Upload 3 files

test.json

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+[
+  {
+    "citation": "Sample_10",
+    "text": "Heard Shri DK Baidya, learned counsel for the petitioner, namely, Amal Das, who has\nfiled this application under Section 438 CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with\nBasistha PS Case No. 1023/2020 registered under Section 21(c) / 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. Also\nheard Shri BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.\n2. The projected case of the petitioner is that the allegations in the FIR are incorrect\nthough it is a fact that a Truck was intercepted near Jorabat and in the search, Eskuf cough\nsyrup in 44,160 nos. of bottles in 276 nos. of cartoons were recovered without any\ndocuments. The projected case of the petitioner is that the psychotropic substance seized\nwas sold by the agency run by the petitioner to a distributor of Karimganj district. The further\ncase of the petitioner is that one Anirudh Kumar Singh was running M/s. Hematech\nPharmaceuticals at Narangi. The said Anirudh Kumar Singh had requested the present\npetitioner, who was running another drug distributorship in the name of ANM Pharmaceuticals\nto run his distributorship and accordingly executed a Power of Attorney dated 21.01.2021 in\nfavour of the petitioner on the strength of which, the petitioner is running the business of\nM/s. Hematech Pharmaceuticals. It has also been contented that the consignment in question\nwas purchased from one Daffodil Drugs Private Limited, Kolkata and was accordingly supplied\nto M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributor by issuing cash memo and E-way bill. It is however apparent\nthat the GST invoice was of a subsequent date than the date of seizure.\n3. This Court, vide order dated 07.07.2021, after going through the Case Diary had\nnoticed that there was an issue as to whether the GST invoices are manufactured or genuine\nand accordingly, directed the Investigating Officer to file a report. However, in the meantime,\nan interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner.\n4. After certain dates, the report was furnished to this Court. This Court vide order dated\n05.04.2022 after perusal of the CD had, amongst others, made the following observations-\n“4. As per the aforesaid order requiring the IO to submit a report of the GST invoices, it\nappears that the IO had written a letter dated 21.03.2022. In reply to the said letter, the\noffice of the Deputy Commissioner of State Tax-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Tax,\nUnit-C had given a reply dated 28.03.2022 from which it appears that the e-Way bill for\nthe goods, in question, were generated on 10.06.2021 at 11.38 am whereas, the vehicle\n(Truck) with Registration No. NL-01-AB-9942 carrying the contrabands was intercepted\non 09.06.2021 at 10.10 pm when no relevant documents could be produced regarding\nthe goods. Another issue had appeared regarding the existence of M/S Nalini Drugs\nDistributors, Karimganj which was the destination of the goods. To substantiate the\nclaim of the applicant regarding the authenticity of such existence, an RTI reply dated\n25.11.2021 has been placed on record. The following queries were mad in the said\ni) Whether any drug license has been issued to M/S Nalini Drug\niii) Proprietor of M/S Nalini Drug Distributor, Karimganj?\niv) Whether Sumit Dhar is running the license on behalf of its proprietor\n6. The Case Diary contains another communication from the Inspector of Drugs, HQ,\nOffice of the Drugs Controller, Assam, Hengrabari, dated 27.10.2021 wherein the\n1. The proprietor of M/S Nalini Drugs Distributor Sh. Anip Kanti Ghosh has\ndeclared that he has not ordered the subject drug and has not signed in the\norder copy (copy enclosed) and his D/L No. is D/OL/KMJ/3837 &\n2. As per report of the Inspector of Drugs, Kamrup and Sr. Inspector of Drugs,\nKamrup it is to be noted that the invoices of M/s. Hematech Pharmaceuticals,\nCK Azad Road, Panbazar, Guwahati issued to M/s. Nalini Distributors C/o. Dhar\nDrug Agency, Shivbari Road, Karki with D/L/No.KM3/3837 & 3838 does not\nexists as per office record.\n3. The details of the firm M/S Nalini Drug Distributor is recorded as M/S. Nalini\nDrug Distributor, Shivbari Road, P.O. & Dist: Karimganj with No. D/OL/KMJ/\n7. It appears that there is a major contradiction with the contents of the aforesaid\ncommunication dated 27.10.2021 of the Inspector of Drugs, HQ, Office of the Drugs\nController, Assam and the reply to the RTI application dated 25.11.2021. Though the\nreply to the RTI is on certain queries which will not directly on the issue, the contents of\nthe two communications of the authorities do not appear to be in conformity with each\n8. Shri Bora, learned Senior Counsel submits that subsequent generation of bill can, at\nbest, be violation of the GST Act but cannot be termed to be a violation of the provision\nof the NDPS Act and therefore, Section 21 of the NDPS Act may not be applicable. The\nlearned Senior Counsel further submits that though the seized articles in question may\nbe termed as psychotropic substance, it will come under the exception of Section 8(c)\nand transportation of the same with necessary documents is available under proviso to\n9. Shri Bora, learned Senior Counsel also draws the attention of this Court to the bill\nissued by Nalini Drug Distributors (page 46), dated 08.06.2021 and the GST invoice\n(page 97), dated 09.06.2021.\n10. A careful perusal of both the documents would show that whereas the bill at page\n46 has been issued by “Nalini Drug Distributors”, at page 97, the buyer’s details have\nbeen stated as Nalini Distributors. Further, the address at page 46 is shown as Shib Bari\nRoad, Karimganj, in page 97, it is shown as C/O Dhar Drug Agency Shibbari Road.\nFurthermore, the distributor’s license at page 46 is shown as D/L NoKMJ/3837/3838, in\npage 97, it is DL No. : KM3/3837/3838 and the rubber stamp at page 46 also gives the\naddress as Sub Bari Road, Karimganj. Lastly, a perusal at page 46 of the document\nwould clearly show that the same was a blank document which has been filled up by\nhand by inserting the details only for the purpose of annexing the said documents in the\nbail application, inasmuch, as it is by the same hand and ink (Annexure F) has been\nwritten. In the said document, the space for writing the amount has also been kept\nblank.\n11. All the aforesaid anomalies raise a serious doubt on the manner by which this Court\nhas been approached and it prima facie appears that at various stages, there have been\nmanipulations of documents and other materials.\n12. In that view of the matter and for the greater interest of the society and taking into\nconsideration the amount of contrabands seized, namely, 1 Truck load of Eskuf cough\nsyrup consisting of 44,160 bottles in 276 cartons with each cartons containing 160\nbottles without any valid documents, this Court directs the IO to make further\ninvestigation, including a visit to the Karimganj to verify the existence or otherwise of\nthe consignee/receiver at Karimganj and submit a report by the next date.\n13. An enquiry may also be made by the IO on the various documents/emails relating to\nthe applicant and other persons connected with this case and a verification exercise be\ndone with the authorities who have allegedly issued such communications/ documents.\nIn this regard, the IO may also call the applicant for further interrogation by maintaining\n5. When the matter was considered on the date of hearing, the updated Case Diary was\nproduced which contains the statements of Shri Arup Kanti Ghosh, the proprietor of M/s.\nNalini Drugs Distributor along with the note of the IO, who had visited the location. The\nproprietor has specifically stated that no consignment of the present nature was ever made\nand all medicines for the Pharmacy are collected from local Stockist and on no occasion any\nmedicines were procured from beyond the Barrack Valley. The proprietor has also suspected\nsome foul-play regarding the license.\n6. Shri Baidya, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the interim\norder dated 06.07.2021, the petitioner had appeared before the IO on 15.07.2021 and there\nis no instance of any misuse. As regards the materials revealed in the updated Case Diary\nincluding the statement of Shri Arup Kanti Ghosh, the learned counsel has submitted that,\nperhaps to avoid any complicacy, the proprietor has simply tried to wriggle out of the matter.\nHe further submits that the petitioner cannot be held liable of misuse of the license of M/s.\n7. On the other hand, Shri BB Gogoi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam has\nsubmitted that from the very initiation of movement of the consignment involving a huge\nnumber of bottles in cartoons which admittedly is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS\nAct as the cough syrup contains a substance called Codeine, there are anomalies / illegalities\nat different stages including GST invoices and therefore, the present may not be a fit case to\ncontinue with the interim protection granted to the petitioner.\n8. The submissions made by the rival parties have been carefully considered and the case\nrecords perused. It appears that the thrust of the argument made on behalf of the petitioner\nin support of the prayer for bail is that subsequent generation of bills can at best be violation\nof the GST Act and cannot be violation of the NDPS Act. It is further been contended that\nthough the articles are psychotropic substance it will come under the exception of Section\n8(c) of the Act and transportation of the same with necessary documents is available under\nproviso to Rule 67(4) of the NDPS Rules.\n9. After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court finds\nsufficient force in the argument made on behalf of the State. It is already on record that the\nE-way bills were generated on 10.06.2021 at 11.38 AM whereas the Truck with registration\nNo. NL-01-AB-9942 carrying the contraband was intercepted on the previous day i.e.\n09.06.2021 at 10.10 PM when no documents could be produced. The discrepancies regarding\nthe consignment being allegedly meant for M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributors, instead of being\nresolved has in fact raised the degree of suspicion on the bona fide of the projected case of\nthe accused. The license no. of M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributor also seems to be interpolated as\nrecorded by this Court in the order dated 05.04.2022. The communication dated 27.10.2021\nissued by the Inspector of Drugs, Headquarter specifically states that the invoices of M/s.