SHAMBHU GOEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.P.P for the State.

(2.) The petitioner who has been made to figure as accused in Forbesganj PS. Case No. 97/94 (Special Case No. 5/94) has prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.5.2007 passed by the Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act) (hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS Act'), Purnea directing the Investigating Officer to remain present in court with the seized heroin of this case for preparation of sample in presence of accused for sending the same to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination.

(3.) The aforesaid Police case was registered on the basis of the self- statement of one Ram Balak Pandey, Inspector of Police, Forbesganj, recorded on 19.6.94, inter alia stating therein that on receipt of confidential information to the effect that heroin was kept hidden, he alongwith S.I. Kirti Narain Paswan raided the joint house of Shambhu Goel and Matadin Agrawal in the presence of two independent witnesses and Shambhu Goel and from under the northern bed in the southern bedroom on the first floor he recovered a packet wrapped in English Newspaper and tied with strings and on top of the packet it was written "DBL Tiger Brand Heroin, 100% poison, N.W.I. POUND Special No. 33,000. Made in Thailand, Exp. date 1993-94". The material was seized under a seizure list which was attested by the two witnesses but Shambhu Goel on request being made neither signed the seizure list nor received a copy thereof. A sample of the seized article was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna for chemical examination and after testing the Laboratory at Patna reported that no trace of heroin or any psychotropic drug could be detected in the white powdery substance. The samples were also sent to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi and the report indicated that white powder answered positive test for starch but did not answer positive to test for morphine and diacetyl morphine. The photocopies of these two reports have been appended as annexures 2 and 2/1. In accordance with the reports, the Investigating Officer submitted a final form showing the case to be false. However, the court on receipt of the final form ordered for further investigation vide order dated 16.8.2000 which was challenged by the petitioner before this court but the same was dismissed. However, curiously matter remained in limbo for more than five years from the date of the order for further investigation which prompted the petitioner to file a petition for dropping the proceeding and not to take cognizance of the offence. The said petition was disposed of by order dated 18.5.06 with observation of the Special Judge that if the Investigating Officer of the case thinks proper he may take sample according to law in presence of the accused and get the same examined by proper authority. It appears that the Investigating Officer vide charge-sheet no. 13 of 2006 dated 17.1.2006 submitted charge-sheet in this case without taking any step of preparing fresh sample and get it examined by the proper authority.