RAJESH KESHARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) POONAM Srivastav, J. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the applicant and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh Advocate for Special Public Prosecutor (Narcotic Control Bureau) Additional Stating Counsel. Union of India.

(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged which are on record.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the assertion of the prosecution is far fetched. The mandatory requirement of the Act has not been complied with. The first submission is that the recovery memo is completely silent so for the manner in which the alleged recovered article was weighed. The argument is that perusal of the recovery memo suggests that there was no weighing scale etc. and, therefore, the weight given by the prosecution is only on an assumption. Besides no independent witnesses were examined at the time of his arrest. The search alleged is doubtful and possibility of plantation cannot be ruled out. LEARNED Counsel has tried to lay emphasis on the report of chemical analysis where the percentage of diacetylmorphine (heroin) in the sample sent for chemical analysis was detected only 5. 67%, therefore, the total recovery of 600 grams will only contain 34. 02 grams of diacetylmorphine (Heroin ). Since the analysis report is completely silent regarding existence of any other contraband or narcotic substance therefore the quantity of recovered diacetylmorphine is very small. This quantity is very much below the commercial quantity provided in the Act and therefore the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.