\nHematech Pharmaceuticals do not exist as per office records. Interestingly, the invoices are\nnot issued to M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributors but to M/s. Nalini Distributors with D/L No.\nKM3/3837 and 3838 which does not exist.\n10. On the first blush, the contention made on behalf of the petitioner appears to be\nacceptable. However, on the revelations made during the investigation, the matter has turned\nup to be a very serious one which calls for a thorough and meticulous enquiry.\n11. The offence involved in this case is one under the NDPS Act and the quantity involved\nis a commercial quantity. The contraband involved is also chemical manufacture drugs. To be\nmore specific, the FIR itself reveals that the following recovery has been made-\nii. Total 44,160 bottles of cough syrup Eskuf (Codeine Phosphate &\nChlorpheniramine Malite syrup) 100 ml. Batch No. LESC-077 Mfg. dtd. 03-2021,\nExpr. Dt. 02-2013 in 276 cartons, each carton contains 160 bottles suspected to\nbe NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance).\niv. One ID Card in the name of Amal Das of ANM Pharmaceuticals, MT Road,\nv. One mobile handset.\n12. This Court finds force in the submission of the learned APP, Assam that offences under\nthe NDPS Act are part of an organized crime wherein difference roles are played by different\naccused persons. Therefore, recovery or seizure cannot be held to be a sine qua non for the\narrest / detention or even for conviction if there are other convincing and corroborating\nmaterials which in the present case are abundantly available.\n13. This Court is of the view that it is a settled position of law that in a case involving the\nNDPS Act various factors are to be taken into consideration like the quantity of the\ncontraband, nature of the substance, nature of involvement etc. In the present case, the\ncontraband is a commercial quantity and the substance is chemically manufactured drug.\nMoreover, Section 37 of the NDPS Act lays down that before granting a bail, the relevant\nfactors are that the Court should come to a satisfaction that prima facie the petitioner is not\nguilty of the offence and also the petitioner has to satisfy the Court that in case bail is\ngranted, he is not likely to commit further offence. The aforesaid two factors do not seem to\nbe fulfilled in the present case.\n14. In that view of the matter and also taking into consideration the very object of the\nenactment, namely to curb the menace of drugs and its ill effects on the society which has\nthe propensity to destroy the generation as a whole, this Court is of the opinion that no case\nfor grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the same stands rejected.\nConsequently, the interim protection granted, vide order dated 07.07.2021 stands cancelled.\n15. The IO of the case is accordingly directed to make all efforts to investigate the case so\nthat the persons involved in the heinous offence involved in the NDPS Act can be put to book,\nstrictly in accordance with law.\n16. It is however clarified that the observation made are tentative in nature and shall not\ncause prejudice to either of the parties in the trial.",
+    "summary_english": "The Gauhati High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a person in connection with a case registered under Section 21(c) / 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 holding that recovery or seizure of the contraband is not mandatory for their arrest, detention or even their conviction.\nJustice Sanjay Kumar Medhi observed that this was so because the offences under the Act were part of an organised crime and any convincing and corroborating material in favour of the prosecution would be sufficient to establish their guilt.\n\"This Court finds force in the submission of the learned APP, Assam that offences under the NDPS Act are part of an organized crime wherein different roles are played by different accused persons. Therefore, recovery or seizure cannot be held to be a sine qua non for the arrest/detention or even for conviction if there are other convincing and corroborating materials which in the present case are abundantly available.\"\nIt was also found that in a case involving the NDPS Act, various factors are to be taken into consideration like the quantity of the contraband, nature of the substance, nature of involvement etc. In the present case, the contraband is a commercial quantity and the substance is a chemically manufactured drug.\nMoreover, Section 37 lays down that before granting bail, the relevant factors are that the Court should come to the satisfaction that prima facie the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and also the petitioner has to satisfy the Court that in case bail is granted, he is not likely to commit further offences. The aforesaid two factors did not seem to be fulfilled in the present case, and therefore the bail applications were dismissed.\nThe petitioner had filed an application under Section 438 CrPC seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with a case registered under Section 21(c) / 29 of the NDPS Act.\nThe case of the petitioner is that the allegations in the FIR are incorrect though it is a fact that a truck was intercepted and in the search, Eskuf cough syrup in 44,160 bottles in 276 cartons was recovered without any documents. The case of the petitioner is that the psychotropic substance seized was sold by the agency run by the petitioner to a distributor in the Karimganj district.