IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.22725 of 2010 RAJ KUMAR SHARMA, S/o Awadhesh Sharma. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 06. 16.09.2010 It was noted in the order dated 14.07.2010 that two contradictory reports had been received from the Director, FSL, Patna one dated 13.03.2010 (letter No. 1707/2009) by which the seized articles were opined not to be ganja and another report dated 20.04.2010 (letter No. 346/FSL) that the article was “still under examination process”. This Court had therefore required the Director to explain as to how two contradictory reports were sent and what was meant by saying that the article was “still under examination process” and what is the procedure that is adopted by the FSL with regard to testing of the samples. An explanation had been sent from the Director, FSL denying that no report dated 13.03.2010 had been sent with regard to the seized articles and confirmed that indeed a report had been sent on 20.04.2010 that the articles were “still under examination process”. Incidentally on 20.05.2010 i.e. one month later a final report dated 28.04.2010 by FSL Report No. 1707/2009 of the chemical examination report was received in the Office of the Special Judge, Jehanabad opining that the seized article is ganja which is now on record. In reply to a query by this Court about the meaning of “still under examination process” the Director, 2 FSL has kept silent and has merely annexed a communication dated 20.04.2010 addressed to the Spl. Judge, Jehanabad that the test of the samples was undertaken on 07.04.2010. But surprisingly the report dated 20.04.2010 i.e. 2 weeks later speaks of the samples being “still under examination process”. I must comment that the procedure adopted for testing the samples as reported by the Director, FSL does not reveal that it takes such a long time for testing. In fact it takes only one or two days as per experts. So it is not understood as to how or why the report on 20.04.2010, even after 2 weeks of the tests having been undertaken on 7.04.2010, was sent, that the examination was still under process. The whole episode appears to be suspicious and calls for immediate and effective action since we know that huge amount of money is involved in such cases. Was the second report sent to cover up the first report and to make the third one acceptable once it was detected that the first report was fictitious? And, importantly was the first report actually fictitious or was the opinion revised in view of the doubt raised by the Court? It is notable that the first report as well as the third report contain letter No. 1707/2009. If the third report was sent on 20.05.2010 why was the letter numbered as 1707/09 i.e. of year 2009? The Special Judge, Jehanabad and Registrar, Patna High Court will immediately seal the available 3 reports keeping photo copies of the same on record for purposes of trial in the present case. Let the Sr. S.P. Patna make an inquiry into the reports in connection with NDPS Case No. 2 of 2009 arising out of Jehanabad P.S. Case No. 467 of 2009 and institute a substantive case against the accused persons irrespective of position and file a report before this Court immediately. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)