RAM NARAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is an alleged recovery from the petitioner of two packets weighing 1.5 kgs and 500 gms. Both the packets were alleged to contain Heroin. Samples were taken from both these packets and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Insofar as the sample from the packet weighing 500 gms was concerned, it did not test positive for diacetyl morphine (Heroin). So, we are only concerned with the packet weighing 1.5 kgs. The packets are alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner outside the DSOI Club at Dhaula Kuan while the petitioner was waiting to supply the same to some other person. Insofar as the sample taken from this 1.5 kg packet is concerned, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory indicates that it contained 1.08% diacetyl morphine (Heroin).

(2.) However, when the contraband was produced in the trial court, the counsel for the petitioner found that there were some differences in colour in the allegedly recovered Heroin and what was actually produced in court. Accordingly, an application for re-examination of the sample was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. That application was disposed of by an order dated 27.09.2004 wherein the court directed that, in the interest of justice, the duplicate sample marked 'B' be sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini for re-examination. Pursuant to this order, the said sample marked 'B' was sent for re-examination and the Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini submitted a report indicating that on Gas Chromatography examination exhibit 'B' was found to contain diacetyl morphine 0.8 percent.

(3.) In this view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the differences in the contents of diacetyl morphine in samples drawn from the said 1.5 kg packet cast serious doubts on the recovery itself. It also becomes doubtful as to whether the alleged packets recovered were the same as were shown as case property. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had no criminal antecedents. In view of these submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that the petitioner be granted bail.