Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8) It has been further contended that the mandatory provisions regarding search and seizure as contained in the NDPS Act have not been adhered to by the police while conducting investigation of the case and this aspect of the matter has not been taken note of by the Trial Court. Learned counsel, in addition to reiteration of the grounds of bail urged in the application, submits that contraband alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant does not fall within the meaning of NDPS Act because, as per Notification-Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued by the Government of India, in exercise of powers conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the procedure for sampling, storage etc. has not been followed by the Police on the spot of seizure. Learned counsel also seeks enlargement of the applicant on bail on the ground of violation of mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court, Allahabad High Court, State of Telangana and of this Court reported as Noor Aga v. State of Punjab and anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 1034 of 2008 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 5597 of 2006], Om Prakash Verma, v. State of U.P. [Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9660 of 2021 decided on 11.03.2022], Baba Sow Chandekar & Anr. V. The State of Telangana [Criminal Petition No. 4428 of 2022], Lovedeep Nath v. UT of JK and anr. [Bail Applicatoin No. 296 of 2021 decided on 28.01.2022] and Deepak Gupta & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Anr. [Bail App. No. 7/2022 decided on 26.04.2022].

9) Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI appearing for the respondent has argued that applicant/accused is involved in a heinous offences under Sections 8/20/21 of NDPS Act as he has been arrested by the Police of Police Station Leh and a huge quantity of contraband i.e. 60 grams of Ganja, Spasmol Proxyvon Plus 1330 capsules and Tramodol, Hydro Chloride and Acetaminoten 120 tablets were recovered from his possession which falls under commercial quantity and rigor of Section 37 of NDPS Act are applicable; that there has been complete compliance of the requirement under section 53-A of the NDPS Act; that compliance of procedure laid down under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is question of fact and can only be raised during the course of trail; that conditions laid down in section 37 of the NDPS Act are not satisfied in the instant case; that the impugned order passed by the court below is perfectly in accordance with law and does not call for any interference and that sampling procedure is proper and no defect can be attributed to the procedure adopted by the investigating officer and that issue whether the sampling procedure was in accordance with the Notification-Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 or not, is a matter of evidence to be appreciated at the time of trial and therefore, cannot be examined at this stage and that if the entire quantity of the contraband is taken into consideration, the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the applicant falls within the purview of "commercial quantity"

11) Since the entire controversy revolves around Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 referred in the preceding paras, it shall be apt, at the outset, to reproduce the general procedure for sampling, storage etc. as a ready reference.

It reads thus:

―S.O. No. 1/89. - Whereas the Central Government considers it necessary and expedient to determine the manner in which the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, as specified in Notification No. 4/89 dated 29th May, 1989 (F. No. 664/23/89-Opium, published as I.O. 381(E)] which shall, as soon as may be, after their seizure, be disposed of, having regard to their hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution and constraints of proper storage space;