SUKHDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

(2.) THE learned counsels for the petitioners have referred to the First Information Report, lodged in this case, on 7. 9. 2007. It is submitted that out of 160 bags of opium (poppy husk) seized from the dickey of the car, only one bag has been sent as a sample for testing to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Further it is submitted that when the prosecution has sent only one bag, weighting about 1 Kg. then, it should be taken that the petitioners were in possession of contraband only of that quantity. THErefore, it is submitted that 1 Kg. Opium is a small quantity as prescribed under the Act. It has also been submitted that there is violation of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. THE counsel for the accused Guru Iqbal Singh has, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the cases of Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs. State of Goa, Secretariat Panaji, Goa (1993) 3 SCC 145 and Sarija Banu (A) Janarthani & Anr. vs. State Through Inspector of Police, 2006 Cr. L. R. (SC) 49.

(3.) IN the case of Gaunter Edwin Kircher (supra), two packets of Charas weighting 5 gms. and 7 gms. were seized from a German National who was sitting on a wooden log. On suspicion, the Sub- INspector searched the accused and found polythene pouch from his pocket containing tobacco, one cigarette paper packet and two cylindrical pieces of `charas'. IN the fact situation of that case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed, "to obviate this difficulty, the concerned authorities would do better if they sent the entire quantity seized for chemical analysis so that there may not be any dispute of this nature regarding the quantity seized. " IN the case of Sarija Banu, `ganja' weighing 5 Kg. and cash were recovered from the car. Therefore, the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner relates to cases having totally different situations and they are of no help to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It has been held in the case of Mohan Lal vs. State, 2005 (2) Cr. L. R. (Raj.) 1320, that "it is also well settled that in bail matters the orders passed by different Courts cannot be taken as binding precedents because each matter depends on its own merits and facts and circumstances of that particular case. "