Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(emphasis added)

23.In Union of India & Ors. v. Bal Mukund & Ors. reported as (2009) 12 SCC 161, the Supreme Court while referring to the Standing Instruction1/88, 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 PW- 7 had taken https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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."”
3. In reply, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that it is not true that the sampling procedure was not followed. 21 tablets containing psychotropic substances were recovered from the accused. All the 21 tablets were sent for chemical analysis. The chemical analysis report clearly established that N-alpha-dimethyl-3,4-methylendedioxy-phenyl ethylamine (MDMA) was detected in all the four samples. N,alpha- dimethyl-3,4-(methylenedioxy)-phenylethylamine is also known as N-Methyl-3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine or 3,4-Methylenedioxy methamphetamine (MDMA). N, alpha-dimethyl-3, 4-(methylenedioxy) phenylethylamine, is psychotropic substance covered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The quantity of contraband seized from the petitioner is a commercial quantity and therefore, petitioner has to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 of NDPS Act for the grant of bail. Petitioner has not satisfied the conditions and therefore, he is not entitled for bail. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) further submitted that psychotropic substance possessed by the petitioner is mostly sold among school and college students, spoiling the entire generation of youngsters. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this petition.
6. Main submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that (1) sampling procedure was not properly done (2) there is discrepancy of colours in the First Information Report and in the chemical analysis report (3) there is discrepancy in the weight of the tablets in the First Information Report and in the chemical analysis report. One more submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the copy of the cover containing chemical analysis report was served to the petitioner under Section 207 Cr.P.C. It shows that the cover addressed to the Court was opened by the police.
7. From the judgments produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the ratio is that, if the sampling procedure is not properly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis followed as per the Standing Order 1/89, it may be a ground for acquittal.

However, the cases relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner relate to ganja and other narcotic and psychotropic substances, where sampling was done from the large volume of narcotic/psychotropic substances seized. However, in the case before hand, all the 21 tablets seized were sent for analysis. The seizure is not a great volume/quantity of psychotropic substance. But only 21 tablets were seized. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, the judgments relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the sampling was not properly done in this case cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of this case, for the reason that the entire 21 tablets were sent for analysis and all the 21 tablets were used up during the analysis.