Petitioner challenged the rejection of his application to send a second sample of seized opium for analysis. The High Court found no merit as no legal infirmity existed in the trial court order and dismissed the petition.
Petition was dismissed in limine.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc.No.M-36293 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION: December 10, 2010
Samitar Singh @ Ditta
…..Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner
..
RAJAN GUPTA, J. : (Oral)
This is a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of order dated 20.11.2010 passed by Special Court Jalandhar, whereby application filed by petitioner for sending second sample of the recovered contraband to the Forensic Science Laboratory was rejected.
Case was registered against the petitioner for being in conscious possession of 2 kgs. of opium on 25.3.2009. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated on the spot by the investigating agency. Rest of the contraband weighing 1 kg. 950 grams was sealed. One sample which drawn out of the contraband recovered was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Amritsar vide Ex.PZ. Presence of morphine to the extent of 6% was detected in the same.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of the judgment reported as Amar Singh vs. State of Punjab 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 487 , the second
Crl.Misc.No.M-36293 of 2010 - 2 -
sample could have been sent for analysis and thus, the trial court has erroneously rejected the prayer.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The prayer of the petitioner was rejected by the trial court as no case was made out for sending the second sample for analysis. The trial court observed that no suggestion was given to any prosecution witness that prosecution case was based on a sample which was unrelated to the case. Finding no substance in the plea of the petitioner, his plea to send the second sample for analysis was rejected. Learned counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity legal or otherwise in the order passed by the court below.
I am, thus, of the considered view that the
present petition is without any merit and same is hereby dismissed in limine.
December 10, 2010 ( RAJAN GUPTA ) pc JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the petitioner's prayer to send a second sample of recovered opium for forensic analysis under section 482 Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Amar Singh vs. State of Punjab 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 487Referred¶14
Amar Singh vs. State of Punjab 2004(2) RCR (Criminal) 487
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Samitar Singh @ Ditta
State of Punjab
RAJAN GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
