Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the general procedure for sampling provided in Standing Order No. 01 of 1989 dated 13.06.1989 has not been complied by the opposite party. He has relied upon clause 2.1 to 2.8 of the aforesaid standing order quoted herein below :-

2.1 All drugs shall be classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure.
2.2 All the packages/containers shall be 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 witnesses (Panchas) and the persons from whose possession the drug is recovered and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot.

10. The second argument of the counsel for the opposite party, that at the stage of consideration of bail application, the judgment passed in criminal appeal is not relevant requires consideration. It is not deniable that the rigorous section 37 of the N.D.P.S Act provides that the court must adopt a negative attitude towards bail and only when it is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds of believing that the accused is not guilty of offence alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, he can be enlarged on bail. In the present case there is non-compliance of the procedure of sampling provided under the standing order which has statutory force and therefore the applicant may not be held guilty after trial. Secondly, there is no prior criminal history of the applicant which may compel this court to take the view that the applicant will commit further offence after being enlarged on bail. This is his first implication.