SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 2256

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Sarang V. Kotwal, J.
Michael Onyeka Jude - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - Respondent
Criminal Application No. 1142 of 2023
Decided On : 27-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ayaz Khan, Advocate, Amit Munde, Advocate, Jai Vohra, Advocate, Arfan Sait, Advocate

IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that under the N.D.P.S. Act, retesting of narcotic samples is permissible when initial tests are inconclusive, provided that the investigating agency follows the established guidelines and acts within the statutory investigation period.

Headnote:

N.D.P.S. Act - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 21(c), 23(c), 28, 29, 30, 8(c), 25, 27A, 52A - The court discussed the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, particularly focusing on the guidelines established in the Thana Singh case regarding the testing of narcotic samples. The court emphasized the importance of timely testing and the necessity for further analysis when initial tests are inconclusive. The court upheld the decision to send samples for further testing, citing the need for confirmation as indicated in the initial test reports, thus reinforcing the procedural integrity of investigations under the N.D.P.S. Act.

Fact of the Case:

The applicant challenged an order allowing the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to send reserved drug samples for testing to a different laboratory after initial tests yielded inconclusive results regarding the presence of heroin. The applicant was implicated in a drug trafficking case following the seizure of significant quantities of narcotics.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the investigating agency acted within its rights to seek further testing of the samples based on the initial laboratory's suggestion for confirmation. The court noted that the guidelines from the Thana Singh case were adhered to, and the application for further testing was made within the statutory investigation period.

Issues: Whether the investigating agency had the right to send samples for further testing after initial inconclusive results, and whether the applicant was prejudiced by the lack of opportunity to contest the application for retesting.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the guidelines from the Thana Singh case allow for further testing under exceptional circumstances, which were present in this case due to the initial lab's recommendation. The court emphasized that the applicant's rights were not violated as the application for retesting was made during the investigation phase, where the accused has limited rights to interfere.

Final Decision: The application challenging the order to send samples for further testing was rejected, allowing the investigation to proceed based on the new test results.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The Applicant has challenged the order dtd. 10/7/2023 passed by the learned Special Judge for N.D.P.S. at Mumbai. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge allowed the application filed by the Respondent No.1 herein i.e. the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, praying for sending the reserved sample for testing to CRCL, New Delhi. However, the learned Special Judge vide his order permitted the reserved sample to be sent to the Central Forensic Science Lab (CFSL) for testing. Gokhale

2. Heard Mr. Ayaz Khan, learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Amit Munde, learned Special P. P. for the Respondent No.1 and Mr. Arfan Sait, learned APP for the State/Respondent No.2.

3. Before referring to the submissions made by both the sides, it is necessary to mention some facts on record.

    i) On the basis of specific intelligence, a passenger by the name Maheswaran Rajgopal Thondapa who had arrived in Mumbai through a flight from a foreign country on 19/3/2023 was intercepted. His luggage was searched. It resulted in recovery of 9.97kg of material in powder and lump form. It was tested by the field testing kit and the result showed positive for Heroin. It was valued at around Rs.70.00 crores. It was seized under the panchanama dtd. 19/3/2023. His statement was recorded U/s.67 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'N.D.P.S. Act'). It led the investigating agency to the present applicant who was residing at a hotel in Mumbai.

ii) The investigating agency went to that hotel and further investigation was carried out. The applicant led the investigating agency to a rented house. The search resulted in seizure of 98 gms. of white powder purported to be Cocaine and 100gms. of light yellow powder purported to be heroin. It was seized. The investigation was carried out for commission of offences punishable under Sec. 21(c), 23(c), 28, 29 and 30 r/w. Sec. 8(c), as well as, U/s.25 and 27A of the N.D.P.S. Act. The applicant and the coaccused were arrested.

iii) On 19/4/2023, the procedure U/s.52A of the N.D.P.S. Act was carried out and two samples each of the three separate articles were drawn. They were marked as 'A1 original' and 'A1 duplicate', 'B1 original' and 'B1 duplicate', as well as, 'C1 original' and 'C1 duplicate'. The samples were drawn before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Esplanade, Mumbai.

iv) On 20/4/2023, the samples marked as 'A1 original', 'B1 original' and 'C1 original' were sent to the Deputy Chief Chemist (DYCC), New Custom House Laboratory, Mumbai for chemical analysis.

v) The test reports dtd. 30/6/2023 from DYCC, Mumbai in respect of those samples were received on 6/7/2023 by the investigating agency.

vi) The report in respect of 'A1-Original' reads thus - 'Received one sample packet marked as "A1-Original". The sample is in the form of brownish sticky pasty mass. On the basis of Chemical, Chromatographic and Spectrometric examination the sample does not show the presence of Heroin (Diacetyl morphine), Morphine cocaine, Amphetamine and Methamphetamine. However, for further identification/confirmation the sample may be forwarded to any other government laboratory, if required. (The bold portion is reproduced as it was mentioned in bold letters in that report).

vii) The report in respect of 'C1-Original' reads thus - 'Received one sample packet marked as "C1-Original". The sample is in the form of off white powder. On the basis of Chemical, Chromatographic and Spectrometric examination the sample does not show the presence of Heroin (Diacetyl morphine), Morphine cocaine, Amphetamine & Methamphetamine. However, for further identification/confirmation the sample may be forwarded to any other government laboratory, if required. (The bold portion is reproduced as it was mentioned in bold letters in that report).

viii) The report in respect of 'B1-Original' reads thus - 'Received one sample packet marked as "B1- Original". The sample is in the form of white

                        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                        1
                        2
                        3
                        4
                        5
                        6
                        7
                        8
                        9
                        10
                        11
                        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                        supreme today icon
                        logo-black

                        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                        Please visit our Training & Support
                        Center or Contact Us for assistance

                        qr

                        Scan Me!

                        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                        whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
                        whatsapp-icon Back to top