NDPS: Mere Production Of A Laboratory Report That The Sample Tested Was Narcotics Cannot Be Conclusive Proof: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court has held that mere production of a laboratory report that the sample tested was narcotics cannot be conclusive proof in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The contention advanced by the accused in Vijay Pandey vs. State of UP, was that there is noncompliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act in as much as the prosecution failed to prove that the sample produced in court was the same as seized from the accused. The state's contention was that the Trial Court recorded its satisfaction that the sample produced in court was the same seized from the accused and it has caused no prejudice to the appellant.

Referring to a judgment in Vijay Jain vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, the bench comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice Navin Sinha observed:

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 co¬related.

Another contention of the state was that the accused has a previous history of two convictions under the NDPS Act and he is a habitual offender. Rejecting this submission, the bench said:

The fact of an earlier conviction may be relevant for the purpose of sentence but cannot be a ground for conviction per se.

Click here to Download Judgment

Read Judgment