2014 (2) TMI 490 - HC - Customs

Narcotic drugs - appellant contended that he was in possession of 510 grams of Ephedrine Hydrochloride and not in possession of Methamphaetamind Hydrochloride - Held that - there is no doubt that both are narcotic drugs and possession of these two drugs is punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. - sending of the 2nd sample for analysis does not - it is for the trial court to alter the charges framed against the petitioner accordingly and proceed with the trial taking into account the said fact. - Decided against the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
- Revision filed to set aside the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge for NDPS and EC Act cases regarding the possession of narcotic drugs.
- Dispute over the identity of the drug seized, whether it is 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride' or 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride'.
- Petitioner's request to send the second sample for retesting to ascertain the nature of the seized contraband.
- Argument by the Special Public Prosecutor that sending the second sample for analysis is unnecessary.

Analysis:
1. The revision was filed to challenge the order passed by the Principal Sessions Judge for NDPS and EC Act cases regarding the possession of narcotic drugs. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was found carrying narcotic drugs concealed in his sandals, leading to his arrest and remand to judicial custody. The dispute arose when the prosecution initially identified the drug as 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride,' but later, the chemical analysis revealed it to be 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride.' The petitioner sought to send the second sample for retesting to confirm the identity of the seized contraband.

2. The petitioner argued that since the prosecution mentioned two different drugs, it was crucial to send the second sample for retesting to verify the nature of the seized substance. On the contrary, the Special Public Prosecutor contended that sending the second sample for analysis was unnecessary. The court carefully examined the facts and materials on record, acknowledging the discrepancy in the initial identification of the drug and the subsequent chemical analysis results.

3. The court noted that both 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride' and 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride' are narcotic drugs punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The judge emphasized that the chemical analysis report confirmed the substance as 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,' irrespective of the initial identification. Consequently, the court ruled that sending the second sample for analysis was unnecessary, as the nature of the seized contraband had been established through the chemical analysis.

4. The court directed the trial court to adjust the charges against the petitioner based on the confirmed identity of the drug and proceed with the trial accordingly. It was emphasized that the accused was entitled to receive a copy of the Chemical Analysis report for transparency and legal compliance. The Criminal Revision Petition was disposed of with these observations, clarifying the course of action for the trial court and the petitioner in light of the established facts and legal provisions.