IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2048 OF 2006 Union of India .. Applicant Versus Afzal Khan Ibrahim Khan Pathan .. Respondent Mr.D.N.Salvi for the applicant. Mr.Nitin Jamdar for the respondent no.1. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the State. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 23rd January 2009. : 23rd January 2009. : 23rd January 2009. P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent. The prayer is for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against an order of acquittal of the respondent for offences punishable under section 18(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The main ground on which the respondent has been acquitted is that the sample packets seized by the prosecution have not been produced before the trial Court. 2. I have perused the impugned judgment and notes of evidence. From the evidence it appears that from the (2) alleged contraband which was seized from the respondent-accused, six sample packets were prepared. Out of the six sample packets, two packets were sent to the Regional Forensic Laboratory for chemical analysis. The admitted position as reflected from the evidence is that the said four sample packets were not produced before the trial Court for identification. The two sample packets sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory were not secured back. The learned Judge has relied upon decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mainuddin Kasim Mulla Vs. The State of Maharashtra (1991 Criminal Law Journal 1699). The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus: ".... In order to establish a clearcut link between the seized articles and the report of the chemical analyser stating that the analysed articles were contraband articles, it was absolutely necessary to have identified before the Court, as a substantive piece of evidence, the packets in which the samples were collected and were sent to the chemical analyser. But for that, the sealing of the samples on the scene of offence under the wax seals as well as the labels signed by the panchas had become totally (3) redundant. The labels signed by the panchas are affixed on to the sample articles usually to enable the panchas to identify those articles before the court with reference to their own signatures. In some cases, we have also noticed that the officer in whose presence the seals were made also had countersigned such seals to assure the Court that the articles identified by the panchas were the same articles which were sealed on the scene of offence itself. In the In the In the present present present case, as the packets containing the case, as the packets containing the case, as the packets containing the samples samples samples were never brought before the Court and were never brought before the Court and were never brought before the Court and as as as they were never got identified before the they were never got identified before the they were never got identified before the Court, Court, Court, it was not established beyond reasonable it was not established beyond reasonable it was not established beyond reasonable doubt doubt doubt that the articles which were analysed by that the articles which were analysed by that the articles which were analysed by chemical chemical chemical analyser were, indeed, the samples analyser were, indeed, the samples analyser were, indeed, the samples collected collected collected from the articles which were allegedly from the articles which were allegedly from the articles which were allegedly seized seized seized from the appellant on the scene of from the appellant on the scene of from the appellant on the scene of offence. offence. offence. The learned Sessions Judge committed a The learned Sessions Judge committed a The learned Sessions Judge committed a serious serious serious error in commencing the trial without error in commencing the trial without error in commencing the trial without ascertaining ascertaining ascertaining that the articles sent to chemical that the articles sent to chemical that the articles sent to chemical analyser analyser analyser were not before the Court at all for were not before the Court at all for were not before the Court at all for facilitating facilitating facilitating the identification thereof at the the identification thereof at the the identification thereof at the hands hands hands of the concerned witnesses. of the concerned witnesses. of the concerned witnesses. (Emphasis supplied)" (4) 3. It is therefore obvious that the view taken by the learned Judge is certainly a possible view. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application for leave is rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)