MUMBAI, Jan. 20 -- A special Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) court has refused to send reserve samples of an alleged Rs.2.22-crore Tramadol seizure for retesting to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Hyderabad, after the state forensic laboratory reported that the seizure did not contain any NDPS substance. Special judge Arvind Manohar Bhandarwar last week refused permission to forward the reserved samples, holding that "merely because, result is not favourable, cannot be a ground to send the samples for retesting". The NDPS Act "does not permit re-sampling or re-testing of samples" as a matter of course and such a step can be allowed only in "extremely exceptional circumstances, for cogent reasons", the court observed. Tramadol, a painkiller, was declared as a "psychotropic substance" in 2018. The prosecution had claimed that 111,400 tablets of TROHMA 100 SR (Tramadol HCL 100 mg), allegedly seized during a raid in July 2025 and valued at approximately Rs.2.22 crore, constituted a contraband under the NDPS Act. Samples drawn from the seized material were sent to the Directorate of Forensic Science Laboratory (DFSL), Kalina, which stated in its report dated December 30, 2025 that Tramadol was "not detected" in the samples. Citing the adverse report and doubting the accuracy of the Kalina laboratory's report, the prosecution sought permission to send the reserve samples to CFSL, Hyderabad. The defence led by advocate Pranay Saraf opposed the plea, arguing that DFSL Kalina reports were routinely relied upon by courts in NDPS cases and the prosecution could not selectively question the lab's credibility merely because the result did not support its case. Representing four out of the nine accused, Saraf submitted that all samples - those tested and those kept in reserve - were drawn from the same bulk and that, in the absence of any NDPS substance being detected, there was no justification to prolong custody by seeking re-testing. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Thana Singh vs Central Bureau of Narcotics (2013), the court observed that re-testing under the NDPS Act is impermissible except in rare cases where exceptional circumstances are clearly made out. In the present case, the court found that the prosecution had not pointed to any such circumstances; there was no allegation of incapacity or deficiency on the part of DFSL Kalina, nor any material suggesting the analysis could not be relied upon. "No extraordinary circumstances are made out to send the sample for retesting/re-analysis," the court said while rejecting the application, dealing a significant evidentiary setback to the prosecution at the remand stage....