DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 24.5.2013 passed by Judge Special Court, Chandigarh, vide which, sample has been ordered to be sent for re-testing without issuing notice to the accused.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 17.3.2013, an FIR No. 161 under Sections 9-A, 25A and 29 of NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was registered against the petitioner as loose tablets were recovered from three bags lying in Mahindra XUV 500, being driven by the petitioner. The said car was stopped by the Police near Power House of Kishangarh at Manimajra road, in which, besides the driver, three other persons were also travelling. On checking of the vehicle and personal search of the accused, recovery of tablets of pseudo-ephedrine was made. After registration of FIR, the Investigating Officer approached the Illaqa Magistrate for issuing order for sending the samples for testing and accordingly the samples were sent for chemical examination vide memo dated 19.3.2013, which was returned by Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh on the ground that certified reference material of pseudo-ephedrine is not available with the laboratory and, therefore, examination is not possible in the laboratory. Thereafter again an application was moved by the Investigating Officer with a request that orders be issued to the Director, Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi to get the parcel of samples examined and to give opinion whether it contains pseudo-ephedrine salt or otherwise. As per report of Central Revenues Control Laboratory, New Delhi, the presence of pseudoephedrine could not be ascertained. Again an application was moved before the Court for sending the samples to CFSL, Hyderabad, which was allowed vide order dated 24.5.2013.

Order dated 24.5.2013 is subject matter of challenge in the present revision petition.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that no notice has been issued to the petitioner and application for re-testing has been allowed, which is against his interest. Learned senior counsel further submits that re-testing/resampling under the Act can be permitted only under exceptional circumstances and for that cogent reasons are to be recorded by the Court, whereas, neither the reasons have been recorded nor any exceptional grounds have been made. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics 2013 (1) RCR (Criminal) 861 and of this Court in Jarmanjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 753 in support of his contentions.

Learned counsel for U.T., Chandigarh submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order as till date he is not an accused as neither investigation has been completed so far nor challan has been presented. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner has not been able to show as to how these documents have come in his possession when no such document has been issued to him. It is also the argument of learned counsel for U.T. that it is not a case of retesting and no notice is required at this stage. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel for U.T., Chandigarh also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in M.C. Abraham and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2003 (2) SCC 64, State of H.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar 2004 (7) SCC 735 and Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics 2013 (2) SCC 590, of this Court in Jarmanjit Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab 2003 (2) RCR (Criminal) 753, Kerala High Court in State of Kerala Vs. Deepak 2001 (3) RCR (Criminal) 216, Delhi High Court in Nihal Khan Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 850 and of Rajasthan High Court in Gulab Rai Vs. Rajasthan State and others