IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8537/2017 A/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7510/2017 IN CRL.P. NO.8537/2017: BETWEEN:
MR. RAHUL TAINWALA S/O RAVIKANTH TAINWALA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/A NO.38, DOMLUR, 2ND STAGE 3RD MAIN, BENGALURU – 560 008 PRESENTLY AT NO.35, WHEELER ROAD CROSS, COX TOWN BENGALURU – 560 005.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHAMPOO KAVYA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL SASTRY M., ADVOCATE) AND:
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT – 560 063.
... RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN SPL.C.C.NO.202/2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE XXXIII ACC AND S.J AND SPL.JUDGE (N.D.P.S) (CCH-33) AT BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P. NO.7510/2017:
BETWEEN:
MIHIR SAKSENA S/O PADMAJA SAKSENA R/AT # BO13, FERN SAROJ APARTMENTS, LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI NAGAR, 7TH CROSS, HAL BENGALURU – 560 008.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHAMPOO KAVYA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL SASTRY M., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTIC CONTROL BUREAU BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. K.N. MOHAN., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN SPL.C.C.NO.202/2015 THE HON'BLE XXXIII A.C.C AND S.J AND SPL.JUDGE (N.D.P.S) (CCH-33) AT BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.6 and 7 respectively in Spl.C.C.No.202/2015 for the offences punishable under Section 27 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDPS Act’ for short) are before this Court for quashing of said proceedings.
2. I have heard the arguments of Smt.Champoo Kavya S, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Sunil Sastry M for petitioners and Sri.K.N.Mohan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. Perused the records.
3. A raid came to be conducted on 17.09.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. on the premises bearing No.8, Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Siddapura, Whitefield Main Road, Bangalore-66 on the basis of suo moto complaint lodged by Sri.Sabir Ali -Intelligence Officer of Narcotics Control Bureau, Bangalore, whereunder it was alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 were dealing and peddling with Ganja, Hashish, MDMA and LSD and selling the same to students in and around Bangalore. Hence, based on said complaint, officials of the Narcotics Control Bureau raided above said premises and apprehended 13 persons including petitioners herein at the scene of crime and seized various drugs as defined under NDPS Act. On investigation being conducted and on completion of procedure prescribed under NDPS Act a complaint under Section 8(c) r/w 20(b), 22, 27A, 28, 29 and 32B(d) of NDPS Act came to be filed before the jurisdictional Court against accused person including petitioners herein. Hence, petitioners are before this Court for quashing.
4. It is the contention of Smt. Champoo Kavya.S, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that petitioners are victims of circumstances and have been falsely implicated. Even when personal search of petitioners was conducted, no drugs were seized from them and as such proceedings initiated against petitioners be quashed.
5. Per contra, Sri.K.N.Mohan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents would support the case of prosecution and seeks for dismissal of the petitions.
6. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties and having regard to voluntary statement made by the petitioners under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and the quantity of drugs seized exceeding limits prescribed under the Schedule to the NDPS Act as also the admission made by the accused persons that they were purchasing the said drugs from accused Nos.1 to 3 on payment of `2,000/- to `3,000/- per dose, this Court cannot ignore said material available on record to quash the proceedings. At the time of considering prayer of the petitioners for quashing, it is not the probable defence accused may put up would be under scrutiny by this Court. If the material on record discloses the offences alleged, that would suffice to allow the prosecution to proceed with and not to stifle such trial at the threshold. In that view of the matter, this Court finds there is no good ground to entertain these petitions. Accordingly, they stand dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE DR