https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182017 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. en-us Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:51:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182017 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. Case-Laws Customs Fri, 11 May 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=182017