Delhi High Court - Orders
Anto Joseph vs Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence ... on 19 February, 2025
Author: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
Bench: Anup Jairam Bhambhani
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 589/2025 & CRL.M.A. 5365/2025
ANTO JOSEPH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Naveen R. Nath, Senior Advocate
and Ms. Gayatri Virmani, Advocate.
versus
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE DELHI & ORS.
.....Respondent
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI
ORDER
% 19.02.2025 CRL.M.A. 5366/2025 Exemption granted, subject to just exceptions.
Let requisite compliances be made within 01 week.
The application stands disposed-of.
W.P.(CRL) 589/2025 & CRL.M.A. 5365/2025 (no coercive steps) By way of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the petitioner challenges summons dated 11.12.2024 and 03.02.2025 issued to him by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Delhi Zonal Unit ('DRI')/respondent No.1 under section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act'), contending that the said summons is illegal and bad in law.
2. The petitioner further seeks a direction to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to produce the test reports in respect of certain seized goods in terms of This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 589/2025 Page 1 of 5 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/03/2025 at 21:23:36 the mandate of Rule 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 ('NDPS Rules').
3. Additionally, the petitioner also seeks a direction restraining respondent No.1 from taking any coercive steps against him arising from the summons issued to him.
4. At the outset, Mr. Naveen Nath, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits, that though they have impleaded M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. as party respondent No. 3, since no relief has been claimed against the said party, respondent No.3 may be deleted from the array of party-respondents in the matter.
5. Accordingly, on oral prayer, M/s. DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd. is deleted as party-respondent No.3 in the present case. Let an amended memo of parties be filed within 02 weeks.
6. Mr. Nath submits, that the petitioner had imported 240 cans of vitamin water (brand 'Vitafuel') from Johannesburg, South Africa for purposes of conducting a business feasibility study, in order to explore the possible market for sale of the said vitamin drink in India. Learned senior counsel submits, that the said product is a vitamin drink and many similar products are already available and sold in India.
7. It is submitted that on a random testing of the imported cans at the New Courier Terminal, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi using a 'field-testing kit', respondent No.1 appears to have drawn the inference that the drink contained 'amphetamine', which is a psychotropic substance within the meaning of the NDPS Act.
This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 589/2025 Page 2 of 5The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/03/2025 at 21:23:36
8. Mr. Nath submits however, that it is a well-known scientific fact that tests carried-out using field-testing kits can give false results, since the sugar contained in certain drinks (including vitamin drinks) can react with the reagents in the field-testing kit to show the presence of certain drugs. In this behalf, learned senior counsel draws attention to a research study published by the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, which says that a field-testing kit can give false positive results for amphetamine by reacting with the sugar contained in certain drinks.1 A copy of the said research paper has been appended to the present petition.
9. That apart, Mr. Nath submits, that since neither the report of the field-
testing nor of the subsequent testing of the samples by the FSL was made available to him, the petitioner has had the vitamin drink tested at a private FSL, viz. Bombay Forensic Laboratory, Mumbai; and in its reports dated 23.01.2025 using the Marquis test and other standard scientific methods and techniques, that laboratory has concluded that the vitamin drink had tested 'negative' for presence of amphetamine.
10. Learned senior counsel further points-out, that in the course of bail proceedings of a co-accused, Ganisht, before the learned trial court, respondent No.1-DRI has made a statement that the FSL report of the 72 cans that have been tested so far has shown that the contents are 'negative' for traces of amphetamine.
1Knutson, Reed A.; Duncan, Jennah; Peightal, Kara; and Thomas, Samuel, "Issue of False Amphetamine Field Test Positives Caused By Sugar. Use of Baeyer Test as a Secondary Test Solution." (2021). Student Research Projects, Dissertations, and Theses - Chemistry Department. Accessible at :
https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/chemistrydiss/109 This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 589/2025 Page 3 of 5 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/03/2025 at 21:23:37
11. Mr. Nath also states, that since the petitioner apprehended arrest, the petitioner had applied-for and was granted an interim protective order against arrest for a period of 03 weeks by a Single Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam vide order dated 10.02.2025 in BAIL APPL. No. 10731/2024, which order is in force and effect till 03.03.2025. A copy of order dated 10.02.2025 has been appended to the present petition.
12. In this backdrop, Mr. Nath argues, that while the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the DRI in relation to any enquiry or investigation they may wish to conduct pursuant to the summons issued, the petitioner be protected against any coercive steps at the hands of the DRI.
13. Upon being queried, learned senior counsel submits that summons dated 03.02.2025 was received by the petitioner only on 07.02.2025, though the date on which the petitioner was required to appear before the DRI was 06.02.2025. It is submitted that the petitioner would comply with any future summons and answer any queries that may be raised by the DRI.
14. On a prima-facie view of the matter, issue notice.
15. Upon the petitioner taking requisite steps, let notice be sent to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 by all permissible modes, returnable for the next date.
16. Let the notice indicate that replies to the petition be filed within 04 weeks of service; rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, be filed within 03 weeks thereafter; with copies to the opposing counsel.
17. Re-notify on 17th April 2025.This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 589/2025 Page 4 of 5
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/03/2025 at 21:23:37
18. In the meantime, it is directed that though the petitioner would comply with and appear before respondent No.1 against any summons that he may subsequently receive, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing before this court.
ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J FEBRUARY 19, 2025 ss This is a digitally signed order. W.P.(CRL) 589/2025 Page 5 of 5 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 21/03/2025 at 21:23:37