Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
(v) There is no material available to show that the petitioner had contact with Jog @ Bhagat. The call details provided by the respondent will not prove that he travelled along with A1. Respondent has not given details of CDR till 24.00 hrs on 23.10.2019 for the reason that it will go against the case of the respondent.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that the respondent has not properly classified, carefully weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure and violated the rules stated in sub section 2(1) of Section 2 of General Procedure for Sampling and Storage etc., of Standing Order 1 of 1989. In this connection, he relied on 5(i) the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Noor Aga ..vs.. State of Punjab reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417 for the proposition that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis guidelines in the Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and substantial compliance must be insisted upon, so that sanctity of physical evidence remains intact. It is observed in this judgment as follows:-
11. Considered the rival submissions and perused the records.
12. The main grounds, on which the learned counsel for the petitioner challenges the prosecution case and prays for bail, are that,
1. seizure and sampling procedure were not done in accordance with law;
2. The alleged cellphone conversations among the accused is not a conclusive proof to prove that the accused procured ganja and transported ganja.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. There are material contradictions with regard to the timing of cellphone conversations of the accused and also the date and time of arrest of the accused etc.,
4. Statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence.
13. From the complaint allegations and the submissions of the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent, the case of the prosecution is that on the prior information, NCB officials along with witnesses S.Kamal and T.Lokesh Babu mounted surveillance at Karanodai Toll Plaza, Chennai. At around 22 hrs on 23.10.2019, NCB team identified white colour Toyota Corolla vehicle bearing registration No. AP-09-AS- 8191. The NCB officials approached the car and introduced themselves and witnesses and asked about the identity of the persons in the car and they revealed their name as Rama Siva and Vanthala Murali. They were also informed about the information received that they are in possession of ganja. Accused said to have admitted having possession of 76 pockets of ganja in the dickey of the car and produced them. Small quantity of ganja in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis all the 76 pockets were tested with Drug Detection Kit and tested positive with Marijuana (ganja). Since all the 76 pockets contained brownish green colour leaf with similar in character, they were collected in eight numbers of plastic gunny bags and marked as P-1 to P-8 and thereafter, two samples of 25 grams each from P-1 to P-8 were collected, sealed as per routine procedure. From the materials produced in this case, there is prima facie evidence available to show that 76 pockets of ganja weighing 187.300Kg were recovered from the possession of A1 and A2 in a car bearing registration No.AP-09-AS-8191. Petitioner has not challenged the statement of independent witnesses with regard to the seizure of ganja and sampling procedure done in the presence of the accused, NCB team and the witnesses. Thus, there is prima facie material available that the ganja weighing 187.300Kg was seized from A1 and A2.
14. With regard to the challenge made to the sampling procedure, Section II of General Procedure for Sampling, Storage etc., of Standing Order 1 of 1989 dated 13.06.1989 reads as follows:-
“ 2.1 All drugs shall be properly classified, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis carefully weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure.