NDPS re-sampling requires exceptional justification; mere dissatisfaction with the first report cannot support a second sample.

The NDPS Act does not permit re-sampling or re-testing of seized contraband as a routine measure. A second sample may be drawn only in exceptional circumstances supported by cogent reasons, such as loss, damage, tampering, or other compelling necessity. Mere dissatisfaction with an earlier laboratory report is insufficient to justify fresh sampling from the bulk contraband. On that basis, the order allowing a second sample was held unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution could be permitted to draw a second sample from the seized contraband merely because it was dissatisfied with the earlier laboratory report, and whether the order allowing such re-sampling was liable to be quashed.

Analysis: The NDPS Act does not permit re-sampling or re-testing as a matter of course. Such a course can be allowed only in extremely exceptional circumstances supported by cogent reasons, and not merely because the prosecution is dissatisfied with the first report. In the absence of any compelling circumstance showing loss, damage, tampering, or other exceptional necessity, the request for a fresh sample from the bulk contraband could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The order permitting drawing of a second sample was unsustainable and was set aside, in favour of the petitioner.

---