An officer who burnt a piece of the seizure and called it charas did not prove what the substance was

Justices Sandeep Mehta and Manmohan acquitted two men sentenced to eight and ten years under the NDPS Act, holding the identity of the contraband was never established.

In a prosecution under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, everything depends on what the substance was. On 16 September 2026 the Supreme Court set aside convictions and sentences of eight and ten years' rigorous imprisonment because the prosecution never proved that. The only identification of the seizure as charas came from the seizing officer, who said he had burnt part of it and drawn his conclusion from the result. The Court held that this cannot establish the identity of a contraband, and acquitted both men.

The seizure

On 29 November 2004 at about 12.35 p.m., an Inspector then posted as Station House Officer at a police station in Jabalpur District claimed to have received credible information that two persons, one of them disabled, were carrying charas in bags and had alighted from an autorickshaw near a crossing in Jabalpur. He recorded the information in the station diary, prepared the requisite panchnama and forwarded the information to the City Superintendent of Police. Two panch witnesses were associated with the proceedings.

The Special Judge (NDPS) at Jabalpur convicted both men on 5 September 2006. One was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Act and sentenced to eight years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 80,000, in default a further eighteen months. The other was convicted under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 1,00,000, in default a further two years. The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur dismissed their appeals by a common judgment of 26 November 2010.

Identity is an ingredient, not a detail

The Supreme Court approached the case through the definition. For the penal consequences under Section 20 to follow, the prosecution must establish that the substance recovered answers the description of charas within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(a) of the Act. That is foundational evidence, and without it an essential ingredient of the offence is missing.

The evidence offered on that point was the testimony of the seizing officer, who said that the suspected contraband had been tested by burning a part of it, and that on the basis of that test he was able to conclude the substance was charas. The Court found the account unworthy of credence. There is no scientific material on the record to establish that the nature or identity of a contraband can be determined as charas merely by burning a part of it. In the absence of scientific or other reliable material supporting the identification, the officer's testimony could not by itself establish what the substance was.

The consequence

Because the prosecution failed to prove that the substance recovered was charas, the convictions recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court were held unsustainable in law, and the appellants were held entitled to the benefit of doubt.

Order

The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5 September 2006, and the common judgment of the High Court dated 26 November 2010 affirming it, were set aside. Both appellants were acquitted of the charges. They were on bail and were directed not to surrender, with their bail bonds discharged. The appeals were allowed and pending applications disposed of.