\nThe further case of the petitioner is that one Anirudh Kumar Singh was running M/s. Hematech Pharmaceuticals at Narangi. The said Anirudh Kumar Singh had requested the present petitioner, who was running another drug distributorship in the name of ANM Pharmaceuticals to run his distributorship and accordingly executed a Power of Attorney dated 21.01.2021 in favour of the petitioner on the strength of which, the petitioner is running the business of M/s. Hematech Pharmaceuticals.\nThe Court by order dated 07 July, 2021 after going through the Case Diary had noticed that there was an issue as to whether the GST invoices are manufactured or genuine and accordingly, directed the Investigating Officer to file a report. However, in the meantime, an interim order was granted in favour of the petitioner.\nCourt recorded in the present order that on the last date of hearing the updated Case Diary was produced which contains the statements of Shri Arup Kanti Ghosh, the proprietor of M/s. Nalini Drugs Distributor along with the note of the IO, who had visited the location.\nIt was observed that the proprietor has specifically stated that no consignment of the present nature was ever made and all medicines for the Pharmacy are collected from local stockists and on no occasion any medicines were procured from beyond the Barrack Valley. The proprietor has also suspected some foul play regarding the license.\nPetitioner argued that after the interim order dated 06.07.2021, the petitioner had appeared before the IO on 15.07.2021 and there is no instance of any misuse. With regard to the material submitted in the updated diary including the statement of Shri Arup Kanti Ghosh, the learned counsel has submitted that perhaps to avoid any complicacy, the proprietor has simply tried to wriggle out of the matter.\nThe Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for State submitted that from the very initiation of movement of the consignment involving a huge number of bottles in cartoons which admittedly is a psychotropic substance under the NDPS Act as the cough syrup contains a substance called Codeine, there are anomalies/illegalities at different stages including GST invoices and therefore, the present may not be a fit case to continue with the interim protection granted to the petitioner.\nThe thrust of arguments by the petitioner was on the fact that subsequent generation of bills can at best be a violation of the GST Act and cannot be a violation of the NDPS Act. Petitioners had also contended that though the articles are psychotropic substances it will come under the exception of Section 8(c) of the Act and transportation of the same with necessary documents is available under proviso to Rule 67(4) of the NDPS Rules.\nThe Court directed the IO of the case to make all efforts to investigate the case so that the persons involved in the heinous offence involved in the NDPS Act can be put to book, strictly in accordance with law.\nConsidering the very object of the Act, namely to curb the menace of drugs and its ill effects on the society which has the propensity to destroy the generation as a whole, It was held that no case for grant of anticipatory bail was made out. The Court also clarified that the observation made are tentative in nature and shall not cause prejudice to either of the parties in the trial. In view of the above discussion, the bail application was rejected.\nPetitioner was represented by advocate A M Bora.\nCase Title: AMAL DAS v THE STATE OF ASSAM",
+    "summary_hindi": "गुवाहाटी हाईकोर्ट ने हाल ही में एनडीपीएस एक्ट, 1985 की धारा 21 (सी)/29 के तहत दर्ज मामले में एक व्यक्ति को अग्रिम जमानत देने से इनकार कर दिया। कोर्ट ने कहा कि आरोपी की गिरफ्तारी, हिरासत या यहां तक ​​कि उसकी सजा के लिए प्रतिबंधित पदार्थ की रिकवरी या जब्ती आवश्यक नहीं है।\nजस्टिस संजय कुमार मेधी ने कहा कि ऐसा इसलिए है क्योंकि कानून के तहत अपराध एक संगठित अपराध का हिस्सा है और अभियोजन के पक्ष में कोई भी ठोस और पुष्टि करने वाली सामग्री उसके अपराध को स्थापित करने के लिए पर्याप्त होगी।\nउन्होंने कहा,\n\"इस कोर्ट ने विद्वान एपीपी, असम की प्रस्तुतियों में बल पाया कि एनडीपीएस एक्ट के तहत अपराध एक संगठित अपराध का हिस्सा हैं, जिसमें विभिन्न आरोपी व्यक्तियों द्वारा विभिन्न भूमिकाएं निभाई जाती हैं। इसलिए, रिकवरी या जब्ती को गिरफ्तारी/निरोध के लिए या यहां तक ​​कि दोषसिद्धि के लिए भी अनिवार्य शर्त नहीं माना जा सकता है, यदि कोई अन्य ठोस और पुष्टि करने वाली सामग्री मौजूद है, जो कि मौजूदा मामले में प्रचुर मात्रा में उपलब्ध है।\"\nकोर्ट ने यह भी पाया कि एनडीपीएस एक्ट से जुड़े एक मामले में, विभिन्न कारकों को ध्यान में रखा जाना चाहिए जैसे कि प्रतिबंधित पदार्थ की मात्रा, पदार्थ की प्रकृति, शामिल होने की प्रकृति आदि। मौजूदा मामले में, प्रतिबंधित पदार्थ वाणिज्यिक मात्रा में है और पदार्थ रासायनिक रूप से निर्मित दवा है।\nकोर्ट ने कहा, धारा 37 में कहा गया है कि जमानत देने से पहले, प्रासंगिक कारक यह है कि न्यायालय को इस बात से संतुष्ट होना चाहिए कि प्रथम दृष्टया याचिकाकर्ता अपराध का दोषी नहीं है और याचिकाकर्ता को भी अदालत को संतुष्ट करना होगा कि यदि जमानत दी जाती है, उसके आगे और अपराध करने की आशंका नहीं है। मौजूदा मामले में उपरोक्त दो बातें पूरी होती नहीं दिख रही थीं, और इसलिए जमानत अर्जी खारिज की जाती है।\nयाचिकाकर्ता ने एनडीपीएस एक्ट की धारा 21(सी)/29 के तहत दर्ज मामले के संबंध में सीआरपीसी की धारा 438 के तहत प्री-अरेस्ट बेल की मांग करते हुए एक आवेदन दायर किया था।\nयाचिकाकर्ता का मामला यह था कि एफआईआर में लगाए गए आरोप गलत ‌थे, हालांकि यह सच है कि एक ट्रक को रोका गया था और तलाशी में 276 डिब्बों में रखीं 44,160 बोतलों में एस्कुफ कफ सिरप बरामद किया गया था, जिसके दस्तावेज भी मौजूद नहीं थे। याचिकाकर्ता का कहना था कि जब्त किया गया मादक पदार्थ याचिकाकर्ता की एजेंसी ने करीमगंज जिले के एक वितरक को बेचा था।\nयाचिकाकर्ता का आगे मामला यह था कि अनिरुद्ध कुमार सिंह नाम का एक व्यक्ति नारंगी में मेसर्स हेमटेक फार्मास्यूटिकल्स नाम की फर्म चला रहा था। उसी अनिरुद्ध कुमार सिंह ने मौजूदा याचिकाकर्ता से अनुरोध किया था, जो एएनएम फार्मास्युटिकल्स के नाम पर अपनी डिस्ट्रीब्यूटरशिप चलाता था कि वह उसकी भी डिस्ट्रीब्यूटरशिप चलाए और उसी के अनुसार याचिकाकर्ता के पक्ष में एक पावर ऑफ अटॉर्नी 21.01.2021 को निष्पादित किया गया, जिसके जर‌िए याचिकाकर्ता मैसर्स हेमटेक फार्मास्यूटिकल्स का व्यवसाय चला रहा है।\nकोर्ट ने केस डायरी को देखने के बाद 07 जुलाई, 2021 के आदेश में कहा कि एक मुद्दा यह है कि जीएसटी चालान निर्मित या वास्तविक हैं या नहीं और इस संबंध में जांच अधिकारी को एक रिपोर्ट दर्ज करने का निर्देश दिया। हालांकि इस बीच याचिकाकर्ता के पक्ष में अंतरिम आदेश दे दिया गया।\nकोर्ट ने मौजूदा आदेश में दर्ज किया कि सुनवाई की पिछली तारीख पर अपडेटेड केस डायरी पेश की गई, जिसमें मेसर्स नलिनी ड्रग्स डिस्ट्रीब्यूटर के मालिक अरूप कांति घोष के बयान जांच अधिकारी के नोट के साथ शामिल था। जांच अधिकारी ने स्थान का दौरा किया था।\nयह देखा गया कि मालिक ने विशेष रूप से कहा है कि मौजूदा प्रकृति की कोई भी खेप कभी नहीं मंगाई गई थी और फार्मेसी के लिए सभी दवाएं स्थानीय स्टॉकिस्टों से एकत्र की जाती हैं और कभी भी बराक वैली के बाहर से कोई दवा नहीं खरीदी जाती है। मालिक ने लाइसेंस के संबंध में कुछ गड़बड़ी का भी संदेह किया।\nयाचिकाकर्ता ने तर्क दिया कि दिनांक 06.07.2021 के अंतरिम आदेश के बाद, याचिकाकर्ता 15.07.2021 को जांच अधिकारी के समक्ष पेश हुआ और किसी भी दुरुपयोग का कोई उदाहरण नहीं है। अरूप कांति घोष के बयान सहित अपडेटेड डायरी में प्रस्तुत सामग्री के संबंध में, विद्वान एडवोकेट ने निवेदन किया कि शायद किसी भी जटिलता से बचने के लिए मालिक ने मामले से बचने की कोशिश की है।\nराज्य की ओर से पेश अतिरिक्त लोक अभियोजक ने प्रस्तुत किया कि खेप की आवाजाही की शुरुआत से ही कार्टून में बड़ी संख्या में बोतलें रखी थी, जो कि एनडीपीएस एक्ट के तहत एक मादक पदार्थ है क्योंकि कफ सिरप में कोडीन नामक पदार्थ होता है। जीएसटी चालान सहित विभिन्न चरणों में विसंगतियां/अवैधता रही हैं और इसलिए, याचिकाकर्ता को दी गई अंतरिम सुरक्षा को जारी रखने के लिए मौजूदा मामला उपयुक्त नहीं हो सकता है।\nयाचिकाकर्ता का जोर इस तथ्य पर था कि बाद की बिलों में जीएसटी एक्ट का उल्लंघन हो सकता है, लेकिन यह एनडीपीएस एक्ट का उल्लंघन नहीं हो सकता है।\nयाचिकाकर्ताओं ने यह भी तर्क दिया था कि माल मादक पदार्थ हैं, लेकिन यह एक्ट की ध��रा 8 (सी) के अपवाद के तहत आएंगे और आवश्यक दस्तावेजों के साथ इसका परिवहन एनडीपीएस नियमों के नियम 67 (4) के प्रावधान के तहत किया जा सकता है।\nअदालत ने जांच अधिकारी को मामले की जांच के लिए हर संभव प्रयास करने का निर्देश दिया ताकि अपराध में शामिल व्यक्तियों पर कानून के अनुसार सख्ती से कार्रवाई की जा सके।\nकोर्ट ने एनडीपीएस एक्ट के मूल उद्देश्य को ध्यान में रखते हुए, यानि ड्रग्स के खतरे और समाज पर इसके दुष्प्रभावों को रोकने के लिए, यह माना कि मौजूदा मामले में अग्रिम जमानत देने का मामला नहीं बनाया गया है। कोर्ट ने यह भी स्पष्ट किया कि किए गए अवलोकन प्रकृति में अस्थायी हैं और मुकदमे में किसी भी पक्ष के लिए पूर्वाग्रह का कारण नहीं होंगे। इन्हीं टिप्पणियों के साथ कोर्ट ने जमानत अर्जी खारिज कर दी।\nयाचिकाकर्ता का प्रतिनिधित्व एडवोकेट एएम बोरा ने किया।",
+    "language": "mixed"
+  }
+]

validation.json

@@ -0,0 +1,9 @@
+[
+  {
+    "citation": "Sample_8",
+    "text": "1. This is an application seeking regular bail in FIR No. 0021/2022 dated\n26.02.2022 u/s 20/29 of the NDPS Act registered at PS Crime Branch.\n2. It is stated by Mr. Aggarwal that in the present case, the procedure for\ncollection of sample is faulty and in violation of standing order 1/88 of the\nguidelines of NCB. To substantiate his arguments, he has drawn my\nattention to the seizure memo, wherein it has been stated as under:\n“Before the following witnesses at 1st Floor, H No. RZ-20P / H No.\n6, Gali No. Zero, East Sagarpur, two persons from Delhi, Ajit\nRasulpur, Distt Chapra, Bihar, Age-26 Years and Laxman Thakur\nRasulpur, Distt Chapra, Bihar, Age-52 Years were arrested on the\nbasis of mukhbari and searched in compliance with all legal\nprovisions. During the search, person namely Ajit Kumar took off\nthe black pithu bag from the shoulder, which on opening the bag\nand checking, a total of 6 packets covered with brown color tape\nwere found from the bag and all the packets were found to contain\nlight moisture grassy material with flowers and seeds, which was\nfound to be ganja on the basis of smelling and physical properties,\nwhich after weighing all 6 packets, 2/2 kg ganja was found in all\n(total 12 kg ganja) after which we put the ganja found in all 6\npackets in a white big sack/ katta and tied the mouth of the sack/\nkatta with the help of white cloth and a pulinda was made and\nsealed with the stamp of MK and marked as mark „A‟ After this,\nthe black bag held in Laxman's hand was checked, on which\nTYCOON4 is written on the bag with white thread embroidery, in\nwhich there are a total of two pockets on which there are chains.