- (1.) MR. U. K. Uniyal, learned Senior Ad vocate with MR. Sandeep Kothari, Ad vocate for the petitioner.
(2.) MR. Nandan Arya, learned Assist ant Government Advocate for the re spondent-State Heard the learned counsel for the parties. A very short but interesting ques tion of law is involved for consideration, adjudication and determination in this bail application.
(3.) ON 24th October, 2007, three persons were apprehended on the ba sis of information received that con traband was being carried by them. ONe of them was petitioner Baidev Singh from whose possession, as per the allegations in the First Information Report, 400 gms. of smack was recov ered. It is undisputed case of the par ties that 400 gms. of smack is a com mercial quantity. Any amount which is below 250 gms. is non-commercial quantity. The prosecution case is that out of recovered 400 gms. of the sub stance, 20 gms. (net wet) was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun. As per the report of the chemical examina tion, the sample received in the Labo ratory gave a positive test for Diacetyl Morphine. In layman's language, the said sample gave a positive test for smack in chemical and chromato-graphic analysis. In the Report sent by the Laboratory, the description of the sample read thus : Parcel No. : ONe packet containing suspected material wrapped in clothes. Seal and Impression : ONe cloth packet sealed with impression. Description : A white polythene packet containing suspected material. Gross weight-35. 6 (Approx) with packing. New weight of suspected material 12. 1 gms. (Approx) marked as exhibit 1. According to learned counsel ap pearing for the petitioner, the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (1985 Act for short) were not followed in the case in sofar as the weighting of the recovered substance as well as the drawing of the representative sample are concerned.;