JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the State and the Union of India. 2. The petitioners seek bail in a case instituted for the offence under Sections 20, 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. The prosecution case is that on 18.8.2009 the informant being S.H.O., Harnaut P.S. received information from the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda that the petitioner and his son were engaged in smuggling of ganja and had stored the same in large amount in their house. So, at 1.15 P.M., the informant constituting a raiding party searched the house of the petitioner and recovered 23 packets allegedly of ganja concealed in a steel trunk. When the same was weighed, 11 packets contain 127 kgs of ganja and 12 packets contain 135 kgs of ganja. From a room on the same floor from beneath the bed one plastic gunny bag containing 12 kgs of ganja was also recovered, totally 274 kgs of ganja. The petitioner being the owner of the house was booked in the present case and was remanded to custody on 18.8.2009 i.e. the same day. 4. The petitioner filed the present bail application annexing as Annexure-2, a F.S.L Report No.1099 of 2009 dated 6.1.2010 issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna, opining that the Exhibit marked as A/1 was not ganja. This Court was not ready to accept that such a huge amount of alleged ganja yielded the said report and thus called for an explanation by an order dated 9.3.2010 from the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna as to how he had concluded that the sample was not ganja. Thereafter a fresh report-numbered as F.S.L. No.1099 of 2009 dated 29.3.2010 has been sent wherein it has been said that the same was ganja. 5. There are a couple of things, which are very suspicious in the entire episode. Firstly the number of the reports dated 6.1.2010 and 29.3.2010 are the same and secondly the report dated 29.3.2010 is obviously pursuant to this Courts order dated 9.3.2010. The petitioner asserts that Annexure-2 is the certified copy which has been, received by the court below and has handed it over to the court today for its future use. Surprisingly the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna has not asserted that the previous report was not issued from their end. 6. The petitioner asserts that Annexure-2 is the certified copy which has been, received by the court below and has handed it over to the court today for its future use. Surprisingly the Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna has not asserted that the previous report was not issued from their end. 6. Under the circumstances, in my opinion, a proper enquiry requires to be done at the highest level so that cases of this nature are not left to the mercy of persons with vested interests. This Court at this juncture may also point out that there have been repeated failures of cases involving recovery of narcotic substances also on the ground that despite seizures having been made from several sources, samples for testing have not been taken separately from each of them and instead they are mixed together and only one sample is taken for testing. Evidently this is contrary to law and common sense since in cases involving drugs the weight of recovered items determines the quantum of punishment. In the present case also even though it is the case of the prosecution that altogether 24 separate packets were recovered, only one sample was prepared for testing. 7. Under the circumstances, the Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi, Pin- 110001 and Narcotics Commissioner of India, Central Bureau of Narcotics, 19, Dhemall, Morar, Morar, Gwalior (M.P.) are directed to hold a full fledged enquiry into the matter and report to, this Court about the result. 8. Let a copy of the same be also sent to the Zonal Director, Narcotics Central Bureau (N.C.8,), 912, C.I.D. Colony, Sector-A,Maha Nagar, Lucknow (U.P.). Let this order be communicated even to the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Nalanda at Bihar Sharif and other Special Courts hearing such matters so that they are also watchful of such instances. 9. Let this file be placed before Honble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha, who had the occasion to consider the bail application of the son of the petitioner vide Cr. Misc. No. 5940 of 2010. 10. Let the certified copy of the F.S.L. report no.1099 of 2009 dated 6.1.2010 and report no.1099 of 2009 dated 29.3.2010 be kept in sealed cover in the safe custody of the Joint Registrar (Judicial), Patna High Court so that the same is available for the Investigating agency as and when required. 11. Misc. No. 5940 of 2010. 10. Let the certified copy of the F.S.L. report no.1099 of 2009 dated 6.1.2010 and report no.1099 of 2009 dated 29.3.2010 be kept in sealed cover in the safe custody of the Joint Registrar (Judicial), Patna High Court so that the same is available for the Investigating agency as and when required. 11. Put up after two months in the Chambers at 2 P.M. if not sitting single in court.