JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order passed by learned Special Judge under the NDPS Act, District - Indore in Special Sessions Trial No. 18/2013 dated 1-11-2013 by which, learned Special Judge dismissed the application filed by the present applicant for re-testing of the contraband submitted before the Court as Court property. 2. The brief facts relevant for disposal of this case are that 610 gms Heroin in one packet and in another packet Alphrazolam were alleged to have been seized from possession of the present applicant on 24-2-2013. The seized contraband was deposited on 26-2-2013 in the Malkhana. The sample taken from the seized substance was sent for testing. The report was received on 27-5-2013 that seized contraband contained Heroin and this fact came to the knowledge of the present applicant when the charge-sheet was filed. However, it was alleged before learned Special Judge that present applicant was not satisfied with the result of testing and it was doubted that Heroin was mixed in the substance that was allegedly seized from the possession of the present applicant. 3. The application was opposed by learned Special Prosecutor on the ground that there are no provisions in the NDPS Act for re-testing of the contraband deposited in the Court as Court property. 4. Learned Special Judge by placing reliance on the case of Amar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in 2004(2) EFR 81 and also on the case of Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2011 SC 964 , dismissed the application. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned order, this revision is filed on the ground that there are exceptional circumstance exist in the present case and there will be no harm if the second part of the sample that has been deposited in the Court as Court property be sent for retesting to the laboratory. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Nihal Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 2074 in which, Delhi High Court enumerated certain circumstances in which retesting of the sample may be ordered. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant places reliance on the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Nihal Khan vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 2074 in which, Delhi High Court enumerated certain circumstances in which retesting of the sample may be ordered. Firstly, when no percentage of the substance is shown in the testing report, secondly, when tempering is alleged and thirdly, when there exists possibility based on the facts of the case that sample sent for testing did not match the case property. This can be done when there is a marked differences in colour and other appearance of both the samples. Learned counsel for the applicant also places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Yadav vs. Union of India reported in 2014 Cri.L.J. 366 in which, this Court placing reliance on the direction issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Thana Singh vs. Central Bureau of Narcotics reported in 2013 Cri.L.J. 1262 observing that the application for retesting was filed within 15 days as specified in the case of Thana Singh (supra) and, therefore, the Court allowed retesting. However, in this case, no exceptional circumstance were specified. 7. This apart, both the counsels placed reliance on the direction issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Thana Singh (supra). The Supreme Court issued direction to expedite trial of the cases under the NDPS Act and in para 25 of the judgment, specifically issued direction for re-testing. Para 25 of the judgment is reproduced as under :- 25. Therefore, keeping in mind the array of factors discussed above, we direct that, after the completion of necessary tests by the concerned laboratories, results of the same must be furnished to all parties concerned with the matter. Any requests as to re-testing/re-sampling shall not be entertained under the NDPS Act as a matter of course. These may, however, be permitted, in extremely exceptional circumstances, for cogent reasons to be recorded by the Presiding Judge. An application in such rare cases must be made within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of the test report; no applications for re-testing/re-sampling shall be entertained thereafter. However, in the absence of any compelling circumstances, any form of re-testing/re-sampling is strictly prohibited under the NDPS Act. 8. An application in such rare cases must be made within a period of fifteen days of the receipt of the test report; no applications for re-testing/re-sampling shall be entertained thereafter. However, in the absence of any compelling circumstances, any form of re-testing/re-sampling is strictly prohibited under the NDPS Act. 8. Reverting back to the present case, learned counsel for the applicant drew Court's attention towards the statement of prosecution witness Ramesh Prakas Yadav, who, in para 47 of his statement admitted that there is a difference in colour of the sample that was sent for testing and the remaining substance that was deposited in the Court as Court property. However, he also specified that difference is negligible. According to him, the substance in Article - (A) is slightly more brownish than substance that was brought out from the Article - (E). Further, he specified that such difference is negligible. While in the case of Nihal Singh (supra), the Delhi High Court specifically said that there should be marked difference in colour, which is not present in this case and there is no allegation of tampering in the present case. This apart, the application is filed after recording the evidence of the prosecution witness which is also against the direction issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Thana Singh (supra). If after filing of the charge-sheet, the applicant was of the opinion that sample sent for testing was tampered or mixed with some foreign substance, he should have filed the application immediately. 9. Taking all the facts and circumstance into consideration and also taking the direction issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Thana Singh (supra) into consideration, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for issuing an order for re-testing of the substance. The impugned order suffered with no infirmity. In this view of the matter, this revision is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10. C.c as per rules.