NAJEEB AND OTHER Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed by accused Nos.8 and 9 under section 439 of Cr.P.C., 1973 seeking their release on bail in Crime No.95/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 20(B), 20(C) of NDPS Act, 1985.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant received a credible information on 6.4.2018 that some persons have involved in transporting ganja, they purchased the ganja and they have kept in the house at Eswari Layout in Indiranagar and thereafter they are selling to the different persons. The information is also received that the accused persons are transporting the ganja from Vishakaptna in a white swift car bearing No. KL46/L1543 and red Innova car bearing No. KL16B7674 on 7.4.2018 at about 3.00 a.m. When the said vehicles were stopped and the search was made, the Investigating Officer found that 108 Kgs of ganja has been found in different quantities. The same was seized. Subsequently, when accused No.1 was interrogated he revealed that some more ganja has also been kept in the house and immediately the Investigating Officer along with panch witnesses went to Eswari Layout, Indira nagar and when they entered the house, they found two persons, who are the petitioners herein and when they were asked they told that they will be selling ganja for Rs. 300/- per packet and when the search was made, they produced a black coloured plastic cover, which was containing 1 kg of ganja and after taking 100 gms for sample, the same was seized for drawing a mahazar. On the basis of the said seizure a case was registered by the respondent-police.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated in the case. The quantity of ganja which has been seized from the possession of the petitioners herein is only one kg which is less than the commercial quantity. He further submitted that the charge sheet has not been filed and the FSL report has not been filed as contemplated under Clause 1.18 of the Standing Instructions issued by Narcotic Control Bureau, New Delhi. He further submitted that Clause 1.18 of the said Standing Instructions require that the analysis of the durg is completed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the sample. And quantitative test should be sent to the officer from whom the samples were received within the next 15 days. But the said procedure has not been followed in this case and non-compliance of the aforesaid Standing Instruction is a requirement of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund and others reported in (2009) 12 SCC 161 . He further submitted that the accused-petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions to be imposed by this Court and are ready to offer sureties. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the petition.