“No Contraband Was Found… Retesting Strictly Prohibited Unless in Exceptional Circumstances”: Rajasthan High Court Quashes NDPS FIR, Says Request Must Be Made Within 15 Days of FSL Report
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that no contraband was recovered in a case registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and directed that the FIR and all consequential proceedings be quashed. The Court recorded that the chemical examination report submitted to it revealed no presence of any psychotropic substance. Accordingly, the petition under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) was allowed, and the Court directed immediate release of the petitioners, if in custody. The Court also issued directions to the police and judiciary regarding re-sampling and re-testing under the NDPS Act.
The petition was filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now Section 528 BNSS, 2023), seeking quashing of FIR No. 56/2024 registered at Police Station Jhab, District Sanchore. The FIR was registered under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act against four individuals.
The case arose when law enforcement authorities received information suggesting possession of contraband substances at the residence of one of the petitioners. Acting upon the input, a police team conducted a search operation at the premises located in Sadram Ki Dhani, Village Liyadara, Jhab, District Sanchore.
During the course of the search, two individuals—Budhram alias Bhutaram and Bhanwarlal—attempted to escape but were apprehended. According to the FIR, the search of a shed within the premises led to the alleged recovery of 3.376 kilograms of a substance purported to be Mephedrone (MD). In addition, the police recovered an electronic weighing scale, a plastic sealing machine, and ₹1,50,400/- in cash, which they claimed to be proceeds from narcotic sales.
Subsequently, samples of the recovered substance were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. A report from the FSL was presented before the Court through a factual submission made by the Public Prosecutor.
The FSL report concluded that the submitted substance did not contain any psychotropic components. Specifically, it was noted in the report that the substance was a neutral material and lacked any chemical traits of a narcotic drug.
In light of this result, control samples marked as C1, C2, and C3, which had been preserved, were subsequently forwarded to the laboratory on 09.01.2025 to eliminate any doubts. A second report from the FSL dated 25.02.2025, which formed part of the factual report submitted to the Court on 26.03.2025, reaffirmed that no narcotic substance, including Methamphetamine (MDMA) or any opium alkaloids, was detected in any of the samples.
The Court recorded that the FIR was lodged on the basis of suspicion of possession of contraband. However, the findings of the chemical examiner did not support this suspicion. As per the FSL report, there was no evidence of any psychotropic or narcotic material in the sample.
The petitioners sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that in the absence of a confirmatory report establishing the presence of a banned substance, the basis for prosecution was nullified. The Court took judicial notice of the two FSL reports submitted during the course of the proceedings.
The Public Prosecutor did not dispute the contents of the FSL reports and placed them on record before the Court.
As per the observations made in the judgment, the Court also considered procedural aspects concerning the legality and timeframe of retesting or re-sampling under the NDPS Act. The judgment discussed legal limitations on re-testing practices, referencing earlier precedents and statutory guidelines.
The Court recorded: “As on date, it can be concurrently stated that the case was registered on the suspicion of possession of contraband. However, this suspicion has not been confirmed by the report of the chemical examiner. As such, there remains no case against any of the accused-petitioners.”
The Court stated: “Though as on date there is no such relevance in this case since second sample report has been received and the issue may no longer be relevant, it is being mentioned, purely as a matter of caution that any request for retesting or re-sampling cannot be entertained under the NDPS Act as a matter of course rather such a request may only be made in extremely exceptional circumstances, for cogent reasons to be recorded by the Presiding Judge.”
The Court recorded: “An application to this effect in such cases can be made within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the test report only then can an order to that effect be passed. No application for retesting or re-sampling can be entertained thereafter. In the absence of any compelling circumstances, any form of re-sampling and retesting is prohibited under the NDPS Act.”
The Court stated: “So, let it be made clear that no agency can send a sample for retesting or undertake re-sampling, outside the scope of the provisions and rules framed under the NDPS Act.”
Quoting from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Thana Singh vs. CBN, the Court cited:
“The NDPS Act itself does not permit re-sampling or re-testing of samples. Yet, there has been a trend to the contrary; NDPS courts have been consistently obliging to applications for re-testing and re-sampling… These applications add to delays as they are often received at advanced stages of trials after significant elapse of time.”
It further cited: “NDPS courts seem to be permitting re-testing nonetheless by taking resort to either some High Court judgments… or perhaps to Sections 79 and 80 of the NDPS Act… Under the NDPS Act, re-testing and re-sampling is rampant at every stage of the trial contrary to other legislations which define a specific time-frame within which the right may be available.”
The Court recorded the Supreme Court’s direction: “Any requests as to re-testing/re-sampling shall not be entertained under the NDPS Act as a matter of course. These may, however, be permitted, in extremely exceptional circumstances, for cogent reasons to be recorded by the Presiding Judge. An application in such rare cases must be made within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of the test report; no applications for re-testing/resampling shall be entertained thereafter.”
The Court further recorded: “From bare perusal of the case Thana Singh (supra)… it is evident that retesting or re-sampling should not be treated a matter of routine and will only be allowed in some exceptional circumstances which should be supported by compelling reasons recorded by the Presiding Judge and the timeline framed for application for retesting must be adhered i.e., within 15 days of receiving the initial report and beyond this period, such requests shall not be entertained except in the most extraordinary cases.”
The Court stated: “Retesting or re-sampling is generally prohibited under the NDPS Act, however, in exceptional circumstances—such as when the sample has been damaged, has deteriorated, or has been accidentally wasted or consumed in the forensic laboratory—retesting or re-sampling may be considered.”
It recorded: “Upon receiving the forensic laboratory’s report, communication, or relevant information, if the Trial Court deems it necessary to order retesting or re-sampling, it must not do so routinely or as a matter of course. It must provide specific reasons and establish reasonable grounds for such a direction after examining the police report and other materials on record.”
The Court stated: “Only upon satisfaction of these conditions, and through a well-reasoned order, can the Trial Court direct retesting or re-sampling. In the absence of such justification, it is not permissible.”
The Court concluded this section by recording: “In view of the legal as well as the factual position that no contraband is recovered in this case, the Misc. Petition deserves to be allowed.”
The Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and held that the FIR registered at Police Station Jhab, District Sanchore, and all proceedings arising therefrom were liable to be quashed. Accordingly, it ordered that the FIR and all consequential actions be set aside. It also directed that if any of the petitioners were in custody, they were to be released immediately.
The Court directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to ensure that all Station House Officers (SHOs) across the State are made aware of the legal position outlined in the judgment. A written communication in this regard was to be circulated within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Simultaneously, the Court directed that a copy of the order be sent to all judicial officers who handle NDPS trials.
“Officers entrusted with the trial of NDPS cases, directing them to strictly adhere to the principles of law laid down in the preceding paragraphs of this order.”
Lastly, the Court noted that the stay petition filed in conjunction with the main petition no longer required consideration and, therefore, stood disposed of.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, Mr. Ramesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Deepak Choudhary, AAG; Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.; Mr. Suresh Bishnoi, AGA; Mr. Jethu Singh, Dy.S.P. Sanchore; Mr. Kamlesh, SHO Jhab; Mr. Arun, SHO Jhab; Mr. Gangaprasad, Constable Jhab; Mr. Mangaram, Constable Jhab; Mr. Jagram, Constable Jhab
Case Title: Sadaram & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025:RJ-JD:16557
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) No. 858/2025
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali
[Read/Download order]
