PARDEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PARDEEP Kumar alias Jimmy -petitioner has filed this petition against the State of Punjab under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of the order dated 5.2.2014 (Annexure -P. 1) passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the Court below has declined to send the sample of contraband for re -testing after the bag containing the case property was found to be torn, in the interest of justice.

(2.) AT the time of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order only on the ground that as per cross -examination of PW -7, the bag containing poppy husk was found to be torn. Therefore, he argued that the second sample be sent to get it tested from FSL etc. He also placed reliance on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Nihal Khan; Raj Rishi Baxi v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), : 2007(3) R.C.R. (Cr.) 850.

(3.) NOTHING has been argued before me that there was chance of tampering with the samples. There is any discrepancy in the Chemical Examiner's report or the sample sent for testing did not match the case property etc. The mere fact that at the time of trial and when the statement of PW -7 was recorded, the case property was produced in the Court and the gunny bag was in torn condition is no ground to send the second sample for testing. In the above said law, it has been specifically held that the second sample cannot be sent for testing except only to secure the ends of justice and to afford a fair trial to the accused. In my view, there is no necessity for re -testing on the ground as given in the petition. There is nothing on the record from which it can be held that the report is vague or any ambiguity is there. There is nothing argued that the sample was tampered with. There is nothing argued that the sample or the case property does not match with each other. So, no ground is made out for sending the second sample for testing. There is no provisions in the NDPS Act or it has been held in the above stated law that in the facts and circumstances and to secure the ends of justice, where the Court feels necessary from the facts and circumstances of that case, it can send the sample for re -testing. But, in the present case, there is no such ground.