of the NDPS Act. He argues that the process of drawing of samples has to be made in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. However, there is total non-compliance of this provision of law. In support of this contention, learned counsel relies upon the judgments passed in the cases of (1) Union of India vs Mohanlal & Anr reported in (2016) 3 SCC 3749, (2) Mangilal vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2023 SCC online SC 862 and (3) Simarnjit Singh Vs State of Punjab arising out of S.L.P. (Cr.l.) No. 1958 of 2023. He further submits that at the time of recovery, petitioner was not present at the premises from where the recovery was allegedly effected. Counsel submits that according to prosecution case, it has been alleged that, petitioner was in possession of property on the basis of statement of one Dhukal. Counsel submits that Dhukal, who is uncle of the petitioner has already been examined during the course of trial but he has not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile. He submits that property in question is in possession of other person which is established from the evidence of Dhukal. It is further submitted that concerned Patwari has also been examined during the course of trial. As per his testimony, petitioner was not in possession of property in question rather it was established by the Patwar that in revenue record, property is in the name of father of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is not concerned at all with the place of recovery as he had gone in adoption long back. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 17.08.2023 and trial will take long time in its conclusion. It is submitted that there is no criminal antecedents of
