Delay in sending samples to Forensic science lab

Julanga, with regard to standing Order issued by

Narcotics Bureau.

At this juncture, it deserves to be pointed out here that

sample parcels were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory
after 8 days though as per the standing instructions of
Narcotic Control Bureau Centre, the same should be sent
within 72 hours.
According to Standing Order 1/88 issued by Narcotics
Control Bureau on 15.03.1988-
Clause 1.13. Mode and Time limit for dispatch of sample
to Laboratory:
The samples should be sent either by insured Post or
through special messenger duly authorized for the
purpose. Despatch of samples by registered post or
Ordinary mail should not be resorted to. Samples must
be Dispatched to the Laboratory within 72 hours of
seizure to Avoid any legal objection.
In the present case the search and seizure was carried by
police at police Naka on 18 August 2016 and sealed
samples from each packet were sent to Forensic Science
Lab Julanga on 26th August 2016 police has not given
explanation for such delay of 8 days.
Appellant humbly submits that the investigating agency
has violated the standing instructions No.1/88 dated
15.3.1988 issued by the Narcotic Control Bureau, New
Delhi. Clause 1.13 of these instructions postulates the
mode and time limit for dispatch of sample to Laboratory.
As per these instructions, the sample should be sent
either by insured post or through special messenger duly
authorized for the purpose. The dispatch of samples by
registered post or ordinary mail should not be resorted
to. The samples must be dispatched to the Laboratory
within 72 hours of seizure to avoid any legal objection.
Therefore, it was the duty of the Investigating agency to
send the sample parcels to the Laboratory within 72
hours of the seizure to avoid any legal objection but in
the present case, the samples were admittedly not sent
within 72 hours, which were sent after eight days. Thus,
the prosecution has violated the instructions issued by
Narcotic Control Bureau and no explanation for late
sending the samples is forth coming on record, which
creates doubt the veracity of the prosecution version and
appellant deserves the benefit of doubt.