Mitter in his cross-examination had stated that
Form No.29 (CFSL Form) was filled up by SHO Mandip Singh (PW4) in
the Police Station ... Police Station by the SHO. The writing on the CFSL Form
was not in his hand. It was in the hand
Appeal No.77-DB of 2009 [10]
the chemical examiner. The CFSL form was not deposited with MHC Jit
Singh. MHC Jit Singh in fact ... been examined. It is also not shown as to when
CFSL Form was filled and whether it was deposited with MHC Jit Singh.
Form
sample of seal chit Ex.P.7 along with CFSL form.
He handed over the sample parcel on 25.7.2005 to Constable Tarsem Singh
along with ... sample of seal chit and CFSL form for depositing the same in
the office of Chemical Examiner. PW-8 HC Tarsem Singh mainly deposed
that
parcels. Thereafter, he kept the parcels along with CFSL form and
separate seal impressions in his custody. On the next day, SI Ashok
Kumar handed ... over custody of accused, case property, CFSL form
and seal impressions to the Investigating Officer for producing before
Illaqa Magistrate. Accused along with case property
report of the laboratory weight of
the sample was 24.4 grams. CFSL, form was not prepared at the spot.
Recovery was on 7.9.2004, whereas sample
case property cannot be
ruled out when prosecution witness stated that CFSL Form No.29 was not
prepared on the spot.
Learned defence counsel
stated that on 17.7.2000, case property along
with seal impression and CFSL form was deposited with him by Inspector
Navjot Singh. On 27.7.2000, sample parcels ... with seal impression and
CFSL form were handed over to Constable Bhagwant Singh for depositing
in the laboratory.
PW2 Constable Bhagwant Singh stated that
handed over to
Head Constable and not to public witness. CFSL form was not prepared
at the spot. No explanation as to why independent witness
given
to Nirmal Lal. With regard to filling up of CFSL form, contradictory
statements have been given by SI Gurwinder Singh and Amrik Singh
delay in
depositing sample parcel in the laboratory along with CFSL form No.29.
Next submission of learned defence counsel for the appellant
was that