\nOn checking the packets, transparent plastic layer was found under\nbrown color tape and in all the packets, light sealed grass-like\nsubstance with flowers and seeds was found to be ganja on the\nbasis of smelling and physical properties, which after weighing all\n5 packets, all of them got 2/2kg ganja (total 10 kg ganja) which all\nPut the ganja found in 5 packets in another white sack/ katta and tie\nthe mouth of the katta with the help of a white cloth and a pullanda\nwas made and sealed with the stamp of MK , which was given mark\nB. After this, all the 11 packing materials and the above two black\nbag were put together in a white bag and the mouth of the katta was\ntied with the help of white cloth and a pulanda was made and\nsealed with the stamp of MK, which was given the mark C. After\nthat all the above pulanda mark as A, B and C were taken into\npolice custody.\n3. As per the said seizure memo, the 12 Kg Ganja recovered from 6\npackets in possession of Ajit Kumar were mixed and also 5 packets of 2 Kgs\neach found from the applicant were mixed and thereafter were sealed.\n4. Mr. Aggarwal has relied on a judgment of „Basant Rai vs. State‟ in\nCrl. Appeal 909/2005 as well as „Santini Simone vs. Department of\n5. Per contra, Mr. Chauhan, learned APP has relied on the judgment of\nSupreme Court titled as „Sumit Tomar vs. The State of Punjab‟[(2013) 1\nSCC 395] and more particularly paras 11 & 12 which reads as under:\n“11. The next contention, according to the learned Senior Counsel\nfor the appellant, is that the prosecution has committed an\nirregularity by mixing up the contraband found in the bags and\ntaking samples thereafter. We find no substance in the said argument.\nThe present appellant was driving the car in which two bags of\ncontraband were loaded. He further pointed out that in view of\nSection 15(c) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes minimum sentence\nof 10 years and which may extend to 20 years where the\ncontravention involves commercial quantity, the mixing of two bags\nis a grave irregularity which affects the interest of the appellant. We\nare unable to accept the said contention.”\n12. It is true that Section 15 of the NDPS Act speaks about\npunishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw. As per sub-\nsection (a) where the contravention involves small quantity, the\nrigorous imprisonment may extend to six months or with fine which\nmay extend to ten thousand rupees or with both whereas under sub-\nsection (b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than\ncommercial quantity but greater than small quantity, rigorous\nimprisonment may extend to 10 years and with fine which may extend\nto one lakh rupees. Sub-section (c) provides that where the\ncontravention involves commercial quantity, the rigorous\nimprisonment shall not be less than 10 years but which may extend to\n20 years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than\none lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees. Merely\nbecause different punishments have been prescribed depending on\nthe quantity of contraband, we are satisfied that by mixing the said\ntwo bags, the same has not caused any prejudice to the appellant.\nEven after taking two samples of 250 gm each, the quantity measured\ncomes to 69.50 kg which is more than commercial quantity (small\nquantity 1000 gm/commercial quantity 50 kg and above). In view of\nthe same, the contention that the police should have taken two\nsamples each from the two bags without mixing is liable to be\n6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.\n7. The judgment of Sumit Tomar (supra) has been duly considered by\nthe Coordinate Bench of this Court titled in a judgment titled as „Santini\nSimone vs. Department of Customs‟ [2020 SCC OnLine Del 2128] and\nrelevant paras read as under:\n“57. In Sumit Tomar v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC 395, the Court\nwas examining the case where according to the prosecution, two\nplastic bags containing „bhooki‟ opium powder were recovered from\nthe dickey of the car. The contents of both the bags were mixed and\ntwo samples of 250 grams each were taken out. The remaining\ncontraband weighing 69.5 kgs were sealed in two bags and the\nsamples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. It\nwas contended on behalf of the appellant that the procedure followed\nby the concerned seizing officials was irregular and the alleged\ncontraband could not be mixed and the samples taken thereafter. It\nwas contended that since the punishment is based on the quantity of\ncontraband recovered, mixing of substances from two bags was\nunacceptable. The said contention was rejected. The Court held that\nmerely because different punishments have been prescribed\ndepending on quantity of the contraband, the same has not caused\nany prejudice to the appellant. The Court reasoned that even after\ntaking two samples of 250 grams each, 69.5 kgs of contraband was\nstill available.\n58. In Amani Fidel Chris (supra), four brown colour packets were\nallegedly recovered. The said packets contained powdery substances,\nwhich on being tested, yielded a positive result for heroin. The\nsubstances were then mixed properly and weighed with the help of an\nelectronic machine and it was found that the same weighed 1.5 kgs.