Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

64. In the instant case as well provisions of Section 50 are not attracted.

65. Section-57:-

Ex.PW-1/G is the intimation given by PW-2 to his immediate senior officer i.e. the PW-2; that PW-2 is the immediate senior officer of PW-1 has been reiterated by both PW-2 and PW-1. This is even otherwise a directory provision which stood complied with.

66. Standing instruction no.1/88/ sampling procedure not followed:-

PW-2 has on oath detailed the manner in which the samples were drawn; out of the 17 packets 4 duplicate samples were drawn after homogenous mixing; these details also find mention in the panchnama Ex. PW-1/D. The drawn samples were put into zip lock polythene bags and then put into a khaki envelope which was pasted with gum and sealed with the DRI seal no.10 and also pasted with a paper slip containing the date and signatures of the witnesses, both the accused as also signatures of the complainant on each and every samples. Fascimile of the DR seal no.10 was also affixed on each page of the panchnama.

71. In State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand (2004) 3 SCC 453, the Supreme Court, on the issue of the Standing Instruction issued by the Central Government under Section 52 A of the NDPS Act requiring a particular procedure to be followed at the time of sampling had held that in view of the ratio of the judgment in the case of Khet Singh v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 380 these standing orders are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation; they are not inexorable rules; even if there is some kind of a procedural irregularity if prejudice is not caused to the accused the evidence adduced would not become inadmissible.