Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Among several contentions raised in the bail applications, besides the one referred supra, one more is regarding the sample collection based on two Single Judge expressions of the Karnataka High Court placed reliance by the respective counsel, viz., (1). in Noble Vs. State of Karnataka1 where the bail application filed u/sec.439 CrPC by the accused against whom the FIR registered from the occurrence report of the offences punishable u/sec.22(b) of NDPS Act as Cr.No.2 of 2018 and there is an observation of no specific mention about the credible information reduced into Case Diary and there is non-compliance of the mandatory requirements of 42(1) and 42(2) of the NDPS Act on furnishing copies to immediate superior officer and material goes to show 18grams of MDMA seized from the accused person and with regard to personal search, there is a duty of the police officer to explain to the petitioner that he is having legal rights about the exercise of option for conducting search before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and there is no averment that police explained that legal right for said seizure and prosecution not produced the qualitative as well as quantitative test where the instruction No.1.18 of Annexure-1 in the standing instructions purports expeditious analysis of a narcotic drug and psychotropic substance is of essence to all proceedings under the NDPS Act and in many cases the Court may refuse to extend police/judicial remand beyond 15 days, however, where quantitative analysis requires longer time, the result of the qualitative test should be dispatched within 15days and there is thereby non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPA Act and thereby the 2018 SCC online Kar 448 accused is entitled to bail and (2). in Ejem Peter Vs. State of Karnataka2 where it is observed that out of quantity seized, the samples drawn and sent to the FSL and at this stage bail sought and as per the counsel for the bail applicant even assumed that psychotropic substance seized from the petitioner, it would be necessary for the prosecution to demonstrate that it was a quantity which could be considered as a commercial quantity to attract stringent punishment and substance seized into is indeed narcotic drug or psychotropic substance falling under the notifications appended to the NDPS Act and out of the 5 items, the article 1 revealed positive of charas and not indicated as to what percentage of charas was found and Articles 2 and 5 are concerned found positive for the presence of cocaine and paracetamol and Articles 3 and 4 shows the negative report for presence of cocaine; thereby as the qualitative analysis coupled with quantitative test required to be conducted and once it is adulterated with other substance and contains a percentage of cocaine it might be shown what percentage and whether it is commercial and in the absence of which benefit must go to the accused of no commercial quantity and referred the standing instruction No.1.18 as also referred the other expression of another single judge supra besides instructions 1.19 and 1.22 by saying accused made out case for enlargement on bail from the lacunae.