Urine tests for drug consumption must undergo confirmatory testing by accredited laboratories to ensure legal validity under the NDPS Act.

CAV ORDER

The petitioners/accused 8, 16, 23, 46, 69, 71, 76, 77, 78, and 85 in Special Case No.741 of 2024 are at the doors of this Court calling in question filing of charge sheet and all further proceedings before the VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural registered for offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 21(b), 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 27(a), 27(b) 29 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’ for short) read with Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 29 0 and 294 of the IPC .

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

On the night of 19-05-2024 it is stated that the first informant receives credible information that there was a rave party by name of Vasu’s Birthday with the quote “sunrise to sunset victory” organized in G.R.Farm situated within the territorial jurisdiction of Electronic City Police Station. The party was to commence from 5 p.m. onwards. The further information was that narcotic substances were being sold and consumed in the said party post late night. Upon receiving the said information, that about 100 to 150 members including both men and women who were participating in the said party were consuming substances such as MDMA, Cocaine and Hydro Ganja and being sold openly in the party, information was passed to higher ups. The permission to conduct a raid was sought for and a search was conducted subsequent to registration of FIR. All these petitioners along with others became subject matter of a crime in Crime No.329 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences. The Police, upon completion of investigation, file a charge sheet and the concerned Court in terms of its order dated 30-09-2024 took cognizance of the offence and directed registration of a special case against these petitioners along with others. Filing of charge sheet and taking of cognizance is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Mayur D. Bhanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Vivek Anand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. Learned Counsel Sri Mayur D. Bhanu appearing for the petitioners would contend that urine samples of the accused were collected at the private hospital known as Santosh Hospital/2^nd respondent and not at the Government Hospital in terms of the notification issued by the State Government, as also directions issued by this Court in Criminal Petition No.100822 of 2016. Urine samples forwarded to Santosh Hospital were not sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for the purpose of chemical examination to determine whether they contained traces of prohibited contraband under the Act. In the absence of chemical examination in the Forensic Science Laboratory, the petitioners could not have been held guilty of consumption of drugs. The Police have failed to produce any document to show that urine samples collected of the petitioners and other accused persons were sent to chemical examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory. He would seek to place reliance upon the medical reports of Santosh Hospital of these petitioners.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions to contend that these matters could be thrashed out in a full-blown trial. If there is violation of law the petitioners would get acquitted. Testing of urine sample in a private laboratory would not vitiate the proceedings. Santosh Hospital has been the testing lab in several cases and no fa