THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.11023 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to set aside the orders passed in Crl.M.P.No.428 of 2025 in Crime No.724 of 2023 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri Mohammed Abdul Wahab, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.1 – State.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sending the sample for a third test of contraband is against the principles of law and that the Apex Court in Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2013) 2 SCC 590 has laid down certain guidelines for sending the samples for testing and that retest is permissible only under exceptional circumstances. In the present case two tests reports have already been received and nothing is made out from the said tests saying that the contraband is a substance prohibited under

NDPS but still the prosecution intends to send the sample for a third test which is against the principles and the said petition was allowed by the trial Court. He therefore, prayed to set aside the orders of the trial Court.

4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in exceptional circumstances it can be resent to the FSL and that the said law is laid down by a judgment rendered by the High Court of Madyapradesh in Union of India Central Bureau of Narcotics Jaiora District Ratlam v. Govind, Crl.Revision No.2360 of 2022, wherein it has relied upon Thana Singh’s (supra 1) also. He further submitted that there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the trial Court and prayed to uphold the same.

5. Perused the record.

6. The record reveals that the samples were sent to the TSFSL and also to the Custom House Laboratory, Chennai. The report received from the TSFSL says that NDPS drugs are not detected in the said samples, while the test report from the Custom House Laboratory reads as follows:

“The sample is in the form of while crystalline powder. On the basis of Colour test, Infrared Spectroscopy and GC-MS examination, presence of Methaqualone could not be identified in the sample under reference, however for further confirmation the sample may be forwarded to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or any other Govt.NDPS Laboratory”.

7. Thus, based on this report the police have filed another application before the trial Court vide Crl.M.P.No.428 of 2025 requesting to send the sample to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and the trial Court has allowed the same. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders and filed the present petition. The petitioner is the accused.

8. In Thana Singh’s (supra 1) guidelines were laid down for retesting the samples. The said case law was referred by the learned Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in (supra 2) while dealing with the said case and at paragraph No.27 of the Thana Singh’s (supra 1) case it was held that:

“27. Therefore, keeping in mind the array of factors discussed above, we direct that, after the completion of necessary tests by the concerned laboratories, results of the same must be furnished to all parties concerned with the matter. Any requests as to re-testing/re- sampling shall not be entertained under the NDPS Act as a matter of course. These may, however, be permitted, in extremely exceptional circumstances, for cogent reasons to be recorded by the Presiding Judge. An application in such rare cases must be made within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of the test report; no applications for re-testing/re-sampling shall be entertained thereafter. However, in the absence of any compelling circumstances, any form of re-testing/re-

sampling is strictly prohibited under the NDPS Act.”

9. By relying on the said decision, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that the application for re-testing of the samp