Default Bail And Incomplete Chargesheets In NDPS Cases - A Critical Analysis Of Judicial Divergence

Author: LawSphereX

Category: Criminal Law

Published: 2026-08-23T19:14:26.391Z

Updated: 2026-08-30T07:10:03.619Z

DEFAULT BAIL AND INCOMPLETE CHARGESHEETS IN

NDPS CASES: A CRITICAL

ANALYSIS

OF JUDICIAL DIVERGENCE

Krishna Preetham Kanthi, Symbiosis Law School, Pune

ABSTRACT

Drug usage has surged dramatically over the past few decades with the cases in India having risen by 7. 7 percent (approx. ) 1 with a 20 per cent increase of certain category of drugs2 worldwide as compared to previous years. The government is effectively tackling the issue by employing various enforcement agencies with NCB being the nodal agency. Then comes the onus of conducting trial on the courts. At this stage, during the trial, it may happen sometimes that the trial slows down, the accused is discharged or the case is dismissed due to procedural lacunae in the investigation. One of such procedural lacunae by the investigative agencies which is commonly seen is that the investigation remains pending, even beyond the time stipulated by Law which often takes the form of a bail petition before the court under relevant provisions.

The author herein examines various judgements regarding the essentials of the investigation report ought to be filed at the end of the investigation before the court and one of these being the proof of the contraband seized by the relevant enforcement agency. The article delves into the findings of various courts and their rulings. With the question of law pending before the supreme court, and various rulings contrary to one another amongst the lower judicial fora, the author analyses these judgements and analyses the key ratio to make an effective attempt towards breaking down the legal interpretation adopted by the same, and lastly, the future implications of this decision.

1 https://pib.gov.in/PressReleaseIframePage.aspx?PRID=1942884, Last visited ( 27-8-2024)

2 https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/06/1151446, Last visited ( 27-8-2024)

Introduction

In recent years there has been an alarming rise in the usage of narcotic substances in various parts of the world. With India being no exception to the same, it has a well-established system of legislations as well as agencies dealing with the same. However, have you ever wondered, how an officer from the investigative agency would recognise a narcotic substance? What means does he have to do the same? or what proof is required for the Court to believe that the substance is a banned substance under? Well, there are a few methods , the most important one being the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. Given by the Central Forensics Sciences Laboratory, functioning under the Bureau of Police Research & Development.

with narcotic and psychotropic substances being rare, and neither the investigative agencies nor the Court before which the case is being tried have adequate knowledge about these substances, it is imperative for both these agencies to know about the contraband which is ceased for the purposes of investigation as well as trial . With the importance of an FSL report mentioned, this paper deals with whether the FSL report is a part of the chargesheet which is necessary for the Court to take cognizance and if yes, can a default bail be granted to the accused on non-filing of FSL report along with FIR. Various Courts have given their respective interpretations with some agreeing to the above-mentioned stance and some opposing it.

This divergence in judicial opinion has significant implications for the prosecution and Défense in narcotics cases, especially with regards to default bail under the Cr. P. C. The paper will analyse landmark judgments and current legal frameworks to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role and necessity of the FSL report in the criminal justice process concerning offenses under the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act3. Synopsis: (1) Introduction: Usage of Forensics in India Default Bail Vis-à-vis Incomplete Chargesheet. 3 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, No. 61, Acts of the Parliament, 1985, (India).

(2) Significance of Forensic science report as a part of Chargesheet: Significances through various judgements. (3) Analysis: Analysis with reference to prevailing conditions in India and Comparative jurisdictional analysis. (4) Conclusion. Usage of Forensics in India The word forensics originates from the Latin word "forensis," meaning "public," and "forum," meaning "Court. " Blacks law dictionary describes forensics as something which Belonging to the Courts of justice4. Additionally, forensic can describe processes or techniques related to the scientific investigation of crimes, such as DNA analysis, fingerprint analysis, or ballistics. This aspect of forensic investigation is often referred to as forensic science. The Indian legal system lacks specific or centralized legislation regarding the preparation of forensic reports and the gathering of evidence.

Even though it is admissible in the evidence law, this deficiency is evident in the absence of clear provisions in the Procedural Law, highlighting a failure to modernize laws in line with scientific advancements. This gap can potentially create loopholes in the collection of forensic evidence by investigating officers. Some of the provisions include Section 53 of the CrPC5( sec. 51 of BNSS) which says that if there are reasonable grounds to believe that conducting a medical examination could provide additional evidence in the case, whether it be in favour of or against the accused, the accused may be examined by a medical professional at the request of the police officer. Additionally, Section 546( sec.

53 of BNSS) authorises the examination of a detained individual upon their request, provided that the arrested individual is of the opinion that the examination will invalidate any charges that have been filed against them. The situation improved with the 2005 amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which

4 https://thelawdictionary.org/forensic/, Last visited ( 27-8-2024)

5 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, §53, Act No.2, Acts of the Parliament, 1974, (India).

6 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, §54, Act No.2, Acts of the Parliament, 1974, (India).

introduced Section 53A7 ( sec. 52 of BNSS), empowering medical practitioners to extract samples for DNA profiling. However, the implementation of this provision remains contentious, with differing opinions among various High Courts and the Supreme Court regarding its constitutionality. Critics argue that police officers may misuse this provision to suit their own interests. Nonetheless, in Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya v State of Karnataka8, the Court upheld the necessity and constitutionality of this provision. Now, we shall shed some light upon the various bail provisions, especially default bail u/s 167 of the Cr. P. C, the relief which has been the most sought after in the cases where the FSL report was not attached with the charge sheet ( u/s 187 of BNSS).

Introduction to default Bail Default Bail Besides various other provisions for bail in the procedural Law, another provisions which is helpful for seeking bail is default bail which is based on procedural lacunae unlike others which revolve around various aspects of crime and position of the accused. Provision for default bail is provided for u/s 167(2)9 of CrPC , ( u/s 187 of BNSS),titled “Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours”, which says that an accused shall be released on “default bail” if the investigation is not complete within 60 or 90 days – depending on the prescribed punishment for the offence. However, if a chargesheet is filed in this duration, then default bail cannot be granted.

Default Bail Vis-à-vis Incomplete Chargesheet The practice of filing preliminary chargesheet without concluding the investigation, with the intention of scuttling the right of accused to default bail, was the subject to judicial scrutiny in two recent judgements. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has seemingly adopted divergent views on the grant of "default bail" to an accused, despite the investigation being pending These are Ritu Chhabaria v Union of India & Ors. 10 and CBI v Kapil Wadhwan and Anr. 11

7 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, §53A, Act No.2, Acts of the Parliament, 1974, (India).

8 Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya v. State of Karnataka, 2014 SCC OnLine Kar 12805

9 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, §167, Act No.2, Acts of the Parliament, 1974, (India).

10 Ritu Chhabaria v Union of India & Ors Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 60 of 2023

11 CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan 2024 SCC OnLine SC 66

A. In Ritu Chhabaria case, the Court held that an investigating agency must refrain from filing a chargesheet without concluding the investigation, as this would deprive an accused of the right to default bail u/s 167(2)12 of the CrPC. The right to default bail under the same would not be extinguished by the filing of an incomplete chargesheet. Furthermore, the trial Court is prohibited from extending the remand of an apprehended individual beyond the maximum specified period without offering default bail. It was noted that the practice of filing preliminary reports without concluding the investigation is to undermine the right to default bail. The purpose of Section 167(2)13 of the CrPC would be undermined and the fundamental rights of accused persons would be violated if such chargesheets were permitted to extend remand.

A supplementary chargesheet stating that the investigation is still pending cannot be used to undermine the right to default bail, as it would defeat the purpose of default bail. The Court mentioned the case of Union Of India v. Thamisharasi14, in which the court considered the denial of default bail to be a violation of Article 2115 of the Constitution. It also referred the case of Ashok Munilal Jain v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement16, in which the right to default bail was held to be an indefeasible right of the accused. It further held the following position: I.

A chargesheet cannot be filed by an investigating agency for the purpose of depriving a detained accused of their right to default bail unless the investigation of the case has been completed. II.

The right to default bail u/s 167(2) CrPC is not nullified if an investigating authority submits such a chargesheet without first completing the investigation.

12 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, § 167, Act No.2, Acts of the Parliament, 1974, (India).

13 The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, §167, Act No.2, Acts of the Parliament, 1974, (India).

14 Union of India v. Thamisharasi, (1995) 4 SCC 190

15INDIA CONST., ART. 21

16 Ashok Munilal Jain v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, (2018) 16 SCC 158

III.

In such situations, the trial Court would not continue to remand an arrested person beyond the maximum stipulated time. B. In CBI v. Kapil Wadhawan, The Court held that the statutory requirement for a report u/s 173(2) of the CrPC is met if it includes the prescribed details u/s 173. This report notifies the Court that the investigating officer has gathered sufficient evidence for the Court to proceed with the inquiry into the cognizable offense and that the necessary information is being provided. It is not necessary for the report to contain all details of the offense. The investigating officer would have the right to request for further investigation under sub-section (8) of Section 173, even after filing a chargesheet under sub-section (2).

Ideally, all documents filed by the prosecution should accompany the chargesheet, but the absence of some documents does not invalidate the chargesheet. Court takes cognizance of the offense, and not the offender, and once it is satisfied with the material produced along with the chargesheet, it can proceed, regardless of whether further investigation is pending or not. The pendency of further investigation does not invalidate the chargesheet, nor does it entitle the accused to default bail on the grounds of an incomplete chargesheet or non-compliance with Section 173(2). With these two judgements giving seemingly contrary views, one aspect of law can be clearly inferred upon examining the ratio penned down in these judgements: I.

An investigating agency is prohibited from filing a chargesheet solely to deprive an accused of their right to default bail without having completed the investigation of the case. The entitlement to default bail would not cease to exist due to such a chargesheet. In such instances, the trial court is prohibited from extending the remand of an arrested individual. II.

A complete chargesheet, as required by Section 173(2), includes all the prescribed details and serves as a communication to the Court that the investigating officer has gathered sufficient evidence to inquire into the offence. The chargesheet is considered complete when it is accompanied by all the necessary documents and witness statements as specified in Section 175(5).

III. the completeness of the chargesheet depends upon the satisfaction of the Court about the offence and whether it takes cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the accused. However, the judgement in Ritu Chhabaria has been stayed by the Supreme Court, and a review of the judgement is currently underway. The Supreme Court issued further instructions for Courts to consider the grant of "default bail" without reference to the judgement in Ritu Chhabaria. Significance of Forensic science report as a part of Chargesheet.

Now, with these judgements with regards to default bail pronounced by the supreme Court in the frame, there remains ambiguity about the completeness of a chargesheet in the cases involving narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, with some judgements holding that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report/forensics report/ Expert opinion is the part of the chargesheet and some holding otherwise. Some of these judgements are analysed below: Judgements holding that FSL is not a part of the Chargesheet: I.

Kishan Lal v. State17 In this case, the samples from the seized contraband was ‘Poppy Straw’ and ‘Charas’, carrying both which is an offence under the NDPS act. the Court ruled that it is not obligatory to include the Forensic Report with the chargesheet and held that the argument of the petitioners that the report u/s 173(2) of the Code, is to be deemed "incomplete" in the absence of the expert's opinion for offences under the NDPS Act is wholly misconceived. Ratio: The Court noted that cognizance of the offence can be taken based on report , despite being comprehensive except for the expert's opinion. The Magistrate has the authority to request a copy of the expert's opinion while exercising his judicial discretion. There may be instances where no public witnesses have been listed. however, this alone would not establish the position

17 Kishan Lal v. State, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 348

that the investigation is incomplete until the Government expert's opinion is received. The police report would be a comprehensive report if it were submitted in accordance with 173(2) of the Code. The Court placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Mehal Singh18, and Harichand and Raj Pal v. State19in which petitioners have placed great reliance on similar arguments , and the court has also determined that the investigation of an offense cannot be deemed unconclusive solely because the Investigating Officer, upon submitting his report in accordance with Subsection (2) of Section 173 of the Code, was still awaiting the expert's report. II.

Mohd. Arbaz v. State (NCT of Delhi)20, In this case, The Court noted that the petitioner, the State of Haryana, had challenged the impugned order which affirmed the order passed by the Sessions Court granting default bail to the respondent u/s 167(2) Cr.P.C. This challenge was based on the prosecution's failure to file the FSL report with the charge-sheet u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. However, the Court considered that the quantity of smack found in the respondent's possession was small (15 grams and 100 milligrams) and that the respondent had already been incarcerated for three months. Consequently, the Court was not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court and The special leave petition was dismissed. The Court has left the question of law open. III.

Hanif Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi)21 In this case, the petitioner was accused of having of 2 kilograms of heroin in his custody, violating various provisions of The NDPS Act). The petitioner approached the High Court on the basis that the complete chargesheet was not filed within the stipulated time as per Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (the Code). The chargesheet was filed within the stipulated time, but it did not include the report from the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). The FSL report, confirming the seized material as heroin, was submitted later . Invoking Section 167(2) of the Code, the petitioner sought default bail.

18 State of Haryana v. Mehal Singh, AIR 1978 Punjab & Haryana 341

19 Harichand and Raj Pal v. State, ILR (Delhi) 1977

20 Mohd. Arbaz v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3397

21 Hanif Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine SC 537

Ratio: The High Court relied on the following judgements: Mohd. Arbaz v. State (NCT of Delhi)22, the Court had taken a view that the accused would not be entitled to statutory bail merely because the FSL Report was not part of the chargesheet. An appeal against the said judgment is pending before the Supreme Court. Kishan Lal v. State23, has held that it is not mandatory to file the FSL Report along with the chargesheet. The relevant observations are set out below: “We thus hold that u/s 173(2) of the Code there is no mandate that a police report must enclose the document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Government scientific expert. In the present cases, as cognizance of the offences taken by the Magistrate was proper and valid, no order releasing the petitioners on bail u/s 167(2) of the Code was required to be passed. ” Suleman v.

The State (NCT of Delhi)24 has held that non filing of the FSL Report with the chargesheet would not entitle the accused to grant of statutory bail. Relevant observations are set out below: “At present, the settled law persists in the view that non filing of FSL Report with the charge sheet does not fall within the realms of Section 173(2) of the Cr. P. C. so as to consider it as “incomplete report”. In the present case although FSL Report has not been filed, however, the charge sheet was already filed on 03. 03. 2021 within the time period as per law. Further, the amount of quantity recovered from the accused is of commercial nature baring the accused from bail u/s 37 of the NDPS Act. The Court also observed that There are other orders also passed by this Court, where similar questions of law are involved but interim bail has not been granted in every petition.

It has been declined in the cases of Pabitra Narayan Pradhan v. The State (NcT) of Delhi25, Shankar @ Shiva Maheshwar Savai v. The State of26 but in none of these cases, it has been finally determined as to whether failure on the part of the prosecution to include the FSL report along with the chargesheet in relation to offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 would automatically entitle the accused to default bail or not.

22 Mohd. Arbaz v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 2542

23 Kishan Lal v. State, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 348

24 Suleman v. The State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 5 HCC (Del) 108

25 Pabitra Narayan Pradhan v. The State (NcT) of Delhi [SLP (crl.) Diary No. 43791 of 2023

26 Shiva Maheshwar Savai v. The State of Gujarat SLP (Crl.) No. 2562/2023

Finally, in view of there being diversity of views of different Benches of this Court even on the question of granting interim bail, The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question as to whether a person accused of committing offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 is entitled to default bail on the failure of the prosecution to furnish the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory along with the chargesheet within the prescribed time. Judgements holding a view that FSL is not a part of the Chargesheet: I.

Suleman v. The State (NCT of Delhi), ,27 This case deals with an offence registered under the NDPS Act . Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed without the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report. It was indicated in the charge-sheet that a supplementary charge-sheet would be filed upon receiving the FSL report. During the arrest, 300 grams of heroin was found in possession of the accused and 6 grams of heroin was recovered from a co-accused. The Petitioner filed an application for default bail u/s 167(2) of the Cr. P. C. The Petitioner had argued that the charge-sheet was incomplete as it was filed without the FSL report. the Court held that it is the established law that non filing the FSL report with the charge sheet does not render it an "incomplete report" u/s 173(2) CrPC.

In this case, the charge sheet was files within the time as stipulated u/s 167, but the FSL report has not yet been filed. The Court relied heavily on Babu v. State (NCT of Delhi)28 , which had relied on an judgement In Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab29 which held the following: “Inspection based on experience and knowledge, would be a great fallacy and we would respectfully state that it would be grossly unsafe to rely upon such an opinion based on naked eye inspection backed by experience or knowledge to arrive at a prima facie opinion of the commission of an offence to submit an accused to the rigors of trial by the Magistrate in the exercise of its powers u/s 190 Cr. P. C.

27 Suleman v. The State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 5 HCC (Del) 108,

28 Babu v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1229

29 Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2018 SCC OnLine P&H 6941

The only way that it can be done is to establish the nature of contraband on the basis of the Chemical Examiner's report and for this reason, the Chemical Examiner's report assumes an immense significance for the trial Court, to formulate an opinion as the very cognizance of an offence would depend on it. ” The Court also relied upon Kishan Lal v. State30 in which a Division Bench of this Court observed that a police report is not required an expert opinion of a Government scientific expert to be included with the charge-sheet. The Court was of the opinion that the decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is an appropriate opinion in relation to the cognizance of an offence under the NDPS Act without the FSL report being an irregularity.

Nevertheless, the Court was subject to the Division Bench decision of this Court, and judicial discipline required the Court to follow it. As a result, the petitioner is not entitled to a bail u/ s. 167(2) of the CrPC due to the failure to submit the FSL report with the charge sheet, as determined by the Division Bench of this Court in Kishan Lal v. State. IV.

In Mukesh Pal v. State of Haryana31, The petitioner was accused under the NDPS Act after being found in possession of 15 grams of heroin. The police submitted a report pursuant to Section 173 of the CrPC; however, the FSL report was absent. The petitioner contended that the charge-sheet was insufficient in the absence of the FSL report and therefore requested bail u/s 167(2) of the CrPC. The petitioner was granted bail by the Court and held that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report is essential to the prosecution's case under the NDPS Act. The prosecution's case would be rendered inoperable in the absence of this report. In other words, the FSL report is the cornerstone of the prosecution's case, and its absence renders the prosecution's entire case ineffective.

In other cases, such as any injury, harm, or homicide under the IPC, the medical evidence or other circumstantial evidence, may be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.. Nevertheless, it is not mandatory in all instances, and the prosecution may still be able to substantiate its case in the absence of one. Nevertheless,

30 Kishan Lal v. State, 1989 SCC OnLine Del 348

(1989) 39 DLT 392

31 Mukesh Pal v. State of Haryana, 2022 SCC OnLine P&H

the report is a critical element of the Chargesheet for offenses under the NDPS Act and serves as the cornerstone of the prosecution. Analysis: Approach of the judiciary The approaches of the above-mentioned judgements can be broadly classified into two categories, one which hold that the FSL report is an integral part of the chargesheet and another which hold otherwise. The judgements which hold that FSL reports are a part of chargesheet hold so because they believe that a case under the NDPS Act can only survive when the prosecution is able to establish that the article recovered is indeed a prohibited contraband and which can only be established on the basis of its chemical examination, which is normally done through FSL examination.

Report of an expert, pertaining to offences under IPC or some other acts isn’t prominent, as even in the absence of such reports, the prosecution can establish its case, but in the cases under the NDPS, the report of FSL form very foundation of the case of prosecution and is an integral part of the chargesheet and cannot be brushed aside. The Chemical Examiner's report is the sole method of determining the nature of contraband. This is the reason why the Chemical Examiner's report is of great importance to the trial Court. The accused would be subjected to unfounded hazards that would imperil and endanger his liberty if the Chemical Examiner's opinion were not included in the report in accordance with s. 173 of the Cr. P. C.

Whereas the other opinion is that it is the established law that non filing the FSL report with the charge sheet does not render it an "incomplete report" u/s 173(2) CrPC. it is not obligatory to include the Forensic Report with the chargesheet and This narrative that the report u/s 173(2) of the Code, is to be deemed "incomplete" in the absence of the expert's opinion for offences under the NDPS Act is wholly misconceived. Analysis Now the question which arises is whether the investigative agencies are competent enough to identify the narcotic substances. As mentioned before, nether investigative agencies nor the Courts have the expertise to recognise complex narcotic substances. As observed earlier in a few cases, smell or physical features is not a conclusive test for narcotic substances. Only a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) can say whether the item is opium or not.

32 The process of drug identification involves multiple types of analyses conducted by a Chemical Examiner, who is a Qualified Government Scientific Expert. While Drug Law Enforcement Officers, under the Narcotics control bureau can form an initial reasonable belief about the substance using drug detection kits, these kits only give indicative results which cannot be relied upon. This is because in multiple instances, the drug detection kits have shown positive result , but the forensic report has shown a negative result. Thus, a detailed analysis conducted in a laboratory is essential to definitively determine the nature of the substance. 33As the NDPS Act imposes stringent punishments, making it imperative that the identity and integrity of the seized substance be well established. This is crucial to prevent wrongful convictions and to uphold the integrity of the trial.

On the other hand, it is also important to consider the delays done by the FSL labs which might lead to non-filing of the report under the stipulated timeframe. According to the media sources, the publication of an FSL report typically takes at least six months. Mr. Rajiv Mohan, who has served as the special public prosecutor for the Delhi Police in numerous cases, stated that samples frequently become obsolete by the time they are examined. He claimed that the samples are stored in unsanitary conditions, which results in the inability to acquire expert opinions from FSLs. He further stated that FSLs are understaffed and overburdened. 34 Comparative analysis It is also important to consider the law of other common Law countries to analyse the position of Law in India. Laws of Philippines and USA are being used to compare the law herein: I.

Philippines: In Philippines, all seized, confiscated, or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources, controlled precursors, and essential chemicals must be submitted to the PDEA Laboratory

32 Expert opinion in NDPS cases

a study Dr.Mukund Sarda, Criminal Law Journal Vol 118 part 1349,https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2799640, Last visited ( 27-8-2024)

33 Drug Law Enforcement Field Officers’ Handbook, Narcotics Control Bureau Ministry of Home Affairs

Government of India, https://narcoticsindia.nic.in/DLEA/1.pdf, Last visited ( 27-8-2024) 34 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/forensic-delay-is-defeat-of-justiceexperts/articleshow/49696258.cms, Last visited ( 27-8-2024) Service for qualitative and quantitative analysis within 24 hours of seizure The PDEA Laboratory Service is required to issue a certification of the examination results, within 24 hours of receiving the items.the Supreme Court has also reaffirmed that the State must prove the “corpus delicti”. It held that the drug itself constitutes the corpus delicti, and its identity and integrity must be preserved to secure a conviction. Due to the unique characteristics of illegal drugs, evidence must clearly demonstrate that the drug presented in Court is the same as the one seized.35 II.

United States of America: In the United States of America, there is no such law mandating a forensic report, but The United States department of justice always suggests That Prosecutors must defer drug or 'narcotic charges until results are received from the crime lab. 36 Thus, it can be said that the forensic report is of utmost importance to identify the nature of the contraband which is seized as the nature of contraband is such that it can be identified only through chemical examination. If the nature of the contraband found turns out to be the same as shown by the drug detection kit, then no problem would arise. A problem would arise only when both these results do not match.

The Court taking cognizance of the offence based on false evidence or inconclusive evidence would defeat the purpose of a trial and would hold against the statement “It is believed that it is better for 1000 culprits to escape punishment than for one innocent person to be wrongly convicted. ”, as followed by multiple Courts37. The fact that the forensic labs in the country are inefficient , understaffed cannot be ignored. As mentioned above, the delays caused by the labs may result in delayed conviction of the accused or the accused may take advantage of the provisions of the procedural Law and be released on bail which again defeats the ends of justice. Hence it is important for the Court to come up with a mandate which assures that the reports of Chemical examination reach the 35Maria Socorro I. Diokno. Maria Socorro I.

Diokno, "Forensic Science in the Prosecution of Illegal Drugs Cases," Philippine Journal of Science, 147(1): 1-8, March 2018. 36 Use of Forensic Evidence by the Police and Courts, Joseph L. Peterson, U. S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice, chromeextension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www. ojp. gov/pdffiles1/pr/107206. pdf, Last visited ( 27- 8-2024) 37 https://www. scconline. com/blog/post/2020/09/09/madras-hc-1000-culprits-can-escape-but-one-innocentperson-should-not-be-punished-hc-states-in-perfunctory-investigation-of-a-brutal-murder/ Last visited ( 27-8- 2024) Court within a reasonable time frame, so as to uphold the very purpose and integrity of a criminal trial. Conclusion While various standpoints on this issue have been given by various courts, the decisions of this court in the case of Hanif Ansari v.

State (NCT of Delhi),is the most awaited as a various cases based on the same questions of Law are tagged with the same. With the two different types of rulings , being meritorious in their own way as explained above, it is important to blend these important considerations to come up with a kind of system which serves both these purposes i. e. ; establish the nature of Contraband and there by not letting the accused be disadvantaged and at the same time helping the prosecution with fool proof evidence as to the crime committed by the accused and on the other side, conducting a timely trial so as to ensure the delivery of Justice. Ultimately, the resolution of this issue hinges on the court's ability to harmonize these competing interests within a jurisprudential framework that upholds both the rights of the accused and the public's interest in justice.