56 two-sample packets that were later sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in Raipur. But the High Court scrutinized the chain of custody and timing recorded in multiple panchnamas and found troubling inconsistencies about when samples were taken, whether and how they were sealed, and where the remaining material was stored between seizure and laboratory dispatch.
Critical witnesses for the prosecution either turned hostile or gave contradictory statements, and the investigating officer’s testimony was described as largely mechanical, relying on documentary exhibits without narrating the raid and seizure in detail. The court noted that key entries such as the malkhana register were not produced to establish that the seized material had been properly deposited and later retrieved. Because the prosecution failed to establish an unbroken and reliable link between the seized quantity and the samples examined by the laboratory, the High Court found it impossible to treat the FSL report as reliably connected to the seizure.
The judgment cites recent precedents in which the Supreme Court and other benches have underscored the need for strict adherence to custodial safeguards under Chapter V of the NDPS Act. The High Court acknowledged that mere procedural lapses will not always vitiate a prosecution, but held that where the sanctity of sample collection and safe custody is in doubt, the FSL opinion cannot sustain a conviction. Drawing on those authorities, the court described the investigation here as suffering from “material discrepancies and lacunae” sufficient to create reasonable doubt.
As a result, the High Court quashed the conviction and sentence recorded by the special NDPS court and ordered that Pandey be released forthwith unless he is required in any other case, subject to compliance with the relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The court also directed that the trial court record be returned for necessary compliance and action.
This ruling reinforces how pivotal documentary and custodial diligence are in NDPS prosecutions. Prosecutors and investigating officers should carefully follow the statutory steps for seizure, sampling, sealing and malkhana entries, and ensure contemporaneous, clear recording of who did what and when. Where the chain of custody is weak, courts will be cautious in accepting scientific reports that cannot be firmly linked to the recovered material.
Case Refernce : CRA No. 335 of 2023, Ashish Kumar Pandey vs State of Chhattisgarh
Counsels : For Appellant : Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailesh Kumar Puriya, Panel Lawyer