Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

D. In the absence of any other evidence, Mr. Priyadarshi argued that the sampling procedure adopted by the NCB, both with regard to the recovery from the parcel at the courier office, and at the residence of the applicant, was inconsistent with the prescribed procedures, as the substances alleged to have been recovered from different packets/tubes were mixed together before drawing samples for chemical testing. He argued that the representative character of the samples was thus vitiated. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgments of the coordinate benches of this Court in Amani Fidel Chris vs. Narcotics Control Bureau9, Charlse Howell @ Abel Kom vs. NCB10, and Mokibe MR Leepile Moses @ Patrick Umechukwu vs. Narcotics Control Bureau11.

(1979) 1 SCC 380 (1995) 4 SCC 41 Aggarwal55, Kartik Dangi56, Anil Kumar alias Nillu57 and Ebera Nwanaforo58.

22. As far as the legality of the sampling procedure is concerned, having regard to the judgment of this Court in Anthony Umeh59, and the other judgments cited by Mr. Bansal on this point, I accept his contention that this question cannot be adjudicated at this stage, and it has to be determined at the end of the trial. However, to the extent that the prosecution relies upon the extra judicial confessions of the accused and of another co- accused, recorded under Section 67 of the Act, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh60 holds that such confessions are inadmissible in evidence. This point has been considered in several judgments of this Court while granting bail in cases under the Act. Reference by way of example may be made to the order of this Court in Amans Osaretin vs. Narcotics Control Bureau61, and the judgment in Ebera Nwanaforo62.