IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr. Misc. No.45752 of 2009
TEJ NARAYAN YADAV
Versus
STATE OF BIHAR
-----------
9/ 22.12.2010 When this court was hearing the present bail application
in connection with Dighalbank P.S. case no.61 of 2009 (Special
Case No.11 of 2009) pending in the court of the Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Purnea, it came to its notice that the
Forensic Science Laboratory had not sent its report. This court, being
anxious about such repeated lapses committed in cases of this nature,
called for an explanation from the Investigating Officer as to when it
had sent the samples for testing and also called for an explanation
from the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, as to why
there was delay in sending the analysis report.
The explanation of the Investigating Officer as well as
the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, is now on record
and, therefore, final orders are being passed so that some effective
steps are taken to control the menace of blatant exhibition of callous
attitude towards the official duties to be performed by the
government functionaries. In this case, the three parties are (I) the
Police, (II) the Forensic Science Laboratory and (iii) the Court and I
propose to delineate the exact details in which the said functionaries
have discharged their duties.
After the informant Pankaj Dangwal allegedly seized one
pound of Brown Sugar of Thialand make on 12.08.2009, the
investigation was conducted by one Ganesh Paswan. From the order-
-2-
sheet of the court below it appears that on 21.10.2009 i.e. two
months after the occurrence the said Investigating Officer sought
permission of the court for sending the samples of seized Brown
Sugar to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, for its chemical
examination. Upon which, the Special Court directed the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kishanganj, to depute a Magistrate for
preparation of samples and sending the same for chemical
examination and the Investigating Officer was permitted to send the
samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna.
On 27.03.2010, the Special Judge records that it had
received a communication from the Director, Forensic Science
Laboratory, Patna, that the seal on the samples and the forwarding
letter no.105 dated 10.11.2009 sent by the Special Judge, Purnea,
was illegible and so, a fresh sample of the seized articles be sent for
chemical examination. The Judge concerned was naturally upset on
this communication since even though the samples had been sent to
the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, about 4 ½ months
back, no report was forwarded and instead a communication was
sent calling for a fresh sample on a flimsy ground. The Court noted
that the lapse of 4 ½ months would naturally cause loss of potency of
the seized articles and there was no reason why the samples received
through a Special Messenger was not returned immediately and
instead he kept quiet for 4 ½ months only to ask for a fresh sample
which was of course sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna,
again. On 19.5.2010, the court noted that the Sessions Judge, Purnea,
had directed vide his letter no.1901 dated 17.05.2010 to get fresh
-3-
samples of seized articles prepared and to send it to the Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, for chemical examination. It
also noted that by order dated 27.03.2010 the court had already
ordered for further samples and the Judicial Magistrate on
12.05.2010 had prepared a fresh sample and handed it over to the
Investigating Officer Sri Krishna Prasad. While this court was in the
process of adjudication, a report from the office of the Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, vide FSL No.830/10 dated
16.08.2010 was received, wherein, it was stated that no heroin could
be detected in the sample. The report also mentions that the sample
contained memo no. 81 dated 12.05.2010 and the same was received
on 14.05.2010 at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna.
When this court asked for explanation from the Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, as to why it had not sent any
report with regard to the seized articles, he communicated to this
court that they had not received any sample till 04.03.2010. Since
this communication shifted the blame on the Investigating Officer,
he was asked to explain why he delayed in sending the samples for
testing. The Investigating Officer Ganesh Paswan then reported that
in fact he had sent the samples through Special Messenger to the
Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, on 11.11.2009 and 22.12.2009
but the same was refused to be taken at the Forensic Science
Laboratory, Patna. He specifically asserted that that on 04.03.2010
the samples had been received at the Forensic Science Laboratory,
Patna, despite which the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Patna, by a communicated dated 18.11.2010 had denied having
-4-
received any samples even till that date. The Court was not satisfied
with either of the explanation and asked the Investigating Officer to
substantiate his stand that indeed he had sent the samples on
11.11.2009 and 12.12.2009 but the same was refused at the Forensic
Science Laboratory, Patna. The letter of Ganesh Paswan, the
Investigating Officer was also forwarded to the Director, Forensic
Science Laboratory, Patna, for his comments. To vindicate his stand
to the aforesaid, Ganesh Paswan, the Investigating Officer forwarded
Station Diary Entries of the relevant period along with “Kamaan” of
the Constables that he had discharged his duty on the said dates. On
going through the four station diary entries relevant for this purpose
i.e. Station Diary Entry No. 175, 215, 353, 436 it appears that the
fact of movement of samples through Special Messenger has been
inserted in small letters. This evidently is an attempt to subvert the
course of justice. Moreover, undeniably even though the articles
were seized on 12.08.2009, it was more than two months later that
Ganesh Paswan sought permission from the court to send the
samples for testing. This is as far as the role of the police is
concerned.
Whereas the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Patna, is concerned, there is no denial that Dr. Shyam Bihari
Upadhdyay, Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, reported
to this court that till 04.03.2010, it had not received the samples of
the present case, but subsequently by a communicated dated
18.11.2010 vide Memo No.962/FSL, it reported that exhibits of
the aforesaid case reached the laboratory on 04.03.2010 in the late
-5-
second half of the official hour. It also transpires that the samples
had been received in the laboratory on 14.05.2010, but further three
months’ time was taken in testing the same even though it should
have been given priority in view of the fact that fresh samples have
been called for on 15.03.2010 itself.
Since this court has already referred Shastri Nagar P.S.
case no. 175 of 2007 to the Vigilance Department, it is desirable that
the agency also investigate the role of the police and the Director,
Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, in the present case.
List this case after three months under the same heading.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the Vigilance
Department for doing needful in the matter.
Let the lower court records be transmitted to the court
below at once so that trial is not held up.
JA/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)