2001 (3) TMI 1048 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether a second sample can be sent for analysis in an NDPS case.
2. Competency of the Chemical Laboratory at Trivandrum for analysis under Rule 2(c).
3. Justifiability of sending a second sample for analysis in the absence of specific provision in the NDPS Act.

Analysis:

1. The case involved a motion by the State in an NDPS Act offense where the Regional Laboratory's report was against the prosecution. The Investigating Officer sought to send another sample (Sample B) for analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which was denied by the Special Judge citing the lack of provision for a second sample. The counsel for the respondent opposed the motion, highlighting the absence of a provision in the NDPS Act for a second sample and the non-preparation of a second sample in this case.

2. The competency of the Chemical Laboratory at Trivandrum for analysis was challenged based on Rule 2(c), which specifies the competent Chemical Examiner. However, a previous decision in Azeez v. State of Kerala established that unless the Act or rules prohibit other analysts, the Court can send samples to any analyst for analysis. The opinion of such an expert can be used as evidence under Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., overriding the contention raised based on Rule 2(c.

3. The absence of a specific provision in the NDPS Act for forwarding a second sample for analysis was addressed by the Court. While acknowledging that some enactments like the P.F.A. Act provide for a second sample, it was deemed insufficient to prevent sending a second sample in NDPS cases if the interest of justice necessitates it. The Court emphasized that the interest of justice is paramount, allowing both the accused and the prosecution to seek analysis of a second sample to establish their respective cases.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the motion for sending a second sample for analysis in the NDPS case, setting aside the previous order. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring justice by allowing the prosecution to forward a second sample for analysis, similar to the rights granted to the accused. The decision highlighted the flexibility of the legal system in pursuing the truth and upholding justice, even in the absence of specific provisions.