1. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Code' for short) and under Provisions of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and the Provisions of Drugs and Cosmetic Act (for short 'NDPS Act'), the petitioner has prayed as under:
"a) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue necessary directions or writ calling upon the Respondent no.2 to send the sample as seized on 3rd December, 2011 at Air Cargo, Ahmedabad by Respondent No.2 for retesting to any of the laboratories of the Central government at The Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or Central Revenue Control Laboratory at New Delhi.
b) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to set aside the Orders dated 28.3.2012 in CR.MA.No.493/12 passed by Addl.Session Judge, A'bad and order dt.20/4/12 in CR.MA 1206/12 passed by Addl.Session Judge, Ahmedabad.
c) This Hon'ble Court be pleased to expedite the hearing of this Application in the interest of justice;
d) Since the Petitioner is in custody, the verification of this Application be dispensed with.
e) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Ahmedabad, gathered information, that Shri Sujal Patel of M/s. Anshanu Exports and his employee Shri Babubhai Manibhai Sharma @ Bakabhai are suspected to be involved in illegal exports/smuggling of Narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances by courier mode through Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad. The information gathered further indicated that some consignment of Narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances are scheduled to be sent to USA/UK by courier mode through Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad, on 03.12.2011. Based on the above, the officers of DRI, Ahmedabad examined the goods presented for export to U.K. and U.S. by M/s. Anshanu Exports, Ahmedabad at Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad. Examination of the courier parcels booked for UK by M/s Anshanu Exports, Ahmedabad resulted in recovery of 37 packets. Upon opening the said 37 packets, the officers found that each packet contained an inner aluminum foil package with sticker label containing the following markings:-
Kamud Drugs Pvt Ltd, 1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-methylaminopropan-1-one Batch No.MAD1101.
Gross wt.-----
Tare wt.------
Net Wt.1.000 Kgs Mfg.
Date Nov-2011 Exp Date -----
Pouch No.10/37 Storage Condition : Protect from Light N-6 & 8, MIDC, Kupwad Block, Sangli, 416 436, Maharashtra India, Ph:91-233-2644097, 2645797 Fax: 91-233-2644797, Email:[email protected], Web: www.Kamud.com Inside the silver foil pack was an inner plastic bag containing an odorless off white coloured crystals (small), which was other than the goods mentioned on the main packing of the said package i.e. Whole Wheat Atta, Maida, Washing Powder and Chakki Fresh Atta and these silver foil packages were concealed and camouflaged among the food packets. The officers suspected the said goods to be Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances and samples, each of 10 gms., were drawn from each of the packets for getting the same tested to ascertain their exact nature.
2.1 In order to ascertain the veracity of the manufacturing details contained on the labels of the 37 packets of 'off white coloured crystalline substance' declared as 1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-methylaminopropan-1-one as per the request of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, the officers of Central Excise, Sangli, searched the premises of M/s.Kamud Drugs Pvt.Ltd., Sangli, under panchnama dated 4.12.2011. During the course of panchnama the officers found 431 kgs of the same item i.e 1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-methylaminopropan-1-one, pertaining to different batch numbers as detailed below :
Sr.NO.
Batch Number Manufacturing Date Quantity 1 MAD 11001 Nov-2011 401 kgs 2 MAC 10016 Mar-2010 17 kgs 3 MAC 10018 Mar-2010 06 kgs 4 MAC 10021 Mar-2010 02 kgs 5 MAC 10023 Mar-2010 06 kgs TOTAL-432 kgs The above table clearly shows that out of the total seized quantity of 432 kgs, 401 Kgs. pertained to Batch No.MAD1 1001 with the date of manufacture as November, 2011. The entire quantity i.e. 432 Kgs. Of 1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-methylaminopropan-1-one were placed under seizure by the Central Excise officers of Sangli under a reasonable belief that the said item declared as 1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-methylaminopropan-1-one may be covered under narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The officers of Central Excise, Sangli drew representative samples under panchnama and placed the said goods under seizure.
2.2 The samples drawn from the 37 packets were forwarded for analysis to the Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar (DFS) and the DFS vide their test report letter DFS/NARCFOTICS/11/NC/82 dated 7.12.2011 has reported that the samples were primafacie suspected to be 'METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE' and later on vide test report letter DFS/EE/2011/NC/82 dated 20.12.2011 and test report letter DFS/EE/2011/NC/84 dated 15.02.2012 confirmed that the samples drawn from the 37 packets tested positive for 'METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE'. The DFS also confirmed that 'METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE' was covered under the NDPS Act, 1985. The total value of the 37 kgs of seized material comes to Rs.37 Crores in the illicit international market.
