Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(e) While drawing one sample in duplicate from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative drug in equal quantity is taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot.

10.1 In pari materia with the Standing Order No. 1/88 is the Standing Order No.1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued under subsection (1) of Section 52A of NDPS Act by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Section (II) of the said Signing Date:13.10.2023 BAIL APPLN. 2475/2023 Page 14 Standing Order of 1989 provides for the general procedure for sampling, storage. The relevant portion of the said Standing Order reads as under:-

14. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bipin Bihari Lenka V Narcotics Control Bureau, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1160, while dealing with the alleged violation of section 52A of NDPS Act, Signing Date:13.10.2023 BAIL APPLN. 2475/2023 Page 19 dismissed the bail application and observed that the alleged prejudice caused to the applicant on account of non-compliance of sampling procedure would have to be established during the course of trial. It was observed as under:

14. In the facts and circumstances and considering the connecting evidence on record, wherein the contraband has been recovered from private vehicle driven by the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no grounds for grant of bail are made out in the light of twin conditions laid down in Section 37 of NDPS Act.
The application is accordingly dismissed. 14.1 Similarly, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 03.08.2022 passed in BAIL APPLN. 3508/2021 titled as Shailender V State NCT of Delhi, denied bail to the applicant therein by holding that the procedural lapse has to be determined during the course of the trial and not in a proceeding for grant of bail. After discussing various judgments passed by Co-ordinate Benches of this Court on the issue of sampling procedure, it was has held as under:

Though the burden always remains on the prosecution to prove that the quantity possessed by accused was heroin, beyond reasonable doubt but it cannot be ignored that the petitioner is yet to come up with any explanation during trial as to what was allegedly contained in the similarly packed smaller packets which on preliminary testing by the Investigating Agency tested positive for heroin. Prima facie the substance recovered in different packets was of similar texture, colour and tested positive on field testing. The circumstances under which the sampling procedure could not be followed as per the mandate, needs to be duly considered after the evidence has been led on record and the FSL expert is examined. Considering the limitations for grant of bail referred in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) for offences punishable under Sections 19, 24 or 27A and also for offences involving a commercial quantity, there must exist „reasonable grounds to believe‟ at this stage that the person is not guilty of such an offence. In my considered opinion, there does not exist reasonable grounds at this stage to give a finding that the entire proceedings stand vitiated because of the alleged sampling procedure adopted by the Signing Date:13.10.2023 BAIL APPLN. 2475/2023 Page 21 Investigating Agency. The procedural deficiency in sampling, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, can be considered only after the evidence is led on record. The observations of learned Trial Court in order dated 07.09.2021 are also relevant in this regard.