Srinagar, Aug 9 (JKNS): The Court of Special Judge (NDPS Cases), Srinagar, has acquitted two accused persons in a 2022 narcotics case registered at Police Station Budgam, holding that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of contraband from their conscious and exclusive possession and also failed to prove the identity of the case property and an unbroken chain of custody from the alleged seizure to the laboratory.
Details available with news agency JKNS stated that, the judgment was pronounced by Special Judge (NDPS Cases) Vinod Kumar on July 29, 2026, in NDPS No. 108/2024, arising out of FIR No. 207/2022 of Police Station Budgam under Sections 8/20, 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The accused were identified as Shahnawaz Qadir Ganie, son of Ghulam Qadir Ganie, resident of Hyderpora, Srinagar, and Mohd Ayoub Sofi, son of Abdul Ahad Sofi, resident of Channa Mohalla, Hyderpora, presently Narkarah, Budgam.
According to the prosecution case recorded in the judgment, on June 23, 2022, the Officer Incharge of Police Post Humhama received information that the two accused were allegedly involved in the trade of charas and contraband medicinal preparations and had concealed the substances in the house of the first accused at Hyderpora.
The information was reduced into writing and a docket was forwarded to Police Station Budgam, following which FIR No. 207/2022 was registered. An Executive Magistrate was also requested to reach the spot. The prosecution alleged that a police party, accompanied by the Executive Magistrate and a woman Head Constable, searched the house and found both accused in a room on the rear side of the second storey.
The alleged recovery comprised 65 grams of charas, 15 bottles of a codeine-based medicinal preparation and cash amounting to ₹1.39 lakh.
However, during the trial, the defence pointed to several discrepancies in the prosecution evidence, including the fact that only two of the 15 bottles were tested while the remaining 13 were never examined by the FSL expert.
The defence also questioned the sampling process, sealing of the seized material, Malkhana records and the absence of proper identification marks on the seized articles.
The Court also examined contradictory evidence regarding the weighment of the alleged charas. One witness stated that it was weighed at a goldsmith’s shop using a bronze balance, another said it was weighed at the spot, while the Executive Magistrate stated that a digital weighing machine was used at the spot and that the scale was not sealed. Another witness said the substance was weighed at a nearby ornaments shop using a digital scale.
The Court observed that the contradictions were not merely peripheral variations, noting that the witnesses had given different accounts regarding the place of weighment, the instrument used and custody of the substance during the process.
The judgment further noted serious contradictions regarding sealing and identification of the seized material. Different prosecution witnesses gave conflicting accounts about whether the police station seal or the Tehsildar’s seal was used and whether sealing was conducted at the spot or later in an office.
The Court noted that no identification mark, number or label had been placed on the bottles, charas-like substance or currency at the time of recovery. During evidence, some witnesses were unable to confidently identify the articles produced before the Court as the same property allegedly seized from the accused.
On the chain of custody, the Court held that the prosecution was required to establish an unbroken chain from the alleged seizure to examination at the FSL. The judgment noted missing links at different stages of the custody and highlighted concerns relating to the sealing and identification of the case property.
The Court also considered the issue of sampling under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and referred to the legal requirement concerning drawing and certification of representative samples in the presence and under the supervision of a Magistrate. It further relied on the principle that the sample tested by the laboratory must be properly correlated with the material allegedly seized.
The Court observed that once the recovery itself was found unproved, the prosecution’s reliance on the alleged quantity of contraband could not sustain the case. It also noted that 65 grams of charas constituted a small quantity under the applicable notification and that, after excluding the 13 untested bottles, the alleged medicinal preparation would fall far short of commercial quantity.
The Court further declined to rely on an alleged confession attributed to the accused during the search, holding that such a confession was inadmissible and unsupported by other evidence or documents.
On the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the offence.
In its final findings, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the recovery of contraband from the conscious and exclusive possession of the accused and had also failed to establish the identity of the case property and an unbroken chain of custody from the alleged seizure to the laboratory. The Court further held that cumulative procedural defaults deprived the prosecution case of the assurance of fairness and reliability.
Accordingly, the Court acquitted Shahnawaz Qadir Ganie and Mohd Ayoub Sofi of the offences under Sections 8/20, 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act in FIR No. 207/2022 of Police Station Budgam, extending them the benefit of doubt.
The Court ordered that if the accused were in custody, they be released forthwith if not required in any other case. Their bail bonds, if applicable, will remain in force for six months in terms of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to enable their appearance before the appellate court, if required.
The Court directed that the sealed bottles, charas-like substance and samples be preserved intact and, after expiry of the appeal period and subject to any order of the appellate court, disposed of in accordance with Section 52-A of the NDPS Act and applicable rules. The seized cash of ₹1.39 lakh is also to be dealt with in accordance with law after expiry of the appeal period.
The case was formally disposed of by the Court, with the judgment pronounced on July 29, 2026. (JKNS)
