D. P. SENGUPTA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revisional application is directed against an order dated 22. 2. 2002 passed the learned Special Judge (N. D. P. S.) Act, 6th Bench, City Sessions Court, Calcutta in NDPS case No. 3 of 2002. ( 2 ) THE present petitioner was arrested by the Officers of Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB for short) and was produced before the learned CMM, Calcutta on 23. 1. 2002 on an allegation that 40 packets (containing 1000 ampoules) of Buprenorphine Injections (Tidigesic) were found in a jute bag inside the office-cum-godown of M/s. Geeta Enterprise, which is owned by the petitioner. Each packet contained 25 pieces of injections of 2 ml. each. Samples were drawn from the seized articles as per provisions of law and were sent for chemical analysis. ( 3 ) ON 15. 2. 2002 a petition was filed by the investigating agency stating that the sample, which was sent for testing, was returned by the chemical examiner on the ground that the sample which was sent for testing was of insufficient quantity. In such circumstances a prayer was made for drawing at least 5 more ampoules from the seized articles in presence of witnesses and the person from whom it was seized. Such prayer was allowed by the learned Special Judge and hence this revision. ( 4 ) MR. Bagchi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that samples must be drawn on the spot and the same cannot be drawn at a subsequent stage, because such samples undergo a change of nature and character due to lapse of time. In support of his contention Mr. Bagchi refers to the Standing Order No. 1 of 1988. Paragraph 1. 5 of the said standing order reads as follows:-?place and time of drawal of sample-samples from the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances seized, must be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search (Panch) witnesses and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchanama drawn on the spot. ? ( 5 ) FROM a reading of the aforesaid provision it becomes clear that sample of articles must be drawn on the spot of recovery in the presence of witnesses and the person from whom it was seized. ( 6 ) MR. ? ( 5 ) FROM a reading of the aforesaid provision it becomes clear that sample of articles must be drawn on the spot of recovery in the presence of witnesses and the person from whom it was seized. ( 6 ) MR. Bagchi also relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1984 0 SCC (Cri) 277 (A. R. Antulay v. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Anr.) Mr. Bagchi refers to paragraph 22 of the said judgment and submits that where a statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Relying upon the aforesaid judgment Mr. Bagchi submits that the learned Special Judge acted beyond his jurisdiction by allowing the prayer made by the investigating agency for drawing further sample from the articles seized, which is against the provision of law. ( 7 ) I have carefully gone through the judgment referred to above. From a reading of the said judgment it appears that in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act the learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence under section 8 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952 on the basis of a complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant after obtaining sanction from the Government. On behalf of the appellant a petition was filed before the learned Special Judge questioning the jurisdiction of that Court on the ground that it could not take cognizance of offence upon a private complaint of facts constituting the offences. Petition was rejected by the Special Judge. The High Court dismissed the revisional application by the appellant holding that the Special Judge was competent to take cognizance of offence on such complaint. Hon'ble Supreme Court also agreed with the view of High Court. It was held that the conclusion reached by the learned Special Judge and the Division Bench of Bombay High Court that a private complaint filed by the complainant was maintainable and that the cognizance of offence was properly taken, was correct. ( 8 ) IN my considered view the judgment referred to above is not at all applicable in the present case. It is the well settled principle of law that where the statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, they must be done in that way or not at all. ( 8 ) IN my considered view the judgment referred to above is not at all applicable in the present case. It is the well settled principle of law that where the statute requires to do a certain thing in a certain way, they must be done in that way or not at all. But we must not forget that the present case is still at the stage of investigation. In the present case the sample was drawn by the investigating agency after complying with the provisions of law. But the sample which was sent for chemical analysis, was insufficient, for which a prayer was made by the investigating agency for drawing at least 5 more ampoules of injections from the seized articles (injection ampoules) in Court and in presence of witnesses and the person from whom it was seized. The injection ampoules (Buprenorphine) are very much within the period of validity and the date of expiry is in the year, 2003 as it appears from the case diary. So, the submission made by the petitioners learned advocate that due to lapse of time such sample is supposed to undergo a change in the nature and character, cannot be accepted. In my view, if the investigating agency is allowed to draw further sample, the accused persons will not be prejudiced in any way. In the present case seizure was made on 23. 1. 2002. Sample was drawn and was sent for chemical test. The sample was sent back by the chemical analyst as it was insufficient for the purpose of testing. Immediately the Investigating Officer made a prayer before the learned Special Judge on 15. 2. 2002 for drawing further sample, which was allowed by his order dated 22. 2. 2002. In my view there was no delay on the part of the Investigating Officer in making such prayer for drawing further sample. I am also of the view that statutory right of the investigating agency to collect any evidence which it may deem proper to bring home the charge against the accused person. At this stage no rider can be put on this statutory right of the investigating agency. The accused persons will get ample opportunity in the trial to challenge the validity and/or correctness of the report submitted by the chemical analyst in Court. At this stage no rider can be put on this statutory right of the investigating agency. The accused persons will get ample opportunity in the trial to challenge the validity and/or correctness of the report submitted by the chemical analyst in Court. Then it will be for the Court to come to a decision, after recording evidence, about the evidentiary value of any piece of evidence collected by the investigating agency. ( 9 ) AFTER hearing the learned advocates of the respective parties I am of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality and I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. The point raised by the petitioner in the present application, shall be kept open to be decided by the learned trial Judge, who will decide such point after reconsidering evidence during trial. The present application accordingly fails and the same is dismissed. Let an urgent xerox certified copy of the order be given to the learned advocate appearing for the parties at an early date, if applied for. Application dismissed