9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, cannot be said to have different concentration of medicines as they are prepared under the same formulation as per their batch numbers. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the manner in which the sample has been drawn. As far as the non compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is concerned, the same is a matter of trial. The application lacks merits and the same is, therefore dismissed. - BAIL APPLN. 2302/2019 - - - Dated:- 22-7-2021 - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNISH BHATNAGAR Petitioner: Mr. J.S. Kushwah, Advocate Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, SPP for NCB. ORDER RAJNISH BHATNAGAR, J. 1. The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. see ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ips made of wheat rice in the side and was also containing phensedyl codeine cough syrup 100 ml bottle (10 mg codeine in each 5 ml) concealed and on counting the same, it was found 148 in numbers having batch No.PHB7217. 4. I have heard the Ld. counsel for the petitioner, Ld. SPP for the respondent (NCB) and perused the records of this case. 5. It is submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that out of 99 bottles only one-one bottle for two samples were taken out and kept separately and the remaining 97 bottles were kept in a carton in the case of Taukir Alam (co-accused) and similar is the case of petitioner Mohammed Yakoob from whom allegedly 148 bottles were recovered and one-one bottle for two samples were taken out and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he bag which the petitioner was carrying and the recovery of the seized contraband is not from the person of the petitioner so the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not apply and the case of the petitioner is covered under the judgment of Vijay Singh Chandubh Jadeja Vs. State of Gujarat and Virender Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. It is further submitted by the Ld. SPP that there are no violation of any mandatory condition and all the contentions raised by the petitioner are matter of trial. 7. In the instant case, the main argument raised by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner is that there is infirmity in drawing of the samples and the proper procedure has not been followed by the NCB (respondent) at the stage of draw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
