This High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Additional Sessions Judge's order permitting re-testing of seized samples. The bench relied on Thana Singh case for granting the permission within stipulated time.
Writ petition dismissed dismissing the challenge to the order permitting re-testing of samples.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2-WP-2097-2021.odt
Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI SHAMBHAVI NILESH NILESH SHIVGAN SHIVGAN Date: 2021.12.15 17:55:10 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2097 OF 2021
Rakesh Srikant Khanivadekar Alias Rocky Alias Raju ...Petitioner Vs Union of India & Anr. ... Respondents
Mr. Vimal C. Jha for the Petitioner. Ms. Raju R. Thakker for DRI-R.No.1. Mr. Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent No.2-State.
CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : DECEMBER 15, 2021.
P.C. :
The Additional Sessions Judge, Thane vide order
dated 7 th October, 2020 directed Intelligence Officer, to take
appropriate steps for sending the samples for “Re-testing”.
2 This order is assailed in the Writ Petition under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Shivgan 1/3
2-WP-2097-2021.odt
3 Samples in question were sent for chemical
analysis to the Deputy Chief Chemist, New Customs House, Mumbai on 30 th April, 2020. Report was received on 13 th May, 2020. Eleven samples were sent for analysis; out of which one set of five samples and another set of six samples, were sent for analysis before two different analysts in the same laboratory. Six samples were tested ‘Positive’ and balance five were found inconclusive in nature. It appears, as per the advice of Chemical Analyser, balance five samples were required to be tested further. As such, prosecution moved an application seeking permission to forward five samples for, ‘re-testing’.
4 The learned Additional Sessions Judge upon perusing the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics in Criminal Appeal No.1640 of 2010 dated 23 rd January, 2013, granted
Shivgan 2/3
2-WP-2097-2021.odt
the application, in view of the fact, that application for retesting was moved within stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of first Report. I do not see, the learned Sessions Judge has committed any error in the exercise of the jurisdiction.
5 In view of the facts of the case and for the
reasons stated above, petition is dismissed.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE,J.)
Shivgan 3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Additional Sessions Judge erred in accepting the application for re-testing of seized samples given in Thana Singh case.
Whether the High Court under Article 226 should interfere with the order permitting re-testing of samples.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thana Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics in Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2010 dated 23rd January, 2013Referred¶18
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rakesh Srikant Khanivadekar Alias Rocky Alias Raju
Union of India
DRI
SANDEEP K. SHINDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
