Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: morphine in Santosh Kumar Pathak vs State Of U.P. on 4 December, 2024Matching Fragments
3. Brief facts of the instant appeal is to the effect that the accused-appellant-Santosh Kumar Pathak and one Fakire (फकीरे) were apprehended on 01.01.2006 by S.I. Jai Ram Verma alongwith constables namely Sita Ram Tiwari, Rameshwar Pratap Singh and Sheetla Prasad at about 10.30 hours in front of Paani Tanki situated at Mohalla Peerwatavan (Naala), Kotwali Barabanki Nagar and from the possession i.e. from the pocket of the pant of the accused-appellant-Santosh Kumar Pathak, one packet of 100 gms. morphine was recovered and similarly one packet of morphine was recovered from the possession of Fakire (फकीरे).
12. It is also stated that the evidence particularly the samples produced before the trial court along with FSL Report ought not to have been considered by the trial court in absence of sample prepared and report obtained in terms of Standing Orders and Section 52A of NDPS Act.
13. It is stated that as per Standing Orders on the subject and Section 52A of NDPS Act, the samples were not taken. In this case, morphine was recovered from the pocket of pant of the accused-appellant, as per the case of prosecution, and from the said morphine, sample(s) were drawn. From the recovery memo, it is not clear that as to whether the morphine was taken as per quantity prescribed i.e. 05 gms. and it is also not clear that as to whether sample was taken in duplicate or not.
14. It is further stated that in the instant case, as per prosecution, the morphine was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant and accordingly in terms of Standing Order No.1/88 and Standing Order No. 1/89 particularly Clause 1.6 and Clause 2.3, respectively, minimum qunatity of morphine ought to have been taken as sample (in duplicate) for chemical test.
15. In this case, from recovery memo, it is apparent that the process as indicated in Standing Order No. 1/88 and 1/89 was not adopted. Thus, entire case of prosecution against the accused-appellant has no force.
36. In the instant case, as per prosecution, the morphine was recovered from the possession of the accused-appellant and accordingly in terms of Standing Order No.1/88 and Standing Order No. 1/89 particularly Clause 1.6 and Clause 2.3, respectively, morphine ought to have been taken as sample (in duplicate) for chemical test. However, it is apparent from the record that the process as indicated in Standing Order No. 1/88 and 1/89 was not adopted and Section 52A of NDPS Act.
37. Taking note of the aforesaid and principles/proposition settled on the subject in the pronouncements, referred above, this Court finds that the prosecution had not followed the procedure as prescribed while drawing the sample of recovered morphine from the accused-appellant.