MOHAMED ALI Vs. STATE REP BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DISTRICT CRIME BRANCH POLICE STATION KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.300 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and to quash the same.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.03.2005, around 16.30 hours, the Inspector of Police, Thuckalay and his team, on prior intelligence, visited Devi Medicals, Thuckalay, a pharmacy which was manned at that time by one Manoharan [A4]. When the police team made enquiries, it is said that Manoharan [A4] voluntarily came forward and handed over 46 ampoules of intoxicating injection without any label. The police seized the drug and arrested Manoharan and based on the information provided by him, they intercepted accused 2, 3 and 5 at Thottiyodu and recovered from each of them, large number of vials containing the same substance. To be precise, from A2 - 74 ampoules; A3 - 75 ampoules; and A5 - 30 ampoules. On further information provided by the accused, the police searched the house of A1 and recovered 850 ampoules of similar unlabelled intoxicating injection. The accused were arrested and the samples that were drawn from the contraband was sent to the Chemical Examiner for report and the report disclosed that the drug contained Buprenophine, a psychotropic substance, falling within SI. No.92 of the Schedule to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"]. The police had totally seized 1076 ampoules of the drug, each containing 2 ml. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.300 of 2009, which is now pending on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, against the five accused for offences under Sections 22 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, challenging which, A2 and A3 are before this Court, for quashing the prosecution.

(3.) Heard Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State.