JUDGMENT

J.K. Mehra, J. (Oral)

1. This is an application for bail. It is alleged that the petitioner was apprehended pursuant to a prior information and 12 kgs. of charas was seized by the raiding party at the road in front of Oasis Hotel in West Delhi

2. I have heard the parties at great length. In fact, after having concluded the arguments, counsel for State wanted to address further arguments. As such, the case was set down for further arguments.

3. Mr. Mathur appearing for the petitioner has urged various lapses and urged that the said lapses have the effect of vitiating the trial. Firstly, he has pointed out that the CFSL form prepared was not sent to the laboratory with the sample. It is pointed out by counsel for State that he requisite form was filled up and submitted to Malkhana, but it may not have been forwarded to CFSL. However, at this stage, I need not express any opinion on what has been offered as an explanation by learned counsel of State.

4. Secondly, it is urged that the quantity of the substance seized contained in the samples, when packed, was not the same, which was received at the end of CFSL. According to the record of police, sample containing one kilogram was prepared for tests, while the net weight received at the end of CFSL was only 963.9 grams. No explanation is available on record: and other pleas noticed hereafter. This discrepancy in the weight of the substance packed in the sample by itself, according to Mr. Mathur, is enough to entitle the accused to bail. In this connection, he has relied upon the case of Parneet Ghildayal Vs. State, reported as 1992 JCC 178. There is no explanation available with the prosecution for the discrepancy except that the weightment at the time of seizure may have been faulty. I find that the discrepancy is quite substantial to be ignored in a light hearted manner.

5. Thirdly, it is argued that Section 50 notice, which is placed on record, was not prepared at the time the seizure was effected because at that point of time, no FIR had been registered and the fact that on top of this sheet, FIR number etc. are recorded, are indicative of the fact that this document was prepared subsequently and signatures of the accused were obtained thereon. In support of his contentions that the Section 50 notice was prepared subsequently because FIR number appears to have been given on top, Mr. Mathur relied upon the cases of Pawan Kumar Vs. The Delhi Administration, reported as 1987 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 585; State of H.P. Vs. Sudarshan Kumar, reported as 1989 (3) Crimes 608, and Nathiya & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported as 1992 CLJ 2342 (2345). Mr. Mathur has laid stress that the FIR number had appeared on top of the document in the same ink and in the same pen, which indicated that it was prepared at one and the same time and since the FIR number had been given on top, it clearly showed that the document had been prepared subsequently. Mr. Sharma has refuted this argument by saying that FIR number is given on top subsequently only in order to identify the paper with the case that is registered. That would be so if I could find any distinction in the ink or the pen used in writing the endorsement of the FIR number on top from the rest of body of the document just as accused's signatures appear to be in different ink and different pen. If such addition has been effected at a time different from the preparation of the rest of the documents, some distinction in the shade of the colour of the ink would have been there. In any event, I need not dwell on this any further and such question can be dealt with at the time of trial.

6. Fourthly, it is pointed cut by Mr. Mathur that the seizure of the Maruti Gypsy vehicle No. HP-023342 in which the petitioner is alleged to have travelled and wherefrom also, a large quantity had been seized when the said petitioner was apprehended and that the report in respect thereof appears to have been tampered with because the date