Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Appellant Ram Singh had to probabilise the absence of requisite mensrea which, in our considered view, he had miserably failed.

.

15. Shri Malay Kaushal Advocate learned counsel for the appellant Ram Singh raised a contention that the samples drawn during the conduct of proceedings under Section 52A of the Act were not proved to be the of representative samples of the entire bulk and in absence of such evidence, the appellant Ram Singh can at the most be rt held to in possession of 26 grams of charas. He made reference to the statement of PW-19 Inspector Mohinder Singh wherein nothing was stated in respect of making of the samples homogeneous. Learned counsel has further submitted that the substance (contraband) when recovered was in three separate polythene packets and was in the shape of balls and sticks. Reference has also been made to order Ext. PW-19/H, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dalhousie, in which also, the procedure for making the samples homogeneous was not mentioned.

20. The Central Government in exercise of powers vested under sub-section (i) of Section 52 (A) of the Act, has issued standing order No.1 of 1989, prescribing the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. Section 2 of the standing order No.1 of 1989 provides for general procedure of sampling and storage etc. The extracts of above standing order relevant to the issue in hand are as under: -

.
STANDING ORDER No. 1/89 SECTION II - GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING, STORAGE, ETC.
2.1. ..........
2.2. ..........
of 2.3. The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) where a rt quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn.
One has to remember that the provisions of the NDPS Act are both stringent and rigorous and therefore the burden heavily lies on the prosecution. Non-production of a physical evidence would lead to a negative inference within the meaning of Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Evidence Act). The procedure contemplated through the notification has an element of fair play such as the deposit of the seal, numbering the containers in seriatim wise and keeping them in lots preceded by compliance of the procedure for drawing samples. The afore-stated principles of law are .