Crl.Rev.No.2647 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl.Rev.No.2647 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.5.2010 Bhupinder Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.R.K.Kapila, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging order dated 17.8.2009 passed by the Special Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for sending the second sample of smack to the Laboratory for reanalysis was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far no prosecution witness has been examined, the petitioner wants that the second sample of the contraband be sent for re-analysis. Learned Special Judge, while dismissing the application, has erred in Crl.Rev.No.2647 of 2009 (O&M) 2 observing that the petitioner wants to prolong the decision of the case. The petitioner is in custody and there would be no benefit by prolonging the case. The petitioner is ready to bear the expenses qua re-analysis of the sample. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. Admittedly, so far as no prosecution witness has been examined. In these circumstances, if the second sample is sent for re-analysis, it would not prolong the decision of the case, rather the petitioner would get a chance to put up his defence. Accordingly, keeping in view the interest of justice in mind, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 17.8.2009 is set aside and the trial Court is directed to send the second sample for re- analysis to Central Laboratory, Chandigarh at the expenses of the petitioner. If the second sample has already not been taken, then the case property be opened and second sample be taken from the bulk contraband. SABINA) JUDGE May 18, 2010 anita