Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

C. He states there is a violation of direction of Apex Court regarding the sampling procedure. The first courier which was recovered by the NCB officials contained 11 lace rolls. The case of the prosecution is that one lace roll was opened and it was found to contain 120 strips of Tramadol tablets wrapped and concealed inside lace roll. Thereafter, one of the strips was opened and found to contain 10 tablets which were taken in a transparent zip-lock pouch and was mixed with all the strips (120*11=1320) and put in a gunny bag. The same procedure has been adopted by the NCB officials in relation to the other couriers which were allegedly recovered later and hence, they have flouted the procedure laid down by this Hon‟ble High Court in Basant Rai v State, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3319.
D. He states the procedure of sampling has to be done in accordance with the directions given by Apex Court in Gaunter Edwin Kircher versus State of Goa, Secretariat Panaji, Goa (AIR 1993 SC 1456) decided on 16.03.1993 in which it was clarified that sample has to be taken from each packet. While in the present set of facts, the NCB officials have not taken the sample from each lace roll, rather sample was taken from only one lace roll, thus, violating the sampling procedure. E. The learned counsel for the Applicant submits that no reasonable explanation for delay of application for sampling before magistrate is given by the respondent. The sample of 10 tablets was taken and was put together with all the strips in a gunny bag. Later on, after around 51 days from the date of collection of last sample on 02.03.2022, on 22.04.2022, application for sampling under section 52A of NDPS Act was presented before the Ld. Magistrate. It is trite law laid down in Union of India v. Mohanlal (2016) 3 SCC 379 decided on 28.01.2016 that the application to the Magistrate for sampling has to be moved immediately after seizure. In the present case, the application under section 52A for drawing of sample was made after inordinate delay of around 51 days.
... ...

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. In view of the above discussion, I hold that violation of Section 52A vitiates the sample collection procedure and the benefit of the same must accrue to the Applicant.

32. The application by the respondent under section 52A was filed after a delay of 51 days. At that time, the applicant did not object. However, the same being a legal objection can be raised at any stage.