Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. As regards the issue of sampling at the time of seizure, it may be worthwhile to deliberate upon the various authorities often cited in this regard. The issue that arises in this matter is of defect in the sampling procedure adopted by the investigating officer at the time when recovery and seizure, in this case, is effected. While the accused submit that the procedure for the sampling of seized materials is not in accordance with the mandate of the Standing Order No. 1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau and Standing Order 1/89 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, it is contended by the prosecution that these issues are a matter of trial as also that the Standing Orders are not mandatory but directory in nature. Yet another issue that arises is whether sampling ought to be done at the time of seizure or later in accordance with provisions of section 52A NDPS Act before the Magistrate. To fully unravel these contentions, it would be apposite to appreciate and assess the Standing Order being referred to, the context and purpose for which they were issued, and the decisions of various courts in this regard.

(emphasis added)

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bal Mukund, (2009) 12 SCC 161 while referring to Standing Order 1/88 held as follows:

"36. There is another aspect of the matter which cannot also be lost sight of. Standing Instruction No. 1/88, which had been issued under the Act, lays down the procedure for taking samples. The High Court has noticed that PW7 had taken samples of 25 grams each from all the five bags and then mixed them and sent to the laboratory. There is nothing to show that adequate quantity from each bag had been taken. It was a requirement in law."

(emphasis added)

18. Finally, in Amani Fidel Chris (supra) this Court also traversed the entire canvas, and acquitted the accused, observing as under:

"32. In the opinion of this court, the procedure adopted by the respondent in the present case for drawing samples neither conforms to the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of NDPS Act nor under the Standing Orders. At the cost of repetition, the respondent neither filed any application before the Magistrate for drawing the samples under his supervision nor followed the procedure of drawing a representative sample outlined in paras 2.4 or 2.5 read with 2.8 of the Standing Order 1/89.

(emphasis added)

23. From a careful assessment of the decisions cited above and the perusal of the Standing Orders, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Standing Orders have to serve a certain purpose having been issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, Government of India and cannot be rendered optional for compliance to the investigating agencies. The procedures prescribed in the said orders are based upon a certain logic which ought to be respected, or else it would be a worthless piece of paper. Notwithstanding that Courts in the decisions cited above have accepted it as a mandatory directive [refer to Noor Aga (supra), Bal Mukund (supra), Basant Rai (supra) Santini Simone (supra) and finally Amani Fidel (supra)], even the Hon'ble Supreme Court while taking a view that Section 52 & Section 57 NDPS were directory in Gurbax Singh (supra) said that "the IO cannot totally ignore these provisions". Even Balbir Singh (supra) states that non- compliance does not render the trial initiate "the officers, however, cannot totally ignore these provisions". Therefore, in this Court's view, the Standing Orders ought to be respected by the investigating agencies and non-compliance of those Standing Orders may naturally invoke a reasonable doubt relating to the process of sampling which is the most critical procedure to be carried out in order to ascertain the nature of the substance and its quantity. In fact, the Field Officers Handbook issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau for Drug Law Enforcement also reiterates these procedures prescribed under the Standing Orders.