2012 (5) TMI 688 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Request for retesting of seized samples.
2. Validity of the orders passed by the Addl. Session Judge.
3. Fairness and impartiality of the investigation.
4. Applicability of Section 80 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

Summary:

1. Request for Retesting of Seized Samples:
The petitioner sought directions for retesting the seized samples at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, arguing the initial test by Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar (DFS) was inconclusive and incorrect. The petitioner claimed the seized material contained 'Mephedrone Hydrochloride' and not 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride' as per the DFS report.

2. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Addl. Session Judge:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 28.3.2012 and 20.4.2012 passed by the Addl. Session Judge, Ahmedabad, which rejected the request for retesting. The court found the investigation fair and impartial, with DFS confirming the substance as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, attracting offenses under the NDPS Act.

3. Fairness and Impartiality of the Investigation:
The court noted the detailed and systematic investigation by DRI, Ahmedabad, and Central Excise, Sangli, which included scientific evidence and searches at the premises of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Ltd. The DFS, Gandhinagar, a laboratory of national repute, confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, and no further testing was deemed necessary at this stage.

4. Applicability of Section 80 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
The petitioner argued for the applicability of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which allows for retesting of samples. However, the court held that Section 80 of the NDPS Act does not bar the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act but operates independently. The NDPS Act provides a comprehensive procedure for dealing with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's request for retesting under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.

Conclusion:
The court rejected the petition, finding no illegality in the investigation or the orders passed by the Addl. Session Judge. The prayer for retesting of the seized samples was deemed premature and misconceived, and the investigation carried out by DRI, Ahmedabad, was considered fair and impartial. The petition was dismissed with no costs.