Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Analysis

16. As regards the issue of sampling at the time of seizure, it may be worthwhile to deliberate upon the various authorities often cited in this regard. The issue that arises in this matter is of defect in the sampling procedure adopted by the investigating officer at the time when recovery and seizure, in this case, is effected. While the accused submit that the procedure for the sampling of seized materials is not in accordance with the mandate of the Standing Order No. 1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau and Standing Order 1/89 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, it is contended by the prosecution that these issues are a matter of trial as also that the Standing Orders are not mandatory but directory in nature. Yet another issue that arises is whether sampling ought to be done at the time of seizure or later in accordance with provisions of section 52A NDPS Act before the Magistrate. To fully unravel these contentions, it would be apposite to appreciate and assess the Standing Order being referred to, the context and purpose for which they were issued, and the decisions of various courts in this regard.

i. Standing Order 1/88 dated 15.03.1988:
"SECTION II- GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING, STORAGE ETC.
2.1 All drugs shall be properly classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure.
2.2 All the packages/containers shall be serially numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witness (Panchas) and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchanama drawn on the spot.

(emphasis added)

22. Finally, in Amani Fidel Chris (supra) this Court also traversed the entire canvas, and acquitted the accused, observing as under:

"32. In the opinion of this court, the procedure adopted by the respondent in the present case for drawing samples neither conforms to the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of NDPS Act nor under the Standing Orders. At the cost of repetition, the respondent neither filed any application before the Magistrate for drawing the samples under his supervision nor followed the procedure of drawing a representative sample outlined in paras 2.4 or 2.5 read with 2.8 of the Standing Order 1/89.

31. Pursuant to appreciation of contentions of the parties as well as documents on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail subject to certain conditions.

32. The fact that the contraband which was seized contained in 2000 pudiyas 100 each in 20 bags, were all emptied together in a plastic jar, was prima facie not in compliance with the process envisaged under the SO 1/88 and 1/89, as adverted to above. The procedure, in compliance with the standing orders, could have been adopted, inter alia to make lots of a bunch of pudiyas together, as envisaged in the SO. By mixing all the pudiyas together, the sample was not a true representative sample and the composition of the mix would therefore, would be at a serious variance. Even though these are issues which would have to be considered at the point of trial, it would still import an element of reasonable doubt in the sampling procedure undertaken.