DRI Vs. EMMANUEL CHILKEZIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Impugned order of 26th September, 2012 directs fresh samples to be drawn from remaining contraband substance for re-testing on CRCL as the CRCL form discloses the gross weight of the sample as 9 gms whereas according to prosecution, the sample is 5 gms. Learned counsel for petitioner urges that in view of Apex Court's decision in Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, 2013 1 Scale 696 there has to be cogent reasons for ordering re-testing by the concerned courts and the application for re-testing has to be made within 15 days of the receipt of the test report. Learned counsel for respondent points out that the impugned order has been passed prior to the decision of the Apex Court in Thana Singh and so, the bar of fifteen days cannot be applied retrospectively. It is true that in view of the Apex Court's decision in Thana Singh the decisions of this Court in Nihal Khan v. State,2007 1 JCC(Del) 37; Anil Kumar v. NCB,2008 3 JCC(Del) 105 and Mathar Khan v. DRI, Criminal Revision Petition No. 45/2012 decided on 28.03.2012 no longer hold good. The ratio of recent Apex Court's decision is that cogent reasons have to be forthcoming to allow re-testing.

(2.) At the hearing, learned counsel for respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 12 of the impugned order, which reads as under:-

(3.) Upon hearing both the sides and on perusal of impugned order and the material on record, while applying the ratio of Apex Court's decision in Thana Singh , I find that reasons as disclosed in paragraph No. 12 of the impugned order, noted hereinabove, are cogent ones and justified the retesting of the contraband substance. In view of aforesaid, I find no perversity in the impugned order and as such, this petition is dismissed while not commenting on the merits of this case lest it may prejudice either side at trial.