Mumbai NDPS court refuses police plea to re-test seized drug samples after FSL report is negative
A special NDPS court in Mumbai has refused a request by the Mumbai Police Crime Branch to send seized samples for re-analysis after the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Kalina, reported no traces of tramadol in the material seized during a July 2025 raid. The court — presided over by Special Judge Arvind M. Bhandarwar — held that an unfavourable FSL report alone does not justify re-testing unless the prosecution can point to exceptional circumstances or show cause to doubt the competence or integrity of the original analysis.
Key facts (what happened)
- Seizure and investigation: In a July 2025 operation by the Anti-Narcotics Cell (ANC), Mumbai police said they seized more than 1.1 lakh tablets alleged to be tramadol and arrested several persons in connection with large-scale trafficking and concealment.
- FSL analysis: Samples from the seizure were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Kalina. On December 30, 2025, the FSL issued a report stating that the samples did not contain tramadol; the lab identified only a non-narcotic artifact.
- Police application for re-test: Dissatisfied with the negative result, the Anti-Narcotics Cell sought permission from the NDPS court to send the seized samples for re-analysis to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad.
- Court order: Special Judge Arvind M. Bhandarwar denied the application, saying the NDPS Act does not permit re-sampling or retesting merely because a result is unfavourable; the prosecution must show exceptional circumstances to justify an additional test.
What the judge said (notable lines)
“Merely because result is not favourable cannot be a ground to send the samples for re-testing,” the court observed, stressing that without allegations against the FSL or other exceptional grounds the court could not permit re-testing.
Legal context — why courts resist routine re-testing in NDPS cases
Several legal discussions and rulings have observed that the NDPS Act itself does not provide for routine re-sampling or re-testing. Courts have repeatedly cautioned that such applications can delay trials and create procedural complications unless justified by exceptional facts.
Why this matters — forensic and prosecutorial implications
FSL reports carry heavy evidentiary weight. An unqualified negative report from a recognized FSL can undermine a large-scale narcotics prosecution unless the prosecution can demonstrate laboratory error, compromised chain-of-custody, or other exceptional circumstances.
Possible next steps for the prosecution
- Apply to a higher court: The state may approach the High Court challenging the trial court’s order.
- Supplementary forensic checks: If lawful and supported by technical evidence, the prosecution may attempt to justify a fresh application.
Timeline (concise)
- July 2025: Raid conducted; alleged seizure of ~1.1 lakh tramadol tablets.
- Dec 30, 2025: FSL, Kalina issues negative report.
- Jan 2026: NDPS court refuses re-testing application.
Sources & further reading
- Times of India — Police can’t get samples re-tested in drug cases if report is negative: Judge.
- LawWeb — Whether re-testing of sample is permissible under NDPS Act?
- Indian Express — Archive reporting on past NDPS re-testing disputes.
