Mumbai Court Denies Police Request for Drug Sample Retesting
A special NDPS court in Mumbai recently rejected a significant plea from the Mumbai Police Crime Branch. The police wanted to retest drug samples in a major narcotics case. This request came after the initial forensic report returned negative for any contraband substances.
Judge's Firm Stance Against Retesting
Special judge Arvind M Bhandarwar delivered a clear verdict on the matter. He stated that merely receiving an unfavorable result does not constitute grounds for sending samples for re-testing. The judge emphasized that in all other cases, the prosecution routinely relies on reports from the Forensic Science Laboratory in Kalina.
The prosecution made no allegations or adverse submissions against FSL Kalina to justify their position, the judge pointed out. He further noted that while a plea for re-testing can technically be made within fifteen days after receiving a negative report, the prosecution failed to mention any exceptional circumstances in this instance.
Details of the Original Case
The case originated from a July 2025 raid conducted by the Anti-Narcotics Cell in Andheri. During this operation, officials claimed to have seized over 110,000 tablets of Tramadol. Tramadol is a regulated opioid medication. The estimated value of these tablets was approximately Rs 2.22 crore.
Authorities arrested Dindoshi resident Pradeep Upadhyay in connection with the seizure. Several other accused individuals were also taken into custody. These included city residents Bhavesh Shah, Sukant Dole, Rohan Avasare, Rajesh Pawar, Saikrishna Lagishetti, and Mohammed Momin.
Police alleged these individuals were involved in trafficking, concealing, and exporting narcotics. They reportedly used winding machines and courier services for their operations. Another accused, a Haryana native named Kashmir Sadar alias Dahiya, was arrested based on information provided by other defendants.
The Forensic Report That Changed Everything
The Forensic Science Laboratory in Kalina submitted its report on December 30, 2025. This analysis found no traces of Tramadol in the seized samples. Instead, the laboratory detected only a non-narcotic artifact. This negative finding prompted the Anti-Narcotics Cell from the Azad Maidan Unit to seek permission for re-analysis.
The Crime Branch wanted to send the samples to the Director of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory in Hyderabad, Telangana. The state argued that the negative result made the correctness of the analysis doubtful. They believed re-testing was necessary to ensure accurate findings.
Defense Arguments Against Retesting
Defense advocates, including Pranay Saraf, strongly opposed the prosecution's move. They argued that Kalina FSL serves as the standard authority for nearly all narcotics trials in Maharashtra. The prosecution routinely depends on this laboratory's credibility to secure convictions in other cases.
They cannot suddenly brand the laboratory as unreliable simply because a report happens to favor the accused, the defense contended. This argument found resonance with the court's final decision.
Legal Precedent and NDPS Act Provisions
Judge Bhandarwar relied on the landmark Thana Singh precedent while making his ruling. He noted that the NDPS Act does not inherently permit re-sampling of evidence. Such requests can only be granted under extremely exceptional circumstances and for cogent reasons.
The judge observed that re-testing and re-sampling has become rampant at every stage of trial under the NDPS Act. This contrasts with other legislations that define specific time-frames within which such rights may be available. In the absence of any compelling circumstances, any form of re-testing or re-sampling is strictly prohibited under the NDPS Act, the judge iterated.
He also highlighted that the FSL report did not reveal any inability to analyze the sample due to lack of necessary equipment. The report also did not suggest sending the sample to the central FSL for review. Given this position, it was the duty of the prosecution to make out exceptional grounds for re-testing, which they failed to do.
This ruling reinforces the importance of forensic integrity and prevents arbitrary requests for re-testing simply because initial results do not align with prosecution expectations. The decision maintains consistency in how forensic evidence is treated within the legal system.
