Click the Play button to listen to article

The Tripura High Court has held that mere non-production of the Malkhana register before the trial court cannot be a ground to discard a prosecution case under the NDPS Act, 1985, when the identity, integrity and safe custody of the seized contraband are otherwise established.

The Court observed that in the absence of any material indicating tampering, substitution or a break in the chain of custody, such an omission does not invalidate the conviction.

Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit remarked that:“The mere non-production of the malkhana register before the learned trial Court, in the absence of any material casting doubt upon the identity, integrity or safe custody of the seized contraband, cannot by itself, be a ground to discard the prosecution case.”

The case arose from an incident dated September 6, 2021, when police personnel intercepted a 14-wheeler truck near Churaibari Police Station in Tripura. Upon searching the vehicle, the police recovered 89 packets of ganja weighing approximately 987 kg from the truck in which the appellant, Dharjya Kumar Jamatia, was travelling as a driver.

Following investigation, he was charged under Sections 20(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The Special Judge (NDPS), North Tripura, convicted him under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh. Aggrieved by the conviction, he approached the High Court.

The High Court observed that the independent witnesses corroborated the statements of the police officials regarding the recovery of ganja from the truck. It noted that the FSL report confirmed the presence of ganja in the samples received in properly sealed condition, thereby establishing the integrity of the seized contraband.

The Court held that non-production of the Malkhana register, in the absence of evidence suggesting tampering or a break in the chain of custody, could not invalidate the prosecution case. It further observed that non-compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act would not vitiate the conviction, particularly when the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice caused by such non-compliance.

Finding no substantial infirmity in the prosecution evidence, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹1 lakh.

Date of Decision: 13.10.2026

Tags: