High CourtsSingle Bench

Inderjit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 16 August 2013 · Citation: (2013) 08 P&H CK 0869

HON’BLE JUDGES
Tej Pratap Singh Mann, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 401
CASE NUMBER
CRR 2039 of 2011 (O and M)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

2 paragraphs · 240 words

Tej Pratap Singh Mann, J.—The petitioner has filed the present revision u/s 401 Cr.P.C. for challenging the order dated 26.8.2011 passed by Judge, Special Court, Ludhiana whereby application filed by him for taking two samples from each of the bulk parcel/bag containing the contraband was declined. Reply has been filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sahnewal, Ludhiana on behalf of the respondent-State, which is taken on record a copy thereof supplied to counsel for the petitioner.

2.

Recently the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Thana Singh Vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics, while considering the prayer for re-testing/re-sampling subsequent to completion of necessary tests by the concerned laboratories held that such a request could not be entertained under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act as a matter of course. It may, however, be permitted only in extremely exceptional circumstances, for cogent reasons to be recorded by the Presiding Judge. Even such an application in rare cases must be submitted within a period of 15 days from the receipt of the test report and no application for re-testing/re-sampling shall be entertained thereafter. Finally, it was observed that in the absence of any compelling circumstances, any form of re-testing/re-sampling was strictly prohibited under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. In view of the judgment in the case of Thana Singh (Supra), no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present revision. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.