Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

17. It prima facie appears that this method of sampling does not conform to the requirements of the Sampling Rules. Samples were to be drawn from each packet or container, but appear to have been drawn collectively from several packets, which were recovered in a single larger container or package.

18. In several orders of this Court, relied upon by Mr. Aggarwal, bail has been granted, despite the application of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, on similar grounds. Reference has been made in those orders to Standing Order No. 1/1988, which laid down the sampling procedure prior to framing of the Sampling Rules. Some of the said orders are as follows:

BAIL APPLN. 3076/2020, decided on 11.02.2021.

mixture, was not permissible.

d. In Sarvan v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi5, samples were taken from some of the packets in the parcel, but not from others, which was held to constitute a violation of the sampling procedure. e. In Sachin Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)6, samples were taken from each "katta", but not from each of the parcels therein. f. In Aas Mohammad v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi7 also, the recovery consisted of 43 kattas containing 281 bundles. Samples were not drawn from each bundle, but only from 43 kattas as a whole.

SLP (CRL.) 7049/2025 [hereinafter, "Wajid Ali"].

Emphasis supplied.

Criminal Appeal Nos. 1690-1691 of 2012, decided on 19.10.2012.

24. Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, I have observed above that the sampling procedure under Section 52A has prima facie been violated. The mixing of samples drawn from various packets and testing of the mixed samples is not a trivial irregularity, but affects the question of substantial compliance. I am prima facie of the view that, on such facts, it is possible that the petitioners could discharge the initial factual burden with regard to non-compliance of Section 52A. It may or may not ultimately vitiate the trial, having regard to other discrepancies and physical evidence produced, but provides a basis upon which an adverse inference against the prosecution is certainly plausible. As held in Bharat Aambale, in such circumstances, the statutory presumption of commission of an offence would also be discharged. D. ANALYSIS REGARDING IDENTIFICATION OF THE RECOVERED SUBSTANCE AS "GANJA"

33. Even assuming Section 37 of the NDPS Act is applicable, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to bail in the facts of this case. The observations of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi)20, make it clear that the requirements of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are to be adjudged on the basis of a prima facie case, and not on a literal reading which would require the Court, at the stage of bail, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused had not committed the offence with which they are charged. Quite apart from the question of mixing of dried branches, leaves, and grass-like substances, the petitioners have also cast prima facie doubt on the sampling procedure. While the judgment in Kashif mandates against the grant of bail or acquittal merely on the finding of a procedural violation of Section 52A, it has been clarified in Bharat Aambale, that significant discrepancies in the procedure adopted are relevant. The failure to draw samples from each packet separately is, in my view, a significant departure from the procedure of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Sampling Rules. In the absence of sampling in terms of the Sampling Rules, the value of the FSL Report itself may require consideration. Although the prosecution may ultimately be able to overcome this with other evidence at trial, in my view, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused at this stage.