Garam Masala Mistaken for Heroin, MP HC Awards Rs 10 Lakh Compensation [Read Order]

Madhya Pradesh: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has awarded compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs to a businessman who spent 57 days in judicial custody after an Explosive Trace Detection (ETD) machine at Bhopal Airport incorrectly flagged his packets of branded garam masala and aamchur powder as containing heroin and a prohibited psychotropic substance.

The Court held the State vicariously liable for the prolonged incarceration, observing that the detention continued far beyond any reasonable period purely because the State’s forensic infrastructure was inadequate to promptly test the seized samples.

The order was passed by Justice Deepak Khot while disposing of a writ petition that had been pending before the Court since 2011 — a period of fifteen years — filed by Ajay Singh, a businessman from Bhopal.

The facts of the case trace back to May 2010, when Singh was at Bhopal Airport preparing to board a flight to Delhi, en route to Malaysia. During routine security screening, the ETD machine — which works on the principle of Ion Mobility Spectrometry and detects trace aroma particles — raised an alarm after scanning his luggage, which contained packets of commercially branded aamchur and garam masala powder.

The machine indicated that the aamchur packets contained 1–4% heroin and 10% MDEA, a prohibited psychotropic substance. Singh was immediately arrested on the spot by the CISF. The samples were seized, a panchnama was drawn up, and an FIR was lodged under Sections 8 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

The seized samples were first sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory (RFSL), Bhopal, on May 10, 2010. The RFSL returned them ten days later without any report, informing the authorities that it did not possess a standard reference sample of MDEA and therefore could not test for that substance.

The samples were thereafter sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad. CFSL Hyderabad initially replied that it had no facility for quantitative examination of MDEA. A fresh request was then made for qualitative examination, and the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bhopal, wrote to the CFSL Director requesting priority processing.

The CFSL report was finally received on July 1, 2010 — over seven weeks after the arrest — and it categorically established that the seized samples contained no contraband whatsoever. Singh was released on July 2, 2010, after spending 57 days in custody. A closure report was subsequently filed by the police, and the Special Court under the NDPS Act accepted the same in December 2010.

The petitioner argued that his arrest and continued incarceration were caused by the technical unreliability of the ETD machine and the failure of the authorities to promptly and correctly test the samples. He pointed out that the ETD machine was manufactured in Canada and calibrated to detect explosives, not aromatic Indian spices, and was therefore wholly unsuited to Indian conditions.

As a demonstration of the machine’s unreliability, when the petitioner’s father submitted an application in late May 2010, the CISF and Jet Airways tested packets of other brands of garam masala and aamchur in the same ETD machine, and the machine raised false alarms for those as well.

He further submitted that the CISF did not maintain sufficient swabs for the machine, kept no record of its usage, and had no Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for its operation. The petitioner sought compensation of Rs. 10 crores, along with directions for a CBI inquiry, blacklisting of the ETD machine manufacturer, and action against erring officials.

The Airports Authority of India (AAI) distanced itself from liability, submitting that security operations at the airport were the responsibility of the CISF under protocols framed by the Bureau of Civil Aviation Security (BCAS), and that AAI’s role was limited to the procurement and maintenance of the ETD machines.

The ETD machine manufacturer argued that its results were explicitly indicative in nature and not conclusive, and that this limitation was clearly stated in the tender document itself, which stipulated a false alarm rate of less than 2%.

The State Government submitted that the arrest was made in good faith on the basis of the ETD reading under Sections 42 and 43 of the NDPS Act, that no malice was alleged against any official, and that any delay in obtaining the forensic report was beyond the control of the investigating officer, who was protected under Section 69 of the NDPS Act.

The Court, after surveying the facts and the applicable law on compensation for illegal detention under Article 21, as laid down in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal and a series of decisions of coordinate benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, held that the State bore vicarious liability for the incarceration.

The Court found that although the initial arrest was made with reasonable apprehension based on the ETD reading, what converted a brief detention into 57 days of illegal custody was entirely the State’s fault. The mobile forensic unit that first examined the samples was found to be ineffective. The RFSL, Bhopal, despite being staffed with qualified scientists, lacked the equipment to test MDEA. CFSL Hyderabad was also initially unable to conduct quantitative analysis.

The Court sharply questioned why the State maintained Regional Forensic Science Laboratories with qualified personnel if those laboratories lacked the basic equipment required to examine commonly alleged prohibited substances.

The Court also dismissed the preliminary objection raised by the ETD machine manufacturer that the petition was not maintainable because it had been filed by the petitioner’s father as power-of-attorney holder. The Court noted that the petition had been pending since 2011 and that dismissing it on a technicality after fifteen years would be grossly unjust. The father, having been directly affected by the illegal confinement of his son, was held to be a proper party to maintain the petition.

The Court clarified that neither the Airports Authority of India nor the ETD machine manufacturer was liable. The AAI had installed the machine strictly in accordance with BCAS protocols, and the tender document explicitly stated that the machine’s output was merely indicative and subject to a small false alarm rate.

The responsibility for the prolonged detention, the Court held, lay squarely with the State, which failed to maintain adequate forensic infrastructure to quickly verify or disprove the machine’s reading.

Accordingly, the Court awarded Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to Ajay Singh, directed the State Government to pay the amount within three months, and clarified that this would not preclude the petitioner from pursuing a civil suit for damages.

Beyond the individual case, the Court issued a systemic direction ordering the Chief Secretary of Madhya Pradesh to conduct an inspection of all Regional Forensic Science Laboratories in the State within one month and ensure that all RFSLs are equipped with the necessary instruments and personnel to scientifically examine all commonly encountered prohibited substances, so that no other innocent person is subjected to prolonged detention due to inadequate forensic capacity.

Appearances: Shri Ajay Gupta, Senior Advocate, through video conferencing, with Shri Rajeev Mishra, Advocate, appeared for the petitioner. Shri Sumit Raghuwanshi, Government Advocate, appeared for the State. Shri Anoop Nair, Senior Advocate, with Smt. Divyani Singh, Advocate, appeared for the Airports Authority of India. Shri Manhar Dixit, Advocate, appeared for respondent No. 4. Shri Shashank Verma, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Aditi Shrivastava, Shri Shankh Sen Gupta, Shri Soham Banerjee, and Ms. Nishi Bhankaria, Advocates, appeared for the ETD machine manufacturer.

Case Title: Ajay Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

[Read Order]