Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The seated envelope containing charas as well as the letter addressed by P.W. 4 to the Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Panaji on which specimen seal of Anti Narcotic Cell, Panaji Goa (1), was affixed, were sent through Police Constable S.T. Kavthankar, Buckle No. 3994 to the Director, Food and Drugs Administration, Panaji, Goa. The same were received by the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration on 5th December itself and the Junior Scientific Officer, P.W. 1 Shri Mahesh Kaissare received the same on the same day from the Directorate of Food and Drugs Administration. The Junior Scientific Officer Shri Mahesh Kaissare P.W.1 found the seals on the envelope duly intact and the said seals tallied with the specimen seal impression sent separately along with the reference letter. Shri Kaissare P.W.1 opened the sealed envelope on 15-12-97 and weighed its contents on a Meteller balance. According to him, the envelope was containing in all 15 pieces of dark brown colour elongated substance which were flatten as well as cylindrical in shape. Most of the pieces were wrapped in transparent polythene colourless paper. Six of these pieces were wrapped in pairs of two. Weight of the pieces along with wrappings, was 44.95 grams and the weight of the pieces without the wrappings was 43.97 grams. Shri Kaissare, P.W.1 analysed 5 of the said 15 pieces, weighing 2.76 grams, 3.12 grains, 3.94 grams, 4.3 grams and 4 grams, individually, after taking on an average 0.75 gram from the said 5 pieces. In respect of the remaining 10 pieces, he prepared a composite sample by adopting standard sampling procedure and a quantity of 1 gram was taken from this composite sample, after thoroughly mixing of the pieces to a powder for the purpose of analysis. He had explained the standard sampling procedure, stating that if there are 10 sticks in a sample, all 10 sticks are analysed individually; upto 30 sticks half of the sticks selected at random are analysed individually and if there are more than 30 sticks, then 2% of the substances selected at random are analysed individually taking it as a representative sample. After analysing 5 pieces individually and the composite sample prepared from the remaining 10 pieces, Shri Kaissare P.W. 1 found that the substance was dark brown in colour and was having characteristic odour of charas; microscopic examination carried out on the substance, after treating with 10% Sodium Hydroxide and a drop of this solution taken on a glass slide and observed under microscope, showed hair resembling charas hair; the identification test for charas carried on the extract, after extracting the substance with petroleum ether, was positive for charas. The tests applied for the said purpose are Beam's Acid Test, Neagam's Test, as well as fast Blue B Salt Test, details of which have been given by him in his deposition as well as in the report. On the basis of the above mentioned findings, P.W. 1 Mahesh Kaissaire, Junior Scientific Officer came to the conclusion that the sticks analysed which were found in the sealed envelope contained charas The envelope containing charas as well as the sticks inside have been identified by panch P.W.3, P.I. P.W. 4 and Mahesh Kaissare P.W. 1.

28. Another disturbing feature which we have noticed in a number of cases, is the course adopted by the Junior Scientific Officers/Chemical Analysers while analysing the substances, in question, which are in large quantity. Five of the pieces in the case under consideration were individually analysed and they were found to contain charas. In so far as analysis of these 5 pieces is concerned, there is no difficulty. However, in respect of 10 other pieces, the Junior Scientific Officer is reported to have followed the standard sampling procedure, which has been explained by him as: when there are 10 sticks in a sample, all the 10 sticks are analysed individually; upto 30 sticks, half of the sticks selected at random are analysed individually and if there are more than 30 sticks, then 2% of the substances selected at random are analysed individually, taking it as a representative sample. In the case under consideration, the Junior Scientific Officer analysed 5 pieces individually and the remaining 10 were examined as per the standard sampling procedure by taking representative sample. However, even as per the standard sampling procedure, referred to by him, he should have atleast examined half of the sticks selected at random individually, that is to say, he should have examined atleast 8 sticks, but he examined only 5. Moreover, he was not able to state how much sample he had taken from each of the 10 remaining substances for the purpose of representative sample. He agreed that if one of the pieces out of the ten, was charas while the nine were not charas, the net result of his analysis of one gram of representative powder sample, would give positive indication for charas and the report would read that the representative sample contained charas. He could not say anything to the suggestion that 9 of the sticks, out of 10 analysed by him are not charas. The same type of situation has arisen in Shri Premnath v. The State of Goa, Criminal Appeal No. 4/1997, to which one of us (Batta J.,) was party, wherein the representative sample was analysed by the Junior Scientific Officer. In the said case, the Junior Scientific Officer had taken individual samples from two charas pieces, but he did not carry out individual tests on the said samples. He could not state as to how much portion was taken from each piece. He further stated that even a small percentage of active constituents of charas would have given positive test for charas in the representative sample. In these circumstances, it was held that in the absence of evidence as to how much sample was individually taken from each of the said two pieces and having not conducted the test individually on the said samples and in view of the evidence of the Junior Scientific Officer that even a small percentage of active constituents of charas would have given positive test of charas, in the representative sample, it would be difficult to hold that the entire contraband of two pieces, namely 15.69 grams was charas. In the light of the evidence on record, it was held that it would be hazardous to reach such conclusion and example in that respect was given to illustrate the same, namely that assuming for a moment that the samples are taken from two sticks, one of which contains charas and the other does not at all contain charas and when the samples are taken from both sticks which are mixed and are collectively tested, then, the entire sample would be positive for charas, even though one stick out of which sample had been taken, did not at all contain charas. There would have been no difficulty if all the pieces were individually analysed.