DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE Vs. TEHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Code') petitioner is seeking to recall the order dated 27.3.2002 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Delhi ordering respondents' release on bail on their furnishing a person bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each with two sureties each of the like amount, in the case under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short, 'the Act'). The matter has been pending for service on the respondents since 3.4.2002. On the last date of hearing, summons were not issued for want of process fee. In the facts of this case, service on the respondents is waived. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and have been taken through the record.

(2.) Prosecution allegations, briefly, are as follows: On the intervening night of 4th and 5th October, 2001, a car No. HR-01-F-8143 was intercepted at the petrol pump at Bhajanpura, Delhi. On search of the car, 9.066 kgs. of heroin was recovered and the persons travelling in the car were arrested. One set of nine samples was sent to CRCL for testing. It was opined that it contained diacetyl- morphine. For determining percentage purity of the heroin, Gas Chromatog- raphy test could not be carried as the instrument was out of order. O n 24.12.2001, remnant samples were again sent for testing the purity percentage. According to the CRCL report, percentage of diacetylmorphine in each of the remnant sample was as follows:

(3.) On the basis of the above report, accused (respondents) moved an application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. pleading that as per the purity percentage report of the CRCL, the total quantity of 9.066 kgs. of powder, recovered from the possession of accused persons would come out to about 51 gms. of diacetylmorphine, which is much less than the commercial quantity, as per the notification dated 19.10.2001. The investigations should have been filed within 60 days from the date of arrest, but the same was not done, therefore, they were entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Code. Learned Trial Court found that, applying purity percentage test, the quantity of the drug allegedly recovered from the respondents would stand substantially reduced. In any case, it would be ceased to be the commercial quantity. By a detailed order dated 27.3.2002, accused were ordered to be released on bail in view of the provisions contained in Section 36(4) of the NDPS Act read with Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. This order is under challenge.