Allahabad HC: Forensic Science Laboratory Report Need Not Be Proved by Calling Its Director, as It is a Public Document

Background of the Case

• 10 Kg of "charas" was recovered from the trolley bag of Jose Luis Quintanilla Sacristan, a Spain national.
• The officers tried to search the accused after the recovery. A search by any gazetted officer was offered to the accused. Still, he stated that the police personnel could conduct his personal search, to which he also consented in writing.
• A 100-gm sample was sent to Varanasi's Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis, and the rest of the substance was sealed separately.
• Learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the sentence and ordered a conviction of the accused of ten years R.I. and Rs.1,00,000/- fine (in default, imprisonment for six months) under Section 8 read with Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
• Hence, the appeal against the sentence has been brought before the Allahabad High Court.

Submissions by the Appellant

• The appellant argued that Section 50 of the NDPS Act 1985 had not been complied with since it is contended that he was offered personal search in the presence of a gazetted officer but no independent witness corroborated for the same.
• It was also argued that he did not receive the option to seek a gazetted officer or Magistrate before searching the properties of the accused person.
• It was also claimed that no member of the police party spoke Spanish, making it impossible for them to explain anything to the accused about his search, arrest, etc.
• The prosecution did not prove that the sample sent to the laboratory was found to be "charas" because the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory was not on record, according to the appellant.

Observations by the Court

• The Court stated that the provision of Section 50 of the Act is invoked only in the case of a personal search and not when the search was conducted for reasons other than the accused's personal search.
• In regards to the admissibility of the laboratory report confirming whether the sample seized from the trolley bag was “charas” or not, the Court held that because a report of the State Forensic Science Laboratory is admissible in evidence (as per Section 293 Cr.P.C.), there is no need to call the Director of that laboratory to have the same proved.

Court's Order

• The accused's appeal was heard by the Allahabad High Court's Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Tyagi.
• In light of the previous case, the Court came to the firm conclusion that the prosecution had established its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant had been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.

What do you think about this case?