JUDGMENT : GAUTAM CHOWDHARY, J. “2.1 All drugs shall be classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure. 2.2 All the packages/containers shall be numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the persons from whose possession the drug is recovered and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchnama drawn on the spot. 2.3 The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) were a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn. 2.4 In the case of seizure of a single package/container, one sample in duplicate shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. 2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects the packages/container may be carefully bunched in lots of 10 package/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of, 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 2.6 Where after making such lots, in the case of hashish and ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remain, and in the case of other drugs, less than 5 packages/containers remain, no bunching would be necessary and no samples need be drawn. 2.7 If such remainder is 5 or more in the case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in the case of ganja and hashish, one more sample (in duplicate) may be drawn for such remainder package/container. 2.7 If such remainder is 5 or more in the case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in the case of ganja and hashish, one more sample (in duplicate) may be drawn for such remainder package/container. 2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative sample the in equal quantity is taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot.” “ 1. Union of India vs. Ratan Malik (2009) 2 SCC 624 2. Union of India vs. Ram Samujh and Another (1999) 9 SCC 429 3. Shushant Gupta vs. Union of India 2014 (3) ACR 2564 4. State of M.P. vs. Kajd (2001) 7 SCC 673 5. Union of India vs. Niyazuddin SK and Ors AIR 2017 SC 3932 6. State of Kerala and Ors vs. Rajesh and Ors AIR 2020 SC 721 7. Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab MANU/SC/0413/2018,(2018) 12 SCC 813 8. Shailendra Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. MANU/UP/0653/2020” “123. Guidelines issued should not only be substantially complied, but also in a case involving penal proceedings, vis--vis a departmental proceeding, rigours of such guidelines may be insisted upon. Another important factor which must be borne in mind is as to whether such directions have been issued in terms of the provisions of the statute or not. When directions are issued by an authority having the legal sanction granted therefor, it becomes obligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to comply therewith. 124. Recently, this Court in State of Kerala & Ors. v. Kurian Abraham (P) Ltd. & Anr. [ (2008) 3 SCC 582 ] , following the earlier decision of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan [ (2004) 10 SCC 1 ] held that statutory instructions are mandatory in nature. 125. Logical corollary of these discussions is that the guidelines such as those present in the Standing Order cannot be blatantly flouted and substantial compliance therewith must be insisted upon for so that sanctity of physical evidence in such cases remains intact. Clearly, there has been no substantial compliance of these guidelines by the investigating authority which leads to drawing of an adverse inference against them to the effect that had such evidence been produced, the same would have gone against the prosecution.”