Tripura High Court Examines Police Lapses in 987-Kg Ganja Case: FIR Errors, 36-Day Forensic Delay and Missing Malkhana Register

By Our Correspondent

Agartala, October 14, 2026

The Tripura High Court has examined multiple lapses alleged by the defence in the police investigation of a 987-kg ganja seizure case, including a discrepancy in the vehicle registration number recorded in the First Information Report (FIR), a 36-day interval before forensic examination of the seized samples and the non-production of the Malkhana register before the trial court.

The issues came under scrutiny in a judgment delivered on October 13, 2026, by a Division Bench comprising Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit in Dharjya Kumar Jamatia vs. State of Tripura, Criminal Appeal (J) No. 43 of 2025.

Although the alleged deficiencies raised questions about the documentation and handling of the seized contraband, the High Court ultimately held that they did not undermine the prosecution case sufficiently to warrant setting aside the conviction. The Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence imposed on Dharjya Kumar Jamatia.

One of the significant issues examined by the Court was the discrepancy in the registration number of the truck from which 987 kg of ganja was allegedly recovered on September 6, 2021. The vehicle was identified as PB-19-M-9376, but its number was recorded as PB-19-M-9373 on the second page of the FIR. During cross-examination, SI Haradhan Bose, the informant, acknowledged the discrepancy and explained that it had occurred by mistake. The defence argued that the inconsistency had not been properly recorded in the case diary. The High Court, however, accepted the explanation in the context of the other evidence and did not consider the discrepancy sufficient, by itself, to invalidate the prosecution case.

The defence also raised concerns about the handling of the seized samples. The Tripura State Forensic Science Laboratory received the samples on September 16, 2021, but examined them between October 22 and November 3, 2021. The defence questioned where the samples had been kept during the intervening period and argued that the absence of a clear explanation raised doubts about their custody and integrity.

The High Court examined the testimony of PW-6, the then Deputy Director of the Chemistry Division of the forensic laboratory. The witness stated that the samples had been received in a sealed condition, with five wax seals duly certified by the Chief Judicial Magistrate and a Sub-Inspector. The forensic report subsequently confirmed the presence of ganja. The Bench concluded that the evidence did not establish manipulation or interference with the samples before their examination.

The defence further questioned why the Malkhana register had not been seized and produced before the trial court and why the Malkhana in-charge had not been examined. The register can provide an important record of the deposit, storage and handling of seized property. Its non-production was cited by the defence as a reason to doubt whether the seized contraband had remained in safe custody throughout the investigation.

The High Court examined the issue alongside the evidence concerning the sealing of the seized articles, their production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the transmission of samples to the forensic laboratory. The Bench held that non-production of the register, in the absence of evidence of tampering, substitution or a break in the chain of custody, was not sufficient to discard the prosecution case.

The appellant also alleged non-compliance with Section 57 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, concerning reporting an arrest or seizure to the immediate superior officer. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Gurmail Chand vs. State of Punjab, the High Court held that the alleged non-compliance did not invalidate the prosecution in the circumstances of this case. The Bench noted that the appellant had failed to demonstrate how the alleged deficiency had caused prejudice or resulted in a failure of justice.

The judgment identified ASI Ajit Das and ASI Rajesh Bhattacharjee as members of the vehicle-checking team, SI Haradhan Bose as the informant, SI Ajit Kanti Chakma as the investigating officer, and Kanta Jangir, then SDPO of Dharmanagar, as the officer who testified regarding authorisation for the search. Constable Jewel Deb was also associated with the search.

According to the prosecution, 89 packets or bundles of ganja weighing 987 kg were recovered from a 14-wheel truck near Churaibari during vehicle checking on September 6, 2021. The Court found that independent witnesses PW-1, a driver, and PW-4, a day labourer, corroborated the prosecution account of the truck's detention and search. The forensic evidence also supported the identification of the seized substance as ganja.

The appeal challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (NDPS), North Tripura, Dharmanagar, on September 12, 2024. The High Court found no sufficient ground to interfere with that decision and affirmed the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, along with 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1 lakh. In default of payment of the fine, the appellant must undergo a further three months' imprisonment, subject to applicable legal provisions.

Ms. Ayesha Saha Hirawat appeared as Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant, while Mr. Raju Datta, Public Prosecutor, and Mr. S. Saha, Additional Public Prosecutor, represented the State.

The judgment brings several investigation-related objections into focus, particularly the inconsistent vehicle registration number, the interval before forensic examination and the absence of the Malkhana register.

more news...