Supreme Court of India· 16 September 2026

Can the recovered substance be proved to be a narcotic drug without other admissible evidence once the FSL report is excluded?

ABDUL RAJIK v. STATE OF M.P

2026 INSC 1001
Coram: Justice Sandeep Mehta · Justice Manmohan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narc…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Once the FSL report is excluded, the recovered substance cannot be proved to be a narcotic drug without other admissible evidence.

No. Once the FSL report is excluded, the recovered substance cannot be proved to be a narcotic drug without other admissible evidence. A visual and burn test conducted by the seizure officer at the spot, without any scientific material supporting such identification, cannot by itself establish that the substance recovered was charas, so the prosecution failed to prove an essential ingredient of the offence and the accused-appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt. (¶35, 36, 37)

Headnote

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s.52-A — Chain of custody — Link evidence — ss.42, 50 — FSL report — NDPS Act, 1985 — Chain of custody — Link evidence — Held: The prosecution cannot rely on an FSL report where an unexplained gap breaks the chain of custody of the seized samples. Safe and secure custody from seizure till receipt at the FSL must be proved by proper link evidence. (¶29, 30, 34) NDPS Act, 1985 — s.52-A — Non-compliance — Held further: Mere non-compliance with Section 52-A does not by itself vitiate the trial, but total non-compliance is a relevant factor in assessing whether the link evidence was proved. (¶31, 32, 33) NDPS Act, 1985 — ss.42, 50 — Open public place — Held further: Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act do not apply where the accused is apprehended and searched in an open public place. (¶16) FSL report — Essential ingredient — Held further: Once the FSL report is excluded, the recovered substance cannot be proved to be a narcotic drug without other admissible evidence. Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside and the accused-appellants acquitted. (¶35, 37, 38, 39)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 35Applying the aforesaid principles laid down by this Court to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the link evidence has been totally breached leading total collapse of the sanctity and integrity of the samples. Resultantly, the FSL Report (Exhibit P- 46. loses its significance and must be discarded from consideration. Once the FSL report is excluded from consideration, there is no other legally admissible evidence available to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants was charas within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(a) of the NDPS Act so as to attract the penal consequences under Section 20 thereof. In the absence of such foundational evidence, the prosecution has failed to establish an essential ingredient of the offence and, consequently, the conviction of the accused- appellants cannot be sustained.

Paragraph 36The story set up in the testimony of the Inspector/seizure officer (PW-7), that the suspected contraband was tested by burning a part thereof and that, on the basis of such test, the said officer could conclude that the substance was charas, is also unworthy of credence. There is no scientific material on record to establish that the nature or identity of the contraband could be determined as charas merely by burning a part thereof. Thus, in the absence of any scientific or other reliable material supporting such an identification, the testimony of the witness (PW-7) cannot, by itself, be relied upon to establish that the substance allegedly recovered from the accused-appellants was charas.

Paragraph 37As an upshot of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the substance recovered from the accused-appellants was charas. Consequently, the conviction of the accused- appellants, as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the High Court, is unsustainable in law. The accused-appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted of the charges.

Acts & Sections

Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 52-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985Section 2(iii)(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of ABDUL RAJIK v. STATE OF M.P — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can the prosecution rely on an FSL report where an unexplained gap breaks the chain of custody of the seized samples?Does mere non-compliance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act by itself vitiate the trial or cause an automatic acquittal?Do Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act apply where the accused is apprehended and searched in an open public place?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections