2003 (1) TMI 689 - SC - Customs

Whether what was received by the chemical analyser was what had actually been seized? Held that - In the present case it has been proved by evidence that what was seized was properly sealed and stored and that the same was sent to the chemical analyser in a sealed condition. Thus as prosecution has been careful enough to prove that the same sample was sent to the chemical analyser with the seal intact. It is thus established by evidence that the sample which was extracted was what was sent to the chemical analyser. We are thus unable to uphold the reasoning of the High Court. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. Discrepancy in weight of samples taken and received by the chemical analyzer.

Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act:
The case involved the recovery of Charas from a bag thrown by the accused, not from his person. Referring to previous judgments, the Supreme Court held that Section 50 applies when the search is conducted on the accused's person, not on items in their possession. The Court emphasized that substantial compliance with Section 50 is sufficient, and oral communication of the accused's rights is acceptable. The High Court's acquittal based on non-compliance with Section 50 was deemed incorrect as the accused was informed of his rights by independent witnesses. The Supreme Court found no merit in the High Court's reasoning and reinstated the trial court's conviction.

Discrepancy in Weight of Samples:
The High Court had acquitted the respondent due to a minor weight difference in the samples taken and received by the chemical analyzer. The Supreme Court clarified that minor variations in weight do not invalidate the trial if it is established that the samples sent for analysis are the same as those recovered. Testimonies of witnesses, including the chemical analyzer, confirmed the proper sealing and handling of the samples. The Court highlighted that the weight mentioned as "about 50 grams" allowed for slight deviations. The absence of evidence suggesting tampering with the seal further supported the authenticity of the samples. Citing previous cases, the Supreme Court rejected the respondent's argument for the benefit of the doubt based on weight differences and reinstated the trial court's conviction.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's acquittal, reinstated the trial court's conviction, and ordered the respondent's immediate custody by canceling his bail bonds. The judgment emphasized the importance of procedural compliance and the need for concrete evidence to support claims of tampering or false implication.