1. Ninety Kilograms of Poppy Straw (Bhuki) is stated to have been recovered from the Tool Box of Vehicle bearing Registration No. JK02-C/5075 at Baggu Nallah, Batote when it was being driven by the petitioner from Srinagar towards Jammu. After the investigation of the case F.I.R No. 74/2007 registered at Police Station, Batote, in this regard, the police produced a Challan against the petitioner in the Court of learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Ramban.

2. Petitioner was charged under Section 8/25 of NDPS Act and his request for release on bail has been declined by learned Special Judge (Additional Sessions Judge), Ramban. He has approached this Court for admitting him to bail.

3. Petitioners counsel says that seizure memo dated 10.6.2007 prepared by S.H.O, Police Station, Batote, indicates preparation of three packets weighing 250 grams each, out of the seized material, which are stated to have been sent for chemical analysis to Jammu and Kashmir Forensic Science Laboratory, Jammu, whose Assistant Scientific Officer had, however, found the three packets received by him to be weighing 300, 310 and 370 grams. It is on the basis of the increase in weight of the packets, noticed by the Assistant Scientific Officer, at the time of its receipt in the Forensic Science Laboratory, that the learned counsel urges the seizure of Poppy Straw to be doubtful, going to the very root of the case and entitling the petitioner to acquittal when the case was taken up for final consideration. Relying upon Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi v. State of Goa reported as (2005) 9 SCC 773 and Mohd Ramzan v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported as 2005 (3) Crimes 311, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail because there are reasonable grounds for believing that the seizure was doubtful and the petitioner cannot be said to have been guilty of the offence with which he stands charged by the learned Special Judge.

4. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, had submitted that seizure of ninety Kilograms of Poppy Straw proves petitioners involvement in a heinous offence against the society which may not warrant his release on bail. According to the learned State counsel, petitioner cannot make any capital out of the alleged discrepancy in the weight of the material of the packets, at this stage, unless the prosecution had been allowed an opportunity to explain the reasons, at the trial of the case, because of which the discrepancy had appeared in the weight of the seized material.

5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. Discrepancy appearing in the weight of the samples at the time of their packing by the police, and at the time of their receipt in the Laboratory, does not, in my opinion, raise any un-rebuttable presumption, for ought we know as to what explanation would the two witnesses of the prosecution may give explaining the discrepancy in the weight of the samples when these were packed and at the time of their receipts in the Laboratory.

7. It may be pre-mature, at this stage, to comment upon or dwell on the validity or otherwise of the seizure effected by the police and the explanation of the witnesses of the prosecution which they may bring in explaining the discrepancy in the weight of the samples at the time of their preparation and at the time of their receipt in the Forensic Science Laboratory.

8. With utmost respect to his Lordship of Delhi High Court deciding Mohd Ramzans case, I do not subscribe to the view that the discrepancy in the weight of the seized material raises an un-rebuttable presumption that the seizure was doubtful. In order to dub the seizure doubtful, the Court may have to look to various the matter regarding seizure of the material and preparation of samples by the Police, such as, the measure used by the Police in weighing the seized material at the time of its seizure and at the time of the preparation of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document