Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. It is argued that the samples were compromised as the substances found in the 12 transparent pouches (recovered from the cardboard box carried by the applicant) were mixed before the samples were drawn.

22. Insofar as the argument regarding improper procedure of sampling is concerned, this Court by a separate Judgment today in Sovraj v. State : 2024:DHC:5009, adverting to a catena of judgments, has held that that the accused persons cannot be allowed to go scot free on minute irregularities in procedure of sampling especially when the prosecution has not had the opportunity to furnish an explanation. It was held that the alleged violation in manner of mixing of seized substances and whether the same has caused any prejudice to the applicant would be a matter of trial.

23. In the present case, prima facie, the applicant has not been able to establish any prejudice by the alleged irregular procedure of sampling. Prejudice caused to the applicant by the infirmities in the procedure of drawing samples, if any, will be tested during the course of the trial.

24. It is relevant to note that a pinch of the substance recovered from all the transparent pouches was tested with the help of the Field Drug Test Kit and the substances were mixed only after the same tested positive for Heroin. The prosecution has vehemently contested that the sampling was done in accordance with law. It is argued that the applicant will have ample opportunity to contest during trial

25. While it is open to the applicant to press the aforesaid defence at the time of trial and contest that that the drawn samples were not true representatives of the seized substance, however, at this stage, the applicant has failed to establish a prima facie case as to how she has been prejudiced on account of the delayed compliance or the alleged irregular procedure of sampling. Prejudice caused to the applicant by any infirmity in the procedure of drawing samples will be tested during the course of the trial.

29. It was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in custody since 24.05.2021 and the Fundamental Rights as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India will override the statutory embargo created under Section of the 37 of the NDPS Act.

30. The applicant relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1109 and of Mohd. Muslim v. State (NCT of Delhi) : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 352. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said cases, after noting the arguments advanced on behalf of the accused, granted bail on the ground that the accused persons therein had been incarcerated for a long period of time and the trial was likely going to take a considerable amount of time. There is no quarrel as far as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court is concerned. However, in the present case, the sole ground taken by the applicant to contend that no case is made out, is the alleged improper procedure of sampling.