The samples drawn by the officers of Central Excise, Sangli were forwarded to the Chemical Examiner, New Custom House, Mumbai for analysis of the same. The Chemical Examiner, New Custom House, Mumbai vide their report dated 21.12.2011 reported that :
"....
each of the samples is hydrochloride salt of nitrogen bearing organic compound and gives the colour test for secondary amine. Methamphetamine and the product under reference (i.e.1-(4-methylphenyl)-2-methylaminopropan-1-one) both contain secondary amines and given same colour test. Therefore only on the basis of colour test categorical opinion cannot be given. For exact identification, instrumentation analysis i.e. I.R-Spectrophotometer is required, which is not available here."
With the above remarks, the remnant samples were returned by the Chemical Examiner, Custom House, Mumbai.
Accordingly, the second set of samples were forwarded to DFS, Gandhinagar for analysis. The DFS Gandhinagar vide their letter No.DFS/EF/2012/NC/02 dtd.04.02.2012 confirmed that, the samples tested positive for METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE. The DFS also confirmed that METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE was covered under NDPS Act, 1985. The total value of 432 kgs of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE comes to Rs.432.00 Crores approximately in the illicit international market.
2.3 Further, the officers of Central Excise during the course of Panchnama dated 04.12.2011 also seized a consignment of 81 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride from the premises of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited having Central Excise Registration as AABCK1455BXD001 (a registered dealer under Central excise) for the purpose of further investigation. The said 81 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride pertained to the following batch numbers :
Sr.
No Batch Number Quantity 1 KHP 10001b 32 kgs 2 KP-12-09-11-017 07 kgs 3 KP-12-09-14-013 3 kg 4 KP-12-10-11-002 1.8 kg 5 KP-12-09-14-011 16 kg 6 KP-12-09-11-020 17 kg 7 KP-12-19-14-014 1 kg 8 KP-12-10-14-001 1 kg 9 KP-12-09-14-021 2.850 kg TOTAL 81.650 Investigations carried out revealed that the 81.650 kgs Ketamine Hydrochloride was actually manufactured by the manufacturing unit - M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited N-6 & 8, M.I.D.C., Kupwad Block, Sangli-416436, Maharashtra under the batch numbers mentioned in the above table.
2.4 During June-2011 DRI, Mumbai had searched the premises of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited in connection with the seizure of 200.6 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride seized from a Tata Sumo vehicle at Andheri(East), Mumbai being illegally diverted for being exported by way of misdeclaration and concealment. During the course of search officers of DRI Mumbai had also recovered another consignment of about 826 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride contained in 32 drums from a farm house situated about 3 kms from the factory premises of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited which was actually removed illegally from the factory premises of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited and the said quantity was also placed under seizure by the officers of DRI, Mumbai.
2.5 Inquiries with the staff of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited available at the factory premises during the course of Panchnama dated 04.12.2011 revealed that, consequent upon the above case, the FDI had cancelled licence No.SA-20B/1447 Dt.23.05.2008 and SA-21B/1418 Dt.23.05.2008 granted to M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited for manufacture of Ketamine and Ketamine Hydrochloride with effect from June-2011 and after the cancellation of the licence, M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited had shifted the stock of 81.650 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride to the dealers premises situated adjacent tot he manufacturing unit. As, the manufacturers possessed a history of illicit removal of the controlled substance- Ketamine Hydrochloride i.e 81.650 kgs were placed under seizure by the officers of Central Excise, Sangli. It is noteworthy to mention that the officers of DRI, Ahmedabad had also recovered 06 kgs of 'White Coloured powder substance' from the courier parcels of M/s Anshanu Exports at Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad under Panchnama dated 03-04/12/2011 alongwith the 37 kgs of 'off-white crystals'. The chemical analysis report in respect of the said 'White Coloured powder substance' has declared the same as 'Ketamine Hydrochloride'.
2.6 The source of the said 06 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride seized by DRI, Ahmedabad was under investigation therefore in order to investigate and confirm the probability of pilferage of the substance- Ketamine Hydrochloride, the 81.650 kgs were placed under seizure by the officers of Central Excise, Sangli as per the directives of DRI, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. The case is still under investigation by DRI.
2.7 The petitioner being Managing Director of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited, Sangli, from where above said 37 kgs of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride was removed, was interrogated and arrested on 17/12/2011 for offences committed under Section 8(c), 21, 22, 29 and 38 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and produced before the Hon'ble Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad. The Hon'ble Court was pleased to remand the accused to judicial custody and the petitioner is presently lodged in Central Jail, Sabarmati, Ahmedabad.
3. In the above backdrop of the case of the prosecution, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that under Section 156(3) of the Code, an application was preferred before learned Sessions, NDPS Special Judge, Ahmedabad, with a prayer to issue direction to respondent No.2 to conduct certain tests of allegedly seized drugs and second sample of such alleged seized drug be sent to reputed National Laboratories like the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad, (for short "CFSL") and Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi (for short "CRCL"). It was specifically contended before the learned NDPS Judge that the test carried out by Directorate of Forensic Science at Gandhinagar (for short "DFS") was not conclusive and correct and the seized material contained that 'Mephedrone Hydrochloride' as claimed by the petitioner and not 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride' as per the report of DFS, Gandhinagar.
4. In the application, the petitioner had challenged free basis of method of the test of the seized substance carried out and contended that first 3 tests viz. MARKAVANCE, SIMON SE and MANDE LIME cannot be relied upon as molecules of both the drugs viz. 'Mephedrone Hydrochloride' and 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride' which contain Nitrogen and under the given position of the molecules the result of the said tests cannot be relied upon. The petitioner relied on various chemical formulas, analytical chart and prayed that second samples of the alleged seized contraband be sent to National Laboratories viz. CFSL, Hyderabad and CRCL, New Delhi, so that involvement of the petitioner in a fake and frivolous case resulting into serious criminal offenses infringing liberty and freedom of the petitioner, subjecting the petitioner to rigour of trial can be awarded.
5. In support of his submissions as above, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on necessity and fair and impartial investigation and role of the Court in ordering investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors, [(2008) 2 SCC 409] and other such decisions of High Court of Bombay, Madhya Pradash and Kerala.
6. In the above petition, the respondent No.2 DRI, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad filed detailed reply and opposed prayer of the petitioner raising various grounds and right of the petitioner to demand the report of DFS and further that the test was carried out by a laboratory of National repute viz. DFS, Gandhinagar, which confirmed seized material contained Methamphetamine Hydrochloride. It was also contended that the petitioner was involved in a serious offences punishable under Section 8(c), 21, 22, 29 and 38 of NDPS Act, 1985 and considering overall facts, it was submitted that the petition of the petitioner deserves no consideration.
7. Upon consideration of rival submissions, learned Addl. City Sessions Judge, Court No.16, In-charge of NDPS Cases, Ahmedabad, in a well reasoned judgment found that investigation so far carried out, was fair and impartial and preliminary report given by DFS, Gandhinagar on 07.12.2012 and subsequently final report dated 30.12.2011 confirmed substance of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride attracting offences under NDPS Act and in absence of any doubt or otherwise, the petition came to be rejected.
8. While assailing the above order of learned NDPS Judge, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is entitled for second opinion and report as required under Section 80 of NDPS Act, which stipulates that the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 would be admissible in provisions of NDPS Act. Under Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, particularly, sub Section (4) of Section 25 provides retesting of material from the Central Laboratory. The above aspect, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, was not considered by the NDPS Court and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and alternatively, this Court may also order retesting of second sample of seized material by the laboratories viz. CFSL, Hyderabad and/or CRCL, New Delhi.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner also reiterated all submissions which he canvassed before the learned NDPS Court, which are already recorded in this judgment in earlier paragraph and therefore, the submissions are not reproduced to avoid repetition. However, the basic contention of learned counsel for the petitioner about absence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride in seized material and it contained only Mephedrone Hydrochloride remained substantial in support of his prayer.
10. It is, therefore, prayed that prayer in terms of para 8 in the petition be allowed in the interest of justice, since free and impartial investigation is a fundamental requirement of the Criminal Procedure Code and also Article 21 of The Constitution of India guarantees the life and liberty, which cannot be curtailed or taken away by the procedure undertaken by respondent No.2, which is not legal.
11. Shri.
P.S. Champaneri, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, heavily relied on detailed information received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad, (for short "DRI") about involvement of the petitioner and other persons connected with his business about illegal exports/smuggling of Narco Drugs and/or psychotropic substances through Air Cargo Complex, Ahmedabad. Upon detailed investigation, it was revealed that, inside the packing of Aluminum Foil Package, silver foil pack was in inner plastic bag, which was different than the goods mentioned on the main packing of the said package viz. Whole Wheat Atta, Maida, Washing Powder and others seal foiled package were concealed and camouflaged. In view of the veracity of the manufacturing details contained on the labels of 37 packets, a detailed search of the premises owned by the M/s. Kamud Drugs Private Ltd., Sangli, Maharashtra, by the officers of Central Excise, Sangali and entire quantity of 432 kg. of contraband was placed under seizure by the said officers. Learned Asst. Solicitor General would submit that an authentic test is carried out by DFS, Gandhinagar, a laboratory of national repute and preliminary and final report would conclusively show the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride and the chemical analysis report as above is the most crucial evidenceary document and a part of ongoing investigation involving seizure of more than 450 kgs. of NDPS substance worth about Rs.470 crores in the illicit International Market and attempt made by the petitioner to divest investigation and to create some evidence in his favour or otherwise by seeking second test from other laboratories is not permitted. According to learned Asst. Solicitor General, the investigation is in progress and it is at very crucial stage and DRI, Ahmedabad is seized with investigation and possibility of involvement of other persons and agencies at national and international level operating in illicit transportation of drugs and psychotropic substances is not ruled out and therefore no interference is required for in exercise of powers either under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is further submitted that misplaced reliance on provisions of Section 80 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act by the petitioner at the stage of investigation deserve to be rejected. The procedure for investigation of offences under NDPS Act is independent and in all the provisions under the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and both operate in different area and no benefit can be given to Section 18 which do not bar application of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, contained in chapter-IV of the said Act. It is, therefore, submitted that the case of the petitioner deserves to be rejected in as much as, neither on facts, nor in law, any submission of learned counsel for the petitioner has any substance.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on some orders of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench, Indore, in exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 397 of Code and decision of the High Court of Kerala about applicability of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and submitted that accused can make a motion for second sample to be tested since what is paramount, is interest of justice and the accused has a right to establish that the item seized is not prohibited item under the Act. Another decision was of the High Court of Delhi, rendered on 03.01.2007, in the case of Nihal Khan and another Vs. The State (Govt of Nct of Delhi) while dealing with Criminal Revision Petition Nos.653 and 675/2006 [MANU/DE/7016/2007] and some order of Apex Court passed in a case having altogether different acts.
13. Upon consideration of rival submissions and perusal of the record of the case, at this crucial stage of investigation in seisin by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, the prayer of the petitioner for sending second sample of seized material for the test to be carried out by CFSL, Hyderabad and CRCL, New Delhi, is not only premature, but it is misconceived. The case of the prosecution as appears at this stage of investigation is already reproduced in earlier paragraph of this judgment and perusal of the same revealed a detailed and systematic method of investigation based on scientific evidences by DRI and the investigating agency has not acted on suspicion, but upon receiving a definite information, the contraband was seized at Air Cargo Complex at Ahmedabad and thereafter a search was carried out at the premises of M/s. Kamud Drugs Private Ltd., Sangli, Maharashtra, to which the petitioner is the Managing Director. The Panchnama was drawn on 04.12.2011 and during the course of Panchnama, the officers of Central Excise, Sangli found 431 kgs. of contraband substance, which upon the test by DFS, Gandhinagar, a laboratory of national repute turned out to be the substance 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride', attracting offences under NDPS Act.
14. That sample drawn by officers of Central Excise, Sangli, which were earlier forwarded to the chemical examiner, New Customs House, Mumbai for analysis, it was reported on 21.12.2011 that exact identification of the substance seized and report of the samples and for which final opinion could not be given since spectrophotometer which required for exact identification and instrumental analysis was not available. Therefore, the samples were send to DFL, Gandhinagar, which confirmed presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, which do not require any further role at this stage.
15. That, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner about applying various formulas and methods for carrying out tests if compared with chemical analysis by the DFS, Gandhinagar, it is merit less in as much as the chemical analysis by DFS, Gandhinagar, which is considered to be one of the esteemed reputed and technologically one of the best laboratories in the country and no justifiable and valid reason exist for accepting the prayer of the petitioner. The interference of the Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or under Section 482 of the Code, is circumscribed and as a limited scope of interference at the stage of investigation, which is yet not completed.
16. For the sake of brevity and convenience, Section 80 of The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Section 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, are reproduced as under:
"80. Application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 not barred.- The provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 to 1940) or the rules made thereunder."
"25.
Reports of Government Analysts.-(1) The Government Analyst to whom a sample of any drug [or cosmetic] has been submitted for test or analysis under sub-section (4) of section 23, shall deliver to the Inspector submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form.
The Inspector on receipt thereof shall deliver one copy of the report to the person from whom the sample was taken [and another copy to the person, if any, whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 18A] and shall retain the third copy for use in any prosecution in respect of the sample.
(3) Any document purporting to be a report singed by a Government Analyst under this Chapter shall be evidence of the facts stated therein, and such evidence shall be conclusive unless the person from whom the sample was taken [or the person whose name, address and other particulars have been disclosed under section 18A] has, within twenty-eight days of the receipt of a copy of the report, notified in writing the Inspector or the Court before which any proceedings in respect of the sample are pending that he intends to adduce evidence in controversion of the report.
(4) Unless the sample has already been tested or analyzed in the Central Drugs Laboratory, where a person has under sub-section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in controversion of a Government Analyst's report, the Court may, of its own motion or in its discretion at the request either of the complainant or the accused: cause the sample of the drug [or cosmetic] produced before the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of section 23 to be sent for test or analysis to the said Laboratory, which shall make the test or analysis and report in writing signed by or under the authority of, the Director of the Central Drugs Laboratory the result thereof, and such report shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated therein.
The cost of a test or analysis made by the Central Drugs Laboratory under sub-section (4) shall be paid by the complainant or accused as the Court shall direct."
17. About applicability of above provisions of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 is concerned, if it is examined in the context of Section 80 of the NDPS Act, 1985, as such do not bar application of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, by mentioning that the provisions of the NDPS Act or the rules made thereunder shall be in addition to and not in derogation of, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, or the rules made thereunder. Thus, Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which is found in chapter-IV pertaining to manufacturing, sale and distribution of Drugs and Cosmetics and reports of Government Analysts to whom a sample of any drug or cosmetic has been submitted for test or analysis under sub Section (4) of Section 23 of the said Act shall deliver to the Inspector, submitting it a signed report in triplicate in the prescribed form. Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, is pertaining to procedure of inspectors to follow while taking the sample of drugs and cosmetics and sub Section (3) further provides details about the procedure to be adopted by inspector to take sample of such drug or cosmetics. In the above context, sub Section (4) of Section 25 provides that unless the sample has already been tested OR analyzed in the central drug laboratory, where, a person has under sub Section (3) notified his intention of adducing evidence in contravention of a Government analyst report, either the Court on its own motion or in its discretion at the request of either the complainant or accused cause the sample of the drug or cosmetic produced before the Magistrate under sub Section (4) of Section 23 can sent such sample for analysis.
18. In this case, the sample has already been tested by DFS, Gandhinagar and the investigation is yet not over and on the basis of suspicion or under the belief of applicability of one or other method, formula, or equation the petitioner would like to challenge the report of the expert analyst of a recognized Government Laboratory of a national repute simply deserves rejection and Section 25 of the Drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in the above context is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case and NDPS Act, a special Act enacted by the Parliament to make a law relating to Narcotic Drugs and to provide stringent provisions for the control and regulations of operations relating to Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances has provided inbuilt mechanism under chapter V about procedure to be adopted about power to issue warrant and authorization, power of entry, search and seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization including power of seizure and arrest in public place and further to dispose of and/or confiscate seized Narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances having presumption as to documents in certain cases as provided under Section 66 of the said Act and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to sent second sample for retesting to another laboratory viz. CFSL, Hyderabad or CRCL, New Delhi, is misconceived and in absence of any error of law, much less of jurisdiction by the learned NDPS Judge in rejecting the application of the petitioner, and on perusal of the material on record of the investigation carried out so far, in absence of any legal infirmity in the investigation, I find no substance in the petition and the petition deserves to be rejected.
19. So, far decision of Delhi High Court in the case of Nihal Khan (supra) and other such orders of other High Court are concerned, in view of discussion of the scheme of Section 80 of NDPS Act, under Chapter-V and chapter-IV of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and the facts and circumstances of the case have no applicability on the subject matter of this petition and therefore do not require any further deliberation.
20. Upon consideration of overall merits of the case, neither the order passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge impugned in this petition nor the fair and impartial investigation carried out so far suffers from any illegality and accordingly, no case is made out to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petition is hereby rejected accordingly. No cost.
[ANANT S. DAVE, J.] Ankit* Top