Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that as per the story of prosecution, the applicant was apprehended on 11.01.2022 at about 23.40 hours and from the vehicle, which was driven by the applicant, the prosecution has shown recovery of 51 Kg. Ganja, which was in total 59 packets. As per the prosecution, 43 packets were of large size and 16 packets were of small size. It is further stated that in fact the recovery shown is completely fake, as there is no independent witness to it so as to support the story of prosecution. It is further stated that the sample ought to have been taken keeping in mind the mode, manner and procedure prescribed under the relevant Circulars particularly Circular No. 1 dated 13th June, 1989, however, in violation to the same, the sample was taken only from one packet and the same was sent for seeking scientific report. Elaborating this aspect, it is further stated that homogeneous sample should be taken as required in law including that of Circular No. 1 of 1989. The sample which was taken from the packet was of 500 gms, as such, even if the FSL Report supports the story of prosecution, the quantity indicated is much below the commercial quantity mentioned in the NDPS Act, 1985. He submitted that other mandatory provisions of the Act of 1985 were not followed at the time of search, seizure and arrest. He further submitted that moreover, the vehicle indicated in the FIR/recovery memo does not belong to the applicant nor he was driving the same. The implication of the applicant in the present crime is completely false. The reason of implication of the applicant is that some hot talk took place between the police and the applicant on the date of arrest and
