The failure of the prosecution in the present case to relate
the seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the
case no different from failure to produce the seized sample
itself. In the circumstances the mere production of a laboratory
report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be
conclusive proof by itself. The sample seized and that tested
have to be corelated.
The observations in Vijay Jain vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 527, as follows are
considered relevant :
“10. On the other hand, on a reading of this Court's
judgment in Jitendra's case, we find that this Court
has taken a view that in the trial for an offence
under the NDPS Act, it was necessary for the
prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the
alleged quantities of the contraband goods were
seized from the possession of the accused and the
best evidence to prove this fact is to produce during
the trial, the seized materials as material objects
and where the contraband materials alleged to have
been seized are not produced and there is no
explanation for the failure to produce the
contraband materials by the prosecution, mere oral
evidence that the materials were seized from the
accused would not be sufficient to make out an
offence under the NDPS Act particularly when the
panch witnesses have turned hostile. Again, in the
case of Ashok (supra), this Court found that the
alleged narcotic powder seized from the possession
of the accused was not produced before the trial
court as material exhibit and there was no
explanation for its nonproduction
and this Court
held that there was therefore no evidence to
connect the forensic report with the substance that
was seized from the possession of the appellant.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1143 OF 2019
VIJAY PANDEY Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Dated:July 30, 2019.
Print Page
the seized sample with that seized from the appellant makes the
case no different from failure to produce the seized sample
itself. In the circumstances the mere production of a laboratory
report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be
conclusive proof by itself. The sample seized and that tested
have to be corelated.
The observations in Vijay Jain vs. State
of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 14 SCC 527, as follows are
considered relevant :
“10. On the other hand, on a reading of this Court's
judgment in Jitendra's case, we find that this Court
has taken a view that in the trial for an offence
under the NDPS Act, it was necessary for the
prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the
alleged quantities of the contraband goods were
seized from the possession of the accused and the
best evidence to prove this fact is to produce during
the trial, the seized materials as material objects
and where the contraband materials alleged to have
been seized are not produced and there is no
explanation for the failure to produce the
contraband materials by the prosecution, mere oral
evidence that the materials were seized from the
accused would not be sufficient to make out an
offence under the NDPS Act particularly when the
panch witnesses have turned hostile. Again, in the
case of Ashok (supra), this Court found that the
alleged narcotic powder seized from the possession
of the accused was not produced before the trial
court as material exhibit and there was no
explanation for its nonproduction
and this Court
held that there was therefore no evidence to
connect the forensic report with the substance that
was seized from the possession of the appellant.”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s).1143 OF 2019
VIJAY PANDEY Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
NAVIN SINHA, J.
Dated:July 30, 2019.
