In a recent legal development, Justice Anil L. Pansare of the Bombay High Court addressed a case where an appeal challenged a judgment made by a Special Judge under the NDPS Act. In this context, Justice Anil L. Pansare stressed the importance of having a Magistrate present to supervise the process of drawing samples.

In the specific case involving Sunil Basant Malvi and Sohel (also known as Sohail Khan), the appellants were charged with the transportation of Ganja from Koradi Road to Chindwara. The prosecution's case was primarily built upon the confiscation of two bags filled with Ganja from a Swift Dzire car. These bags were seized during the investigation, and samples from them were collected at the scene.

The appellants contested their conviction under Sections 20 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. Their lawyer, Prakash Naidu, put forward the argument that the samples used as evidence were collected at the location of the seizure and not in the presence of a Magistrate, thus contravening legal requirements. Naidu referred to the Supreme Court case of Union of India v. Mohanlal to bolster his argument, underscoring the necessity for the procedure of sample collection to adhere to the legal standards established in Mohanlal's case.

The state, with Ms. H. S. Dhande, serving as the Assistant Public Prosecutor, upheld the trial court's decision, which had previously found the appellants guilty of violating the NDPS Act. The prosecution maintained that the samples collected at the scene were legitimate and in compliance with the legal requirements. They opposed the annulment of the trial court's judgment and urged the High Court to confirm the convictions.

The High Court observed that the samples collected in front of a Magistrate on a specified date were not forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Instead, the samples gathered at the scene were sent to the FSL. This deviation from the prescribed procedure, as outlined in the Union of India vs. Mohanlal case, raised doubts about the prosecution's case.

The High Court expressed the view that the trial court had not given due consideration to the legal principles established in the Mohanlal case, leading to an erroneous judgment.

Based on these observations, the High Court granted the appeal, annulled the contested judgment, and directed the release of the appellants.

Case: Sunil Basant Malvi v. Sohel, Criminal Appeal No.270/2023.