Sampling Of Seized Narcotic Substance To Be Done Only Before Magistrate, Not At Time Of Seizure: Andhra Pradesh High Court

Update: 2024-01-18 07:14 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that drawing samples of seized narcotic substances is to be done strictly before a Magistrate and not at the time of seizure.Section 52-A mandates that all narcotic substances seized by the investigating authority are to be sampled before Magistrate.Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao relied on the judgment passed in Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reiterated that drawing samples of seized narcotic substances is to be done strictly before a Magistrate and not at the time of seizure.

Section 52-A mandates that all narcotic substances seized by the investigating authority are to be sampled before Magistrate.

Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao relied on the judgment passed in Simarnjit Singh vs. State of Punjab wherein the Supreme Court had explained that it is important to draw samples of seized narcotics only before a Magistrate, so that the Magistrate can certify the samples which will be used as primary evidence in the case. The Supreme Court had also noted that no provision in the statute provides for drawing of samples at the time of seizure.

The High Court was hearing a bail application filed by the accused contending that that the investigating authority had not followed the procedure laid down under 52-A of the NDPS Act and sampled the apparent substances at the time of seizure.

While applying the principle elicited by the Supreme Court to the present case, the Bench also noted that the accused/ petitioner was in judicial custody since July 2023 and allowed his petition granting him bail.

"By following the above principle laid down, this Court found that the said principle is clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Moreover, the petitioner is in judicial custody for more than four months. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner/A.3."

Case no.: Crlp 47 of 2024

Counsel for petitioner: T.V. Jaggi Reddy

Counsel for respondent: PP

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Full View
Tags:    

Similar News