Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2007 (1) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2007 (1) TMI 580 - HC - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Whether a direction can be given for the sending of a second sample for testing after taking the same from the remaining case property under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Factual Context and Prosecution Case:

The case of Nihal Khan was considered for understanding the parameters of the issue. On 16.09.2002, the police received secret information about Nihal Khan supplying heroin. He was apprehended, and 1500 grams of heroin were recovered. Two samples of 5 grams each were sent to the CFSL Laboratory, which confirmed the presence of 31.2% diacetylmorphine.

2. Defense Argument and Application for Second Sample Testing:

The petitioner claimed wrongful implication and tampering of evidence. An application dated 06.07.2006 was moved for sending a second sample for testing from the remaining case property. The Special Judge dismissed the application, referencing decisions in Kailash Singh v. State and Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Vinod Kumar.

3. Analysis of Kailash Singh v. State:

The court in Kailash Singh observed that if the case property had been kept intact under proper seals, the accused could have prayed for another sample for analysis. This indicates the possibility of taking another sample for fresh analysis if the seals were intact, contrary to the impugned order's observation.

4. Analysis of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Vinod Kumar:

The decision in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence held that an accused under the NDPS Act had no right to request re-testing of the case property, emphasizing the admissibility of forensic reports under Section 293 of the Code. The court feared that allowing re-testing could lead to manipulations and malpractices.

5. Critique of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Decision:

Several difficulties were noted with the decision in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Firstly, it wrongly recorded that the plea of tampering in Kailash Singh was overruled. Secondly, it misunderstood the purpose of re-testing, which could be to demonstrate that the initial sample was not representative of the case property. Thirdly, there is no prohibition in the NDPS Act against re-testing. Lastly, the decision did not consider a prior judgment in Masoom Ali @ Ashu v. State, which allowed re-testing to determine the percentage of diacetylmorphine.

6. Supreme Court Reference in Commissioner of Customs v. Punjab Stainless Steel Industries:

The Supreme Court case under the Customs Act assumed no bar in granting re-testing but emphasized the opportunity to cross-examine the Chemical Examiner. This reference was deemed inappropriate for the NDPS Act issue.

7. Conclusion and Remand for Fresh Consideration:

It was concluded that there is no bar under the NDPS Act for an accused to request re-testing of samples, and courts can allow such applications if it advances the cause of justice. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matters were remanded to the respective courts for fresh consideration of the applications, following the parameters discussed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates