Madras High Court
Loyola Johnson vs The State Represented By on 20 December, 2024
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853,
866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 15.10.2024
Pronounced on : 20.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.646 of 2024
Loyola Johnson ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State represented by
The Inspector of Police,
Pamban Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.201 of 2023) ... Respondent
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w 401
Cr.P.C., to call for the records of the order dated 27.02.2024 made in
Cr.M.P.No.337 of 2024 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions
Judge / Presiding Officer, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act, Cases,
Pudukottai and set aside the same and consequently, release the
petitioner's two wheeler viz., Scooter (Suzuki) bearing Registration No.TN
65 AT 9794 as interim custody to the petitioner.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853,
866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.T.Veerakumar
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Revisions are directed against the orders passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.337 of 2024, 1169 of 2024, 1557 of 2024, 899 of 2024, 4631 of 2024, 3626 of 2024 and 5495 of 2024 dated 27.02.2024, 05.06.2024, 22.07.2024, 07.05.2024, 30.08.2024, 13.08.2024 and 09.09.2024 respectively, dismissing the petitions filed under Sections 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C.
2. The orders now under challenge came to be passed in the petitions filed under Sections 451 r/w 457 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicles involved in the cases registered under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'NDPS Act').
3. Except the revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.646 of 2024, which came to be filed by the accused, other revisions came to be filed by a third party / owner of the vehicles.
2/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
4. Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. relate to custody and disposal of the property during a criminal investigation or trial. Section 451 Cr.P.C. deals with the custody and disposal of the property that is pending in enquiry or trial and whereas, Section 457 Cr.P.C. deals with the disposal of the property after the trial or enquiry.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai Vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2002) 10 SCC 283 has held that a speedier procedure needs to be evolved for the disposal of articles kept at police stations and Section 451 Cr.P.C. should be exercised and implemented expeditiously as it is of no use to keep the property including the vehicles at the police stations for a long period and laid down the procedure to be followed by the police officials for custody of different kinds of property, such as valuable articles, money, vehicles, etc.
6. It is pertinent to note that Section 51 of NDPS Act contemplates that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of NDPS Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under NDPS Act. 3/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
7. Section 5 Cr.P.C. states that nothing in the Code will affect any special law or local law that is in force, any special jurisdiction or power or any special form of procedure prescribed by another law that is in force.
8. Section 52A of NDPS Act deals about the disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
9. It is pertinent to note that vide Amendment Act 16 of 2014, the words, “narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and controlled substances or conveyances” came to be added. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer Section 60(3) of NDPS Act, “60(3) :- Any animal or conveyance used in carrying any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any article liable to confiscation under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be liable to confiscation, unless the owner of the animal or conveyance proves that it was so used without the knowledge or connivance of the owner himself, his agent, if any, and the person-in-charge of the animal or conveyance and that each of them had taken all reasonable precautions against such use.” 4/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
10. Section 63 of NDPS Act deals with the procedure in making confiscations which states that in the trial of offences under NDPS Act, whether the accused is convicted or acquitted or discharged, the Court shall decide whether any article or thing seized under this Act is liable to be confiscated under Section 60 or Section 61 or Section 62 and if it decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly. Section 63(2) states that if the person, who committed the offence in connection therewith, is not known or cannot be found, the Court may inquire into and decide such liability and may order confiscation accordingly.
11. In Tarsem Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2005 SCC Online P&H 807, a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that irrespective of the decision of the trial, any article or thing seized under NDPS Act, which are used in the commission of offence have got to be confiscated and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-
“15. .... We are surprised that the said has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, who 5/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 would have no jurisdiction to dispose of such an application in view of Section 63 of the Act, which makes it clear that irrespective of the decision of the trial, any article or thing seized under this Act, which are used in the commission of offence have got to be confiscated and the Special Judge is obliged to start separate proceedings in relation to confiscation after expiry of one month, if no one comes forth to claim the property. In view of the provision of Section 63 of the Act, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as contained in Sections 451 and 452 will stand modified to the extent indicated in the aforementioned section and any claimant to the property will be obliged to satisfy the Court in terms of the exceptions carved out in Sections 60, 61 and 62 of the Act before he is returned the custody of the vehicle taken into custody when it was being used for transporting a narcotic substance. In the present case as already pointed out by us, the proceedings under Section 63 of the Act were not initiated until the disposal of the trial, which is not warranted by law. The proceedings for confiscation have got to be completed during the pendency of the trial and are in no way connected therewith as delay therein would only lessen the value of the property so confiscated and thereby cause loss to the State or the owner.” 6/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others Vs. Kallo Bai reported in (2017) 14 SCC 502 has specifically observed that criminal prosecution is distinct from confiscation proceedings, that the two proceedings are different and parallel, each having a distinct purpose and that the object of confiscation proceeding is to enable speedy and effective adjudication with regard to confiscation of the produce and the means used for committing the offence while the object of the prosecution is to punish the offender.
13. In Mustafa Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR 2019 SC 3949, the Hon'ble Apex Court in strong words has clarified that Sections 451, 452 and 457 Cr.P.C. must yield to the provisions of the Act and there is no escape from the conclusion that the Magistrate or for that matter the High Court, while dealing with the case of seizure of vehicle under the Act, has any power to pass an order dealing with the interim custody of the vehicle on security or its release thereof.
14. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case above referred, the Hon'ble Supreme 7/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 Court has held that the vehicles need not be kept idle in police station and the same can be released by invoking provision under Section 451 Cr.P.C. but under NDPS Act no occasion may arise for releasing the vehicle under Section 451 Cr.P.C. for the simple reason that Section 63 of NDPS Act deals about the confiscation proceedings and by virtue of amendment in the year 2014 in NDPS Act by including the conveyance in Section 52A of NDPS Act as well as by introduction of forfeiture of illegally acquired property under Chