A Delhi court has held that the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) cannot rely on electronic evidence generated through further investigation carried out after the filing of its complaint without first obtaining judicial permission. Holding that such permission cannot be presumed from a general statement in the complaint that investigation was continuing, the court ruled that the prosecution could not rely on the impugned forensic reports during trial.
Additional Sessions Judge (NDPS) Jitendra Pratap Singh was deciding objections raised by the accused to the admissibility of additional documents sought to be produced by the NCB, including data extraction reports and Section 65B certificates relating to electronic devices allegedly seized from several accused persons. The defence contended that the devices had been sent for forensic examination only after the complaint had been filed, making the exercise one of further investigation that required prior leave of the court.
The NCB argued that its complaint had disclosed that certain aspects of the investigation were still pending and paragraphs 145 to 147 of the complaint effectively contemplated the filing of supplementary material. It further submitted that the accused had already been supplied copies of the documents and had not objected to their production earlier.
Rejecting the prosecution’s contention, the court relied on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali, (2013) 5 SCC 762; Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1; Peethambaran v. State of Kerala, (2024) 16 SCC 65; Robert Lalchhungnunga Chongthu v. State of Bihar, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2511; and Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P., (2026) 5 SCC 308, wich that further investigation after the filing of a complaint cannot be undertaken unilaterally and requires prior leave of the competent court.
The court noted that the Investigating Officer admitted during arguments that the seized electronic devices had been forwarded to the forensic laboratory only on 21 December 2022, after the complaint had already been filed. Since no specific leave of the court had been obtained before undertaking that forensic examination, the reports constituted the product of unauthorised further investigation.
Accordingly, the court held that the prosecution cannot rely upon the data extraction reports and related electronic evidence filed through its application dated 28 January 2023, while clarifying that the earlier objection regarding another set of documents filed on 28 November 2022 had already been decided and could not be reopened. The matter has been listed for recording the remaining prosecution evidence.