Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Applicant's Submissions

6. The learned counsels for the applicants submit that the sampling procedure followed by the prosecution is in violation of the Standing Order No.1/88 dated 15.03.1988 issued by Narcotics Control Bureau, and the Standing Order no.1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.

7. Placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in Laxman Thakur v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2022 SCC OnLine Del 4427; Amina v. State NCT of Delhi (2023) SCC OnLine Del 3491; and, Ginkala Meddilety v. State 2023 SCC OnLine Del 5450, they submit that this Court has, in cases where the sampling procedure followed by the prosecution is not in conformity with the above mentioned Standing Orders, released the accused(s) on bail.

14. Section 52A of the NDPS Act provides for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and its procedure, including sampling. It reads as under:-

52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.-- (1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified. (2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-

24. In the above judgment, on facts of that case, the court held that the procedure adopted by the prosecution was not defective in nature. The said judgment, therefore, will not come to any aid of the prosecution.

25. In Shaliender (supra), this Court observed that the circumstances under which the sampling procedure could not be followed as per the mandate, needs to be duly considered after evidence has been led on record and the FSL Expert is examined. This Court held that at this stage, there is no reasonable ground to give a finding that the entire proceedings stand vitiated because of alleged sampling procedure adopted by the Investigating Agency. The Court also found the reason given by the learned Trial Court for rejecting the bail to the accused therein, which was that the quantity found even in one package was intermediatory in nature, to be relevant to refuse the bail. The said judgment may not be applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the prosecution has made no endeavour to explain why the procedure set out in the Standing Orders was not followed.

28. In the present case, prima facie the sampling procedure followed by the prosecution was not in conformity with the terms of the Standing Orders no.1/88 and 1/89. There is also no prior history of any prosecution being pending against the accused persons herein. The accused have already been in custody for more than a year. Both the accused are aged around 20 years and the trial is likely to take long.