NDPS retesting at investigation stage refused where a government forensic report already confirmed the seized substance.

In an NDPS investigation, where a seized substance has already been examined by a recognised Government forensic laboratory and the report identifies it as methamphetamine hydrochloride, a second retest at the investigation stage is not ordinarily warranted on a speculative challenge. The Court stated that interference under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC is limited at that stage, and that Section 80 of the NDPS Act does not permit importing Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act to override the NDPS investigative process supported by an existing forensic report. The request for retesting was therefore rejected, and no interference with the investigation or the order declining the prayer was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether, at the investigation stage in an NDPS case, the accused was entitled to have a second sample of the seized substance sent for retesting to another laboratory, and whether the provisions relating to Government Analyst reports under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could be invoked for that purpose.

Analysis: The seizure had already been examined by a recognised Government forensic laboratory, whose report confirmed the substance as methamphetamine hydrochloride. The request for a further test was made while investigation was still in progress. The Court held that the scope for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was limited at that stage. It further held that Section 80 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 does not justify importing Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in the manner urged, because the latter provision operates in the context of samples taken and processed under that Act and not to defeat the NDPS investigation already supported by a forensic report.

Conclusion: The request for retesting was rejected, and no interference was called for with the investigation or the order declining the prayer.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a seized substance in an NDPS investigation has already been tested by a competent Government forensic laboratory, a further retest cannot ordinarily be directed at the investigation stage on a speculative challenge to the report, especially when the statutory scheme does not warrant importing the Drugs and Cosmetics Act procedure to displace the NDPS investigation.

---