JUDGMENT The Revision is filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2271 of 2013 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge for NDPS and EC Act cases, Chennai, dated 27.11.2013. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.7.2013, based on specific information by Mr.T.G.Venkatesh, Deputy Commissioner of Customs (AIU), the petitioner herein bound for Jakarta via Kula Lumkpur by Malaysian Airlines Flight No.MH 181/31.7.2009 was carrying narcotic drugs concealed in his sandals worn by him, he was searched. During search, two polythene covers one from each sandals containing white crystalline substance suspected to be narcotic drugs weighing 510 grams of 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride' were recovered. Thereafter, he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, Chennai. Then the respondent filed a report stating that the report reveals that the drug was only 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride'. But at the time of seizure, the respondent tested the sample through the test kit and stated that it is only a 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride'. Since the prosecution has stated the names of two different drugs, the petitioner wanted to send the second sample to any other laboratory to ascertain as to whether the seized contraband was Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances or controlled substances. Hence the petitioner herein has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.2271/2013 before the Principal Special Judge, Principal Special Court under EC and NDPS Act, Chennai-104. The learned Judge by order dated 27.11.2013 dismissed the said petition. Hence, the present revision. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that at the time of the arrest of the petitioner, it was informed that he was in possession of 510 grams of 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride' and not in possession of 'Methamphaetamind Hydrochloride'. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the prosecution has stated the names of two different drugs, it is necessary to send the second sample for retesting to any other laboratory. Hence, he would pray to allow the present revision. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would contend that sending of second sample for analysis is totally unnecessary and that is not required in this case. Hence, he would pray to dismiss the present revision. 5. Heard both sides and I have also perused the materials available on record carefully. 6. 4. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent would contend that sending of second sample for analysis is totally unnecessary and that is not required in this case. Hence, he would pray to dismiss the present revision. 5. Heard both sides and I have also perused the materials available on record carefully. 6. The fact that the petitioner was arrested by the respondent police on 31.7.2013 in the Anna International Air Port while he was boarding to Jakarta on information from valuable sources for his possession of narcotics drugs weighing 510 grams of narcotic substance in two polythene bags in each of his sandals have not been recovered from the accused is not in dispute. Immediately, at the time of seizure, the investigating agency by using the test kit, have ascertained the name of the drug. Of course in this case, the investigating agency has thought that the name of the drug would be 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride'. Thereafter, the samples have been sent to the chemical laboratory to ascertain the name of the drug and whether it comes under any of the scheduled drugs. Accordingly, they have sent the samples to the chemical laboratory. The Chemical Analyst after examining the samples has given a report stating that the samples of seized contraband is only a drug by name 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride' and they have also furnished other details. Therefore, merely on the basis of the assertion made by the investigating agency at the time of seizure by using the test kit that the seized contraband is a drug by name 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride', cannot be given any much importance, as the Chemical Analyst after examining the sample sent by the investigating agency, has given a report stating that the samples of seized contraband is only a drug by name 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride'. Now, according to the petitioner, in order to ascertain whether the drug is 'Ephedrine Hydrochloride' or 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride', he wants to send the second sample to any other laboratory. But the said petition was dismissed by the court below. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, there is no doubt that both are narcotic drugs and possession of these two drugs is punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Therefore, I am of the view that sending of the 2nd sample for analysis does not arise. But the said petition was dismissed by the court below. 7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, there is no doubt that both are narcotic drugs and possession of these two drugs is punishable under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. Therefore, I am of the view that sending of the 2nd sample for analysis does not arise. At the same time, it is for the trial court to alter the charges framed against the petitioner accordingly and proceed with the trial taking into account the said fact. It is made clear that the accused is entitled for a copy of the Chemical Analysis report. If it is not served on the petitioner/accused, the trial court is directed to serve a copy of the Chemical Analysis report to the petitioner/accused. 8. With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Petition is disposed of.