IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Chandra Kumar Rai, J.
Wali Hassan – Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. – Opposite Party
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 18303 of 2020
Decided On : 07-06-2022
N.D.P.S. Act - Sections 8, 20, 29, 60, 3 and 37 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 174-A and 229-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 82 and 313 - Bail application - Contraband (Ganja) - Standing Order / Instruction - Allegation that on basis of information received, first informant seized a truck which was alleged to be driven by applicant and carrying 91 packets of Ganja weighting about 201 K.G. Further submitted that 91 packets of alleged contraband (Ganja) in 8 Bags (Bora) was alleged to be recovered from inside of truck but only 1 packet weighting 1 K.G. (Ganja) out of 91 Packets was sent for chemical examination so utmost 1 K.G. can be said to be Ganja but remaining 200 K.G. cannot be said to be Ganja or any other contraband unless there is proper sampling and its chemical examination - It is very much established that sampling was done contrary to Standing Order / Instruction which are mandatory in nature, as such chances of applicant conviction is weak on basis of sampling of contraband done. (Para 13).
Finding of the court: It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the Court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and records its satisfaction about existence of such grounds. It is further material to state that the applicant has no criminal history which is not disputed by the State.
Result: Application allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the opposite party-State.
2. The present criminal misc. bail application has been filed on behalf of applicant-Wali Hasan to release him on bail in Case No.1392 of 2019, under Sections 8, 20, 29, 60 and 3 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station-Baradari, District-Bareilly.
3. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the applicant submitted that sub-Inspector lodged a first information report on 17.11.2019 against the applicant and two others with the allegation that on the basis of information received, first informant seized a truck on 17.11.2019 at 12:45 hours, which was alleged to be driven by applicant and carrying 91 packets of Ganja weighting about 201 K.G. He further submitted that 91 packets of alleged contraband (Ganja) in 8 Bags (Bora) was alleged to be recovered from inside of truck but only 1 packet weighting 1 K.G. (Ganja) out of 91 Packets was sent for chemical examination so utmost 1 K.G. can be said to be Ganja but remaining 200 K.G. cannot be said to be Ganja or any other contraband unless there is proper sampling and its chemical examination. He further submitted that it is not mentioned in the recovery memo that from each 91 packets, sample of alleged contraband (Ganja) was taken and sent for chemical examination, as such, the procedure of sampling adopted by the police authority is in violation of Standing Order / Instruction No.1 of 1989 dated 13.6.1989 issued by the Government of India under Section 52 A of N.D.P.S. Act. He has placed reliance upon Clause 2.1 to 2.8 of Standing Order / Instruction No.1 of 1989, which are as follows:
2.2 All the packages/containers shall be numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the persons from whose possession the drug is recovered and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot.
2.3 The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) were a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn.
2.4 In the case of seizure of a single package/container, one sample in duplicate shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container.
2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects the packages/container may be carefully bunched in lots of 10 package/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of, 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn.
2.6 Where after making such lots, in the case of hashish and ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remain, and in the case of other drugs, less than 5 packages/containers remain, no bunching would be necessary and no samples need be drawn.
2.7 If such remainder is 5 or more in the case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in the case of ganja and hashish, one more sample (in duplicate) may be drawn for such remainder package/container.
2.8 While drawing one sample (in d
Non-compliance with the sampling procedure may affect the prosecution's case, but the final determination of the sampling's validity should be made during the trial.
court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty.
The court held that the procedure adopted with respect to contraband in the present case is not defective in nature at this stage and that the applicant will get ample opportunity to show that the sa....
The importance of compliance with the Standing Orders for sampling procedure under the NDPS Act and the need to consider reasonable grounds for granting bail in cases involving the liberty of the per....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for substantial compliance with the guidelines and the mandatory nature of statutory instructions, as well as the criticism of the failure....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper collection of samples and the consequences of non-compliance with the standing orders and provisions of the Narcotic Dru....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defective sampling procedure at the time of recovery and seizure of contraband can be challenged during the trial before the Special Judge....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.