Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

27. From the detailed examination and analysis of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence produced on record by the prosecution, it appears to us that various discrepancies, contradictions, omissions and infirmities are found in the oral as well as documentary evidence. Though several contentions were raised before the Trial Court and before this Court and we found substance therein, we, however, confine ourselves to deal with the strong protest lodged against sealing procedure adopted by the prosecution. Even otherwise, we do not think it just and proper to deal with those other contentions and rest our decision thereon as the appellants challenge against sealing procedure adopted by the prosecution coupled with those other contentions, is strong enough to disturb the finding recorded by the Trial Court and renders the accused to be acquitted. The main grievance was that the identity of the muddamal and the samples sent to the F.S.L. is not established. There was a possibility of tampering with the contents of the samples. The samples were not kept in safe and proper custody and the sealing procedure was absolutely defective. There is difference in the affixing of the seals used for sealing samples and so misuse of the seal for tampering the contents of the sample cannot be ruled out.

28. To examine and appreciate this contention, relevant provisions in the Act or Rules made thereunder touching this subject matter are required to be looked into. Section 55 of the Act deals with Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered. It provides that Officer in charge of police station shall allow any officer depositing the seized articles to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station. Except this, no provision seems to have been made in the present Act and Rules framed thereunder regarding mode of taking and sealing of the sample, mode of assigning the same to chemical examiner and their chemical examination or even touching the above matters. However, the Central Government issued Standing Instruction / Orders. Standing Order No. 1/88 dated 15.03.1988, Standing Order No. 2/88 dated 11.04.1988 and Standing Order No. 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 are required to be looked into. Standing Instruction 1/88 speaks about procedure regarding drawl, storage, testing and disposal of samples from seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Standing Order No. 2/88 deals with receipt, custody, storage and disposal of seized/confiscated narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Standing Order No. 1/89 relates to general procedure for sampling, storage etc. Standing Instruction / Order No. 1/88 inter alia provides as under:

31. This Court has again considered this issue in Criminal Appeal No. 287 of 1999 in the case of Ganpatram Punmaram Vishnoi v. State of Gujarat decided on 07.05.2002 Additional Public Prosecutor, as an officer of the Court, has pointed out in the case that no proper sealing has been done by the PSO and, therefore, possibility of tampering with the muddamal cannot be ruled out. The Court took the view in that case that the slip signed by the panchas as well as the PSO, which was kept along with the polyethylene bag is required to be affixed at the outer portion below the wax seal of the police station. If the police keeps the slip signed by the panchas and the PSO along with the sample muddamal and affix the seal of the police station at the outer portion of the bag, possibility of tampering the muddamal cannot be ruled out as the official seal always remains with the concerned police station. The Court, therefore, held that it is obligatory on the part of the police to see to it that the slip signed by the panchas as well as the concerned Officer is affixed at the outer portion of the sample bag below the official seal of the police station. This procedure will totally rule out the possibility of any tampering with the sample muddamal. This has not been done in that case and hence, the Court held that the procedure adopted by the PSO cannot be said to be free from any doubt and the possibility of the tampering also cannot be ruled out. The Court held that in any case, the benefit must go to the accused.