The physical nature of the material is irrelevant in determining whether the contents of the sample examined were opium or not, according to the Supreme Court.
Physical analysis is not prescribed under the terms of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) for testing opium, according to a bench consisting of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli.
“Physical analysis is not mandated under the terms of the NDPS Act for testing the opium, and the physical character of the material is not significant for deciding whether the contents of the sample studied were truly opium or not,” the order stated.
The Bench reaffirmed the decision of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, holding that under the NDPS Act, a finding regarding the presence of opium must be reached only on the basis of the contents of a particular sample.
In this case, the appellant claimed that the necessary provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act (conditions under which searches of persons shall be undertaken) were not followed, and that he was neither searched nor informed of his right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
The search was done in the presence of the Superintendent of Police, who is a gazetted officer, according to the State’s counsel. Following that, it was discovered that the appellant was in possession of 4 kg of opium, of which 20 grammes were taken as a sample. The sample was then analysed by a Chemical Examiner, who determined that the substance was really opium.
The chemical examiner’s report also said that the sample was a powder material/chura.
“Opium is often a sticky material,” according to appellant’s lawyer.
The State’s attorney, on the other hand, contended that nowhere in the NDPS Act does it state that opium must be in the form of a sticky substance.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the physical nature of the sample has no bearing on its content.
As a result, the appellant’s bail bonds were revoked, and they were ordered to surrender to the trial court to complete the remainder of their sentence.
Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi, Advocate-on-Record, appeared for the appellant, along with Abbula Kalam, Mausumi Mishra, Abdul Qarim, and Danish Saifi.
Advocate-on-Record Jaspreet Gogia, together with attorneys Karanvir Gogia and Shivangi Singhal, appeared for the respondent-State.
Case: Sukhdev Singh v. Punjab State.
