FORENSIC SCIENCE

NARCOTICS AND DRUG TESTING IN FORENSIC SCIENCE

Submitted by –

SAYANTIKA SENGUPTA

Roll no:255

Division – C BBA LLB

Under the guidance of –

MS. RUKMA LAVANIA

ASSISTANT PROFESSOR

SYMBIOSIS LAW SCHOOL HYDERABAD

SYMBIOSIS INTERNATIONAL (DEEMED) UNIVERSITY, PUNE

1
 CERTIFICATE
The Project entitled “narcotics and drug testing in forensic science” submitted to the
Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad the Forensic Science as part of the Internal assessment is
based on our original work carried out under the guidance of Ms. Rukma Lavania, in January,
2020. The material borrowed from other sources and incorporated in the thesis has been duly
acknowledged.

 
We understand that we ourselves could be held responsible and accountable for plagiarism, if
any, detected later on.
 
 
 
Signatures of Students                                                       Signature of Professor
Date:

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
 I would like to express my sincere gratitude and indebtedness to Ms. Rukma Lavania for giving
an enlighten lectures on the subject of Forensic Science. I would also like to show my sincere
gratitude to our teaching staff for showing us the path of right knowledge. I am also
overwhelmed in thanking Symbiosis Law School, Hyderabad, and library for the wealth of
information therein. I would like to thank Library Staff as well for their co-operation. I would
also like to thank our batch mates and seniors who inspired, helped and guided me in making this
project.

3
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................5
NEED FOR DRUG ANALYSIS.....................................................................................................6
FORENSIC PROBLEMS................................................................................................................7
Drug Identification.......................................................................................................................7
Narcotics and Individuals.............................................................................................................8
COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DRUG EVIDENCE................................................8
LEGAL DETERMINATIONS........................................................................................................9
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS........................................................................................11
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................13

4
 INTRODUCTION

In the context of a crime, a victim is an individual, group or entity who has suffered hurt either
physically, emotionally or psychologically, harm or loss because of an illegal activity.
Victimization refers to the process of being victimized. Based on the hierarchy of suffering,
victimization can be primary or secondary. The former would refer to direct victimization due to
an offence committed against oneself. The latter refers to an individual being victimized by legal
or other institutions, communities and the society1.

While in case of a drug abuser, the individual is a victim and an offender at the same time. These
crimes are known as victimless crimes since there exist no victim in these crimes 2. The drug
abuser here faces primary victimization in matters of addiction to a drug, deterioration of health
and also physical harm to oneself and then faces secondary victimization of being stigmatized
from the legal institutions, medical institutions, family, community and the society.

This paper highlights the purposes of drug testing required in the criminal justice system for
persons who have recently ingested a drug, to identify users, to monitor and deter drug use and to
estimate national drug use trends in criminal 3.The paper critically analyzes the need for drug
testing. Drug testing is a key component of drug court programs because it provides readily
available and objective information to the judge, other justice system officials, treatment
personnel, and caseworkers regarding a participant’s progress in treatment. The paper also
scrutinizes the problems faced in the forensic labs and discusses important judicial perspectives.
The paper is finally concluded with suitable suggestions.

1
“Substance Abuse and Addiction Research in India” by Murthy et.al (January, 2011) as printed in the Indian
Journal of Psychiatry, pg. no. S190
2
Rao, S.V. Joga. “DRUG ADDICTION : PENAL POLICY.” Journal of the Indian Law Institute, vol. 34, no. 2,
1992, pp. 275–284. 
3
Fisher, Celia B., and Elizabeth Yuko. “The HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention Research Ethics Training Institute:
Training Early-Career Scientists to Conduct Research on Research Ethics.” Journal of Empirical Research on
Human Research Ethics: An International Journal, vol. 10, no. 5, 2015, pp. 470–480. 

5
 NEED FOR DRUG ANALYSIS

Testing of the detainees may provide the most effective detection and prevention of drug abuse
in a high-risk population. Testing of persons detained or monitored by the criminal raises a
number of critical legal and ethical issues that differ raised by testing other. A drug can be
defined as a natural or synthetic substance that is used to produce physiological or psychological
effects in humans or other animals. However, criminalists are concerned primarily with a small
number of drugs many of them illicit that are commonly used for their intoxicating effects. The
drug testing process, coupled with immediate program responses, forces defendants to address
their substance abuse problems immediately and continuously. Every professional discipline
requires professionally trained individuals4. Forensic drug testing is no exception. Drug testing is
a complex science and requires the support of a forensic expert regardless of the testing method
that is used. As with any scientific test, the interpretation of a drug test result requires balancing
a number of factors, including elements directly related to the test, the physical characteristics of
the individual being tested, and the nature and length of the individual’s drug usage. The value
and usefulness of a drug testing regime are dependent on the scientific integrity of the drug
testing process and the accurate interpretation and assessment of the raw data.

This is not to say that every program must hire a pathologist or certified lab technician to
interpret test results. However, every court should have technical support, which is generally
available from the drug testing/chemical companies that provide equipment, supplies, and
training in this area. To reduce demand for drugs, people must be deterred or dissuaded from
initiating drug use, and persons who already use illicit drugs must be induced to cease 5. Drug-
abuse education, prevention, and treatment programs and some law-enforcement actions are
interventions intended to accomplish these goals. In the past fifteen years, with the development
of cost effective technology for measuring chemical markers of drug use in the body, a new
strategy of identification through drug testing has become available for reducing demand for
drugs. Knowledge that one may be tested for drugs may deter persons from initiating use, and the
testing itself can identify current users for referral to treatment, to periodic urine monitoring, or
4
Anderson, Leon. Deviance: Social Constructions and Blurred Boundaries. Oakland, California: University of
California Press, 2017.pp. 32- 34
5
COHEN, STEPHEN PHILIP. India: Emerging Power. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2001. Pp.
45-65

6
to other interventions. Drug testing has been embraced more by government agencies, private
corporations, the military, and drug treatment programs than by criminal justice agencies.

FORENSIC PROBLEMS

Drug Identification
While dealing with Narcotics in a forensic lab, the following considerations are taken into
account. First, the recovered material is brought into the picture to check whether it is a narcotics
or not and if it is what is the nature of the narcotics, but the most important problem that has
gained recognition is to establish the identity of a given drug.

The challenge or difficulty of forensic drug identification comes in selecting analytical

procedures that will ensure a specific identification of a drug. Presented with a substance of
unknown origin and composition, the forensic chemist must develop a plan of action that will
ultimately yield the drug’s identity. With the prospect that the unknown substance may be any
one of a thousand or more commonly encountered drugs, the analyst must employ screening tests
to reduce these possibilities to a small and manageable number. This objective is often
accomplished by subjecting the material to a series of color tests that produce characteristic
colors for the more commonly encountered illicit drugs.6

Even if these tests produce negative results, their value lies in having excluded certain drugs
from further consideration. Once the number of possibilities has been reduced substantially, the
second phase of the analysis must be devoted to pinpointing and confirming the drug’s identity.

In an era in which crime laboratories receive voluminous quantities of drug evidence, it is

impractical to subject a drug to all the chemical and instrumental tests available. Indeed, it is
more realistic to look on these techniques as constituting a large analytical arsenal. The chemist,
aided by training and experience, must choose tests that will most conveniently identify a
particular drug.

Narcotics and Individuals

If an individual has taken a narcotic drug, the nature of such a drug has t be determined and for
this purpose usually urine, blood and stomach are examined which also helps in the
6
MITCHELL, CHESTER NELSON. The Drug Solution: Regulating Drugs According to Principles of Efficiency,
Justice and Democracy. McGill-Queen's University Press. pp 98-122

7
determination of the amount of drug that is consumed. The problem that arises is in the
determination of the sources which can be either licit or illicit. In cases of alleged suicide, the
actual cause may be drug addiction. In case of a sudden death, the real reason can be overdose of
a narcotic drug or an impure drug.

COLLECTION AND PRESERVATION OF DRUG EVIDENCE

Preparation of drug evidence for submission to the crime laboratory is normally relatively
simple and accomplished with minimal precautions in the field. The field investigator must
ensure that the evidence is properly packaged and labeled for delivery to the laboratory.
Considering the countless forms and varieties of drug evidence that are seized, it is not practical
to prescribe any single packaging procedure for fulfilling these requirements. Generally,
common sense is the best guide in such situations, keeping in mind that the package must
prevent loss and/or cross contamination of the contents. Often, the original container in which
the drug was seized will meet these requirements. Specimens suspected of containing volatile
solvents, such as those involved in glue-sniffing cases, must be packaged in an airtight container
to prevent evaporation of the solvent7.

All packages must be marked with sufficient information to ensure identification by the officer in
future legal proceedings and to establish the chain of custody. To aid the drug analyst, the
investigator should supply any background information that may relate to a drug’s identity.
Analysis time can be markedly reduced when the chemist has this information. For the same
reason, the results of drug-screening tests used in the field must also be transmitted to the
laboratory. However, although these tests may indicate the presence of a drug and may help the
officer establish probable cause to search and arrest a suspect, they do not offer conclusive
evidence of a drug’s identity.

LEGAL DETERMINATIONS

7
Venkatachalam, Suri, and Gayatri Saberwal. "Bio-business in Brief: A Case for New Drugs at Generic Prices from
India." Current Science 102, no. 10 (2012): pp -1375-381

8
An important perspective that was discussed by the Supreme Court in the year 2008 was whether
a bail granted in favor of an appellant can be cancelled on the basis of a report of analysis of the
article removed from him containing ‘ Heroin’8. The Court researched the conclusion that the
quantity of the determined drug plays an important role in the determination of the granting of
bail and if the drug discovered is in amount as approved Central Bureau Control Laboratory, and
a bail can granted accordingly.

Another important question that is determined is regarding the concept of ‘personal search’. In
the case of Megh Singh v. State of Maharashtra9, the Court observed that:

“A bare reading of section 50 shows that it implies in only cases of personal search of a
person. It does not extend to the bag, container, vehicle or premises”.

But the decision was again reversed in the case of Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar10. In
paragraphs 10 and 11 the court observed the following:

“10. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances,
be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are
identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a
human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any
number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a
holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or
moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have
to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head.
In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article,
specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back or head, etc.
Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word
"person" occurring in  Section 50 of the Act.

11. An incriminating article can be kept concealed in the body or clothings or coverings
in different manner or in the footwear. While making a search of such type of articles,

8
: Samir Ullaha v. Superintendant Narcotics Bureau , 2009 Cr LJ 1306: AIR 2009 SC 1357: 2009 AIR SCW 778
( Judgement S.B. Sinha, J 3-3-2009 Source, Judis, Internet)
9
Megh Singh v. State of Maharashtra (223) SCC 666: AIR 2003 SC 3184:2003 AIR SCW 4536
10
Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar (2205) 4 SCC 350

9
which have been kept so concealed, it will certainly come within the ambit of the word
"search of person". One of the tests, which can be applied is, where in the process of
search the human body comes into contact or shall have to be touched by the person
carrying out the search, it will be search of a person. Some indication of this is provided
by Sub-section (4) of Section 50 of the Act, which provides that no female shall be
searched by anyone excepting a female. The legislature has consciously made this
provision as while conducting search of a female, her body may come in contact or may
need to be touched and, therefore, it should be done only by a female. In the case of a
bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc., they would not normally move along
with the body of the human being unless some extra or special effort is made. Either they
have to be carried in hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. They
can be easily and in no time placed away from the body of the carrier. In order to make a
search of such type of objects, the body of the carrier will not come in contact of the
person conducting the search. Such objects cannot be said to be inextricably connected
with the person, namely, the body of the human being. Inextricable means incapable of
being disentangled or untied or forming a maze or tangle from which it is impossible to
get free.”

10
 CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

Drug testing, the technology of addiction medicine, identifies the use of specific drugs with the
potential for misuse and addiction. Drug test results do not identify or diagnose substance use
disorders, or establish the presence of impairment or physical dependence. Although drug testing
is not a magic bullet that solves all of the problems associated with substance use disorders, drug
testing is essential for the identification of recent drug use in all settings in which drug and in
many cases, alcohol use is problematic. Drug tests are not the only way to identify drug use. It is
also valuable to speak with people, since self-report identifies the use of drugs not included on
test panels and covers a far longer period of time than do drug tests, and reports from others (e.g.
family members, workplace supervisors, etc.) can provide useful information as well. Self-report
permits detailed questions related to the pattern of drug use, consequences arising from that use,
and efforts that have been made to cut down or stop use. Thus, self-report is complementary to
drug testing. It is wise to use both.

The most basic and crucial questions about drug testing involve whom to test, what drugs to test
for, what matrix to use (which body fluid or tissue to test), and what to do with the test results.
These questions must be answered in each specific application of drug testing. Today drug
testing is dramatically evolving to become more effective at the same time that the modern drug
epidemic is evolving to become more complex. A generation ago, drug testing meant almost
exclusively testing urine or blood. Now drug testing matrices includes oral fluid, hair, nails,
sweat and breath. Similarly, in years past, drug testing meant the identification of the recent use
of a relatively small number of widely-used, mostly agriculturally-produced, drugs. Now the
dramatic and deadly increase in the misuse of prescription controlled substances presents a
significant challenge to testing. While standard drug testing practice historically included testing
for a small number of widely used drugs, such a narrow focus has become less useful today
especially with the emergence of the ever-changing, synthetic “designer” drugs that are designed
to evade detection through drug tests and to evade drug laws.

Unlike drugs from earlier generations, today's drugs of abuse is often created in chemistry
laboratories and not grown on farms; nor are neither they exclusively distributed through well-
established criminal channels. Designer drugs, for example, are produced in clandestine

11
laboratories all over the world and sold in convenience stores and gas stations or sent by global
delivery services. In addition, prescription drugs associated with misuse and addiction usually
originate with legal prescriptions written by physicians. Most drug testing panels today include
less than 20 drugs, often as few as five. The available testing panels change much more slowly
than the rapid changes in the patterns of drug use. The efforts to thwart drug testing are
dramatically more sophisticated, better organized, and more available than was true even a
decade ago. Looking forward, drug testing technology will become increasingly sensitive and
easier to use, possibly leading to the development of breath testing for drugs of abuse, as is now
done for alcohol.

The move to from urine testing to oral fluid testing reduces privacy concerns and minimizes the
subversion problems that bedevil urine testing. Drug testing practices in the future must include
identification of a far larger number of drugs. Drug testing must become less expensive and more
resistant to subversion. Drug tests must rapidly identify newly emerging drugs of abuse.
Important as these technical challenges are in drug testing, the challenge that is directly
addressed by this White Paper, while different, is no less important. Today's most urgent need is
for broader use of drug testing, especially in clinical settings, and for smarter approaches to drug
testing, especially by physicians working in addiction medicine and all medical specialties.

12
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

CASES

1. Samir Ullaha v. Superintendant Narcotics Bureau , 2009 Cr LJ 1306: AIR 2009 SC

1357: 2009 AIR SCW 778 ( Judgement S.B. Sinha, J 3-3-2009 Source, Judis, Internet)
2. Megh Singh v. State of Maharashtra (223) SCC 666: AIR 2003 SC 3184:2003 AIR SCW
4536
3. Himachal Pradesh v. Pawan Kumar (2205) 4 SCC 350

SECONDARY SOURCES

1. JOURNALS

1. Anderson, Leon. Deviance: Social Constructions and Blurred Boundaries. Oakland,

California: University of California Press, 2017.pp. 32- 34
2. COHEN, STEPHEN PHILIP. India: Emerging Power. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Press, 2001. Pp. 45-65
3. MITCHELL, CHESTER NELSON. The Drug Solution: Regulating Drugs
According to Principles of Efficiency, Justice and Democracy. McGill-Queen's
University Press. pp 98-122
4. Venkatachalam, Suri, and Gayatri Saberwal. "Bio-business in Brief: A Case for New
Drugs at Generic Prices from India." Current Science 102, no. 10 (2012): pp -1375-
381.

5. “Substance Abuse and Addiction Research in India” by Murthy et.al (January, 2011)
as printed in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry, pg. no. S190
6. Rao, S.V. Joga. “DRUG ADDICTION : PENAL POLICY.” Journal of the Indian
Law Institute, vol. 34, no. 2, 1992, pp. 275–284. 

13
 7. Fisher, Celia B., and Elizabeth Yuko. “The HIV and Drug Abuse Prevention
Research Ethics Training Institute: Training Early-Career Scientists to Conduct
Research on Research Ethics.” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research
Ethics: An International Journal, vol. 10, no. 5, 2015, pp. 470–480. 

2. BOOK

1. B.R. Sharma, Forensic Investigation in Criminal Investigation and trials 953-1006(5

ed. Lexis Nexis)

14