\nThereafter, two samples of 5 grams each were drawn from the\nrecovered substance and put into zip lock pouches. It was contended\nthat the procedure adopted was not permissible. The procedure of\ntransferring the contents of all four packets into one and then\ndrawing a sample from the mixture had caused a serious prejudice,\nas it could not be ascertained whether the four packets contained the\nalleged narcotic. The Court found that the procedure adopted fell\nfoul of the Standing Order No. 1/88 dated 15.03.1988 issued by the\nNarcotics Control Bureau (which was pari materia to Standing\nOrder 1/1989 dated 13.06.1989, issued by Department of Revenue,\nMinistry of Finance, Government of India). The Court held that\nwhere more than one container/package is found, it is necessary that\nsamples be drawn from each separate container/package and be\ntested with a field-testing kit. If the container/packages are identical\nin shape, size and weight then lots of 10 or 40 container/packages\nmay be prepared. Thereafter, representative samples from each\ncontainer/package be drawn.\n59. In Basant Rai (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court\nconsidered a case where the accused was allegedly found carrying a\npolythene bag, containing eight smaller polythene bags, containing a\nbrown colour substance, which was alleged to be charas. The\nInvestigating Officer had taken small pieces from each packet and\nmixed the same and thereafter, drawn two samples which were sent\nto FSL for analysis. The Court found fault with the said procedure\nand allowed the appeal. The Court held as under:\n“25. After hearing both the learned counsel for parties and going\nthrough the Trial Court Record, I find force in the submission of\nlearned counsel for appellant. Admittedly, the samples were drawn\nafter breaking small pieces from 08 of the polythene bags which were\nallegedly kept in a green coloured bag by the appellant in his right\nhand. The IO prepared two samples of 25 grams each after taking a\nsmall quantity from each of the slabs.\n26. Though the settled law is that if it is not practicable to send the\nentire quantity then sufficient quantity by way of samples from each\nof the packets of pieces recovered should be sent for chemical\nexamination. Otherwise, result thereon, may be doubted.\n27. For example, if the 08 packets were allegedly recovered from the\nappellant and only two packets were having contraband substance\nand rest 6 packets did not have any contraband; though all maybe of\nthe same colour, when we mix the substances of all 8 packets into one\nor two; then definitely, the result would be of the total quantity and\nnot of the two pieces. Therefore, the process adopted by the\nprosecution creates suspicion. In such a situation, as per settled law,\nthe benefit thereof should go in favour of the accused. It does not\nmatter the quantity. Proper procedure has to be followed, without\nthat the results would be negative.”\n60. In Edward Khimani Kamau (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this\nCourt rejected the procedure where the substance found in nine\npackets was transferred into one packet and two samples were drawn\nfrom the same. The Court held that it could not be ascertained that\nall nine packets contained heroin.\n61. In Charlse Howell @ AbelKom (supra), the NCB had allegedly\nrecovered 330 grams of heroin. The powder recovered was packed in\n166 polythene strips, which were concealed in the laces/hem of\ntwo lehengas. The concealed powder from the 166 strips was\ncollected in a transparent polythene and on weighing, it was found to\nbe 330 grams. Two samples of five grams were drawn and put\nseparately in zip lock polythene pouches. A Coordinate Bench of this\nCourt following the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of\nIndia v. Bal Mukund, (2009) 12 SCC 161, held that the procedure\nadopted was not in conformity with the Standing Order 1/88 dated\n15.03.1988, issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau.”\n8. I am of the view that as mandated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in\njudgment of „Union of India vs. Bal Mukund & Ors.‟ [(2009) 12 SCC 161],\nstanding order 1/88 has been opined to be a “requirement of law”.\n9. The 3 Bench judgment of Bal Mukund (supra) is binding on this\n10. Relevant portion of Standing order 1/88 reads as under:\n“2.4 In the case of Seizure of a single package/container, one\nsample (in duplicate) shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to\ndraw one sample (in duplicate) from each packet/container in\ncase of seizure of more than one package/container.”\n11. The standing order 1/88 mandates that the transferring of content of\nall packets into one and then drawing a sample from the mixture is not\npermitted.\n12. I am of the view that in the present case, the instructions in 1/88 has\nnot been followed and the sample has been drawn after mixing the contents\nof various packets into one container. The same has caused serious prejudice\nto the case of the applicant. Since the collection of sample itself is faulty, the\nrigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable.\n13. The applicant is in custody since 26.02.2022 and has no criminal\nantecedents. He has no criminal cases of any nature pending against him.\n14. For the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to allow the application. The\napplicant is entitled to be released on bail in FIR No. 0021/2022 dated\n26.02.2022 u/s 20/29 of the NDPS Act registered at PS Crime Branch on the\nfollowing terms and conditions:\ni. The applicant shall furnish a personal bond and a surety bond in\nthe sum of Rs. 25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court;\nii. The applicant shall appear before the Court as and when the matter\nis taken up for hearing;\niii. The applicant shall join investigation as and when called by the I.O\niv. The applicant shall provide his mobile number to the Investigating\nOfficer (IO) concerned, which shall be kept in working condition\nat all times. The applicant shall not switch off, or change the same\nwithout prior intimation to the IO concerned, during the period of\nv. The applicant shall report to the local Police Station on the first\nMonday of every month;\nvi. In case the applicant changes his address, he will inform the IO\nconcerned and this Court also;\nvii. The applicant shall not leave the country during the bail period and\nsurrender his passport, if any, at the time of release before the I.O.\nviii. The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity during the\nix. The applicant shall not communicate with, or come into contact\nwith any of the prosecution witnesses, or tamper with the evidence\nof the case.\n15. The observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of\ndeciding the bail application and will have no bearing on the trial.\n16. The application is disposed of in the above terms.",
+    "summary_english": "Granting bail to a man in a case registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the Delhi High Court has said that the rigours of Section 37 of the enactment will not be applicable in cases where collection of contraband sample itself was faulty.\nSection 37 states that bail should not be granted to an accused unless the accused is able to satisfy twin conditions i.e. reasonable ground for believing that the accused is not guilty of such an offence and that the accused would not commit an offence or is not likely to commit an offence, if granted bail.\nJustice Jasmeet Singh granted bail to one Laxman Thakur accused in an FIR registered under sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act. He alleged that the procedure adopted for collection of samples in the case was faulty and in violation of the guidelines issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB).\nAs per the seizure memo, 12 Kgs of Ganja recovered from 6 packets which was in possession of one Ajit Kumar as well as 5 packets of 2 Kgs each of Ganja found from Thakur were mixed at the time of recovery.\nJustice Singh observed that as mandated by the Supreme Court in the case titled Union of India v. Bal Mukund & Ors., the standing order 1/88 has been \"opined to be a 'requirement of law'.\"\nNoting that the standing order mandates that the transferring of content of all packets into one and then drawing a sample from the mixture is not permitted, the court said:\n\"I am of the view that in the present case, the instructions in 1/88 has not been followed and the sample has been drawn after mixing the contents of various packets into one container. The same has caused serious prejudice to the case of the applicant. Since the collection of sample itself is faulty, the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not be applicable.\"\nThe court noted that Thakur has been in custody since February 26, 2022 and has no criminal antecedents. He has no criminal cases of any nature pending against him, Justice Singh said.\nTitle: LAXMAN THAKUR v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)",
+    "summary_hindi": "नारकोटिक ड्रग्स एंड साइकोट्रोपिक सब्सटेंस एक्ट के तहत दर्ज एक मामले में एक व्यक्ति को जमानत देते हुए दिल्ली हाईकोर्ट ने कहा कि अधिनियम की धारा 37 की कठोरता उन मामलों में लागू नहीं होगी, जहां वर्जित नमूने का संग्रह ही दोषपूर्ण था।\nधारा 37 में कहा गया है कि किसी अभियुक्त को जमानत तब तक नहीं दी जानी चाहिए जब तक कि अभियुक्त दोहरी शर्तों को पूरा करने में सक्षम न हो, यानी यह विश्वास करने के लिए उचित आधार हो कि अभियुक्त इस तरह के अपराध का दोषी नहीं है और जमानत मिलने पर अभियुक्त ऐसा अपराध नहीं करेगा या ऐसा करने की संभावना नहीं है।\nजस्टिस जसमीत सिंह ने एनडीपीएस एक्ट की धारा 20 और 29 के तहत दर्ज एफआईआर में आरोपी लक्ष्मण ठाकुर को जमानत दे दी। उन्होंने आरोप लगाया था कि मामले में नमूने एकत्र करने के लिए अपनाई गई प्रक्रिया दोषपूर्ण थी और नारकोटिक्स कंट्रोल ब्यूरो (एनसीबी) द्वारा जारी दिशा-निर्देशों का उल्लंघन थी।\nजब्ती ज्ञापन के अनुसार अजीत कुमार के पास से बरामद 12 किलोग्राम गांजा, जो 6 पैकेटों में थे और ठाकुर के पास से बरामद दो-दो किलोग्राम गांजा के 5 पैकेट को बरामदगी के बाद आपस में मिला दिया गया। .\nजस्टिस सिंह ने कहा कि जैसा कि सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने यूनियन ऑफ इंडिया बनाम बाल मुकुंद व अन्य मामले में अनिवार्य किया था, स्टैंडिंग ऑर्डर 1/88 को \"कानून की आवश्यकता\" माना गया है।\nयह देखते हुए कि स्थायी आदेश में यह अनिवार्य है कि सभी पैकेटों की सामग्री को एक में स्थानांतरित करना और फिर मिश्रण से नमूना लेने की अनुमति नहीं है, अदालत ने कहा:\n\"मेरा विचार है कि वर्तमान मामले में, 1/88 में दिए गए निर्देशों का पालन नहीं किया गया है और विभिन्न पैकेटों की सामग्री को एक कंटेनर में मिलाकर नमूना तैयार किया गया है। इससे मामले में गंभीर पूर्वाग्रह पैदा हुआ है।\" चूंकि नमूने का संग्रह स्वयं दोषपूर्ण है, इसलिए एनडीपीएस अधिनियम की धारा 37 की कठोरता लागू नहीं होगी।\"\nअदालत ने कहा कि ठाकुर 26 फरवरी, 2022 से हिरासत में हैं और उनका कोई आपराधिक इतिहास नहीं है। जस्टिस सिंह ने कहा कि उनके खिलाफ किसी भी तरह का कोई आपराधिक मामला लंबित नहीं है।",
+    "language": "mixed"
+  }
+]