MUZAFFAR ALI Vs. CENTRAL NARCOTIC BUREAU NEEMUCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 15-1-2009 passed by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Neemuch in Case No. 10/2005 rejecting the application of the petitioner for submitting the sample a second time for the analysis to the Forensic Laboratory.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has submitted that the Central Narcotic bureau received information on the date of incident, i. e. , 19-4-2004 that some narcotic substance has been illegally smuggled by the petitioner and there was half kg. of smack heroin concealed in his house whereupon the house was raided and one of the room inside the house a small iron box was found to contain a blue polythene bag having a powder which was seized and on testing with the departmental-kit, the product was verified and it was found to be heroin weighing 140 gms. out of which two samples of 5 gms. each were prepared and the articles were marked as A - B and further search was conducted of the house whereupon a steel pot in the kitchen was found with soiled water containing opium which was also tested and found to contain heroin dissolved in the water and thereafter 547 gms. were filled in two cans, out of which 50 gms. each were prepared and marked as B and sent to Forensic Laboratory for examination. The rest of the water was also sent for chemical analysis go Government Opium and alkaloid Factory at Neemuch and FSL Report (Exh. P-29) was obtained. Thereafter the investigation was launched and trial was commenced. During the trial the accused petitioner filed an application for re-analysis stating that the earlier report was suspicious and under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, the sample should be sent to a different laboratory for investigation and the application was rejected by the impugned order and hence the present petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner further averred that it was a ground for grievance which ought not to be refused to the accused petitioner and even if there was an absence of specific provision, request should have been allowed. For this purpose, Counsel relied on Amar Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2004 (2)EFR 81, whereby the Court had directed to send the sample for re-analysis. Counsel has also cited the other un-reported decisions of this Court to bolster his submissions, which are as follows:-