Customs vs Ahmad Urukapa

                                        UNREPORTED
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                             DATE OF DECISION: February 04, 2009

+                    CRL.M.C. 1731/2007 & Crl.M.6050/2007

      CUSTOMS                                           ..... Petitioner
                                    Through: Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate

                     versus


      AHMAD URUKAPA                                  ..... Respondent
                                    Through: None.


CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL

1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the Reporter or not?

3.    Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?


:     REVA KHETRAPAL, J (Oral).

1.    This revision petition arises from the judgment dated 08.05.2006 passed

by Special Judge, NDPS directing the prosecution to bring the case property

along with the weighing machine for sending the sample for re-test. The

Customs has come up in revision against the said order.

2.    The counsel for the accused/respondent had relied upon the judgment

rendered by this Court in Nihal Khan Vs. State, 2007(1) JCC Narcotics 37

while seeking re-test of the sample before the learned trial court. The said

judgment, however, only holds that there is no bar for the accused to move for



            CRL.M.C. 1731/2007                                 Page 1 of 2
 retesting, but at the same time, it does not mean that every application moved

by the accused must automatically result in the Court allowing the same. In

the instant case, however, there appears to be justification for passing the order

for retesting in view of the fact that according to the Customs, a sample of 2

grams was drawn whereas as per the CRCL report, the sample was found to be

0.52 grams only, i.e., 25% only. Then again, the recovered substance was

referred to as light brown coloured powder whereas on opening it was found to

be solid black coloured substance.

3.     The learned counsel for Customs has relied upon DRI Vs. Vinod

Kumar, 2004(3) JCC 1710, but as noticed by the learned Additional Sessions

Judge the said judgment had been referred to in the judgment of Nihal Khan

by this Court.

4.     Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I

do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The petition is accordingly

dismissed.




                                          REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

FEBRUARY 04, 2009 aks CRL.M.C. 1731/2007 Page 2 of 2