Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2)The sampling procedure adopted by the Seizure Officer was totally illegal, inasmuch as, the Officer claims to have collected 100 gms. of poppy straw from each of the 5 bags and mixed the same and then prepared two samples.

Learned counsel submitted that as per the prescribed procedure, the Seizure Officer was required to prepare individual samples after collecting the article separately from each individual bag so that the FSL report would reflect the character of the substance contained in every bag. The procedure adopted by the Seizure Officer means that representative sample was not drawn from every bag containing the alleged contraband and therefore, the FSL report cannot be read in evidence against the accused. He further submitted that the Muddamal was not produced and exhibited by the prosecution at the trial despite opportunity provided to it. Only two samples were produced during evidence of Shivraj Singh the Seizure officer. Thus, as per him, the prosecution failed to give primary evidence of the seizure and consequently, the accused appellants are entitled to be acquitted.

I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

Since the appellants counsel has challenged the impugned judgment on limited grounds, only the evidence of the Seizure Officer and the documents of seizure are required to be considered for appreciating the arguments.

The first argument of the appellants counsel was that the manner of taking collecting samples adopted by the Seizure Officer was improper and therefore, the FSL report cannot be read against the accused. For appreciating this argument, the contents of the seizure memo need to be examined. As per the seizure memo Ex.P4, the Seizure Officer found and seized 5 bags containing poppy straw and powder from inside the offending vehicle. The seizure memo recites that the Seizure Office collected 100 gms. of article from each of the bags and then prepared two samples of 500 gms. each. The very same procedure was detailed by the Seizure Officer, PW.10 Shivraj Singh during his evidence. On the face of the record, the assertion made by the Seizure Officer in the seizure memo as well as in his evidence, throws a great doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution story. As the total bags containing the contraband were 5 in number, if the Seizure Officer had collected 100 gms. of substance from each of the bags for preparing the samples, then the total weight of the representative article would come to only 500 gms. Thus, it is indeed a matter of surprise as to how the Seizure Officer could manage to prepare two samples of 500 gms. each from the contraband. Be that as it may, the Seizure Officer PW.10 Shivraj Singh was examined during trial on 1.5.2014 on that day, the Public Prosecutor requested the Court to defer his statement for producing the muddamal. The court appended a note in the statement that the evidence was deferred and the muddamal be summoned. On the next date i.e. on 19.5.2014, the following statement of the Seizure Officer was recorded by the trial Court:

This Court examined the sanctity of the procedure of drawing representative samples from multiple packets of contraband narcotics in the cases of Jagdish Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 91 and Jasmer @ Bachchi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2014(1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 199 and held that collecting small quantity of the contraband from separate bags; mixing them and then preparing samples is not the appropriate procedure to be adopted in such cases. The Seizure Officer should collect and prepare individual samples from each of the separate bags suspected to contain contraband. Thereafter, he should append the seals and affix appropriate identifying chits bearing the signatures of the panchas, the accused and of his own thereupon. Seen in light of the ratio of the abovementioned judgments of this Court in the cases of Jagdish Chand and Jasmer (supra) and keeping in view the flaws noticed by this Court in the prosecution evidence regarding the manner of preparing the samples, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove that appropriate sampling procedure was adopted by the Seizure Officer Shivraj Singh while conducting the seizure in question. Thus, the FSL report cannot be read in evidence against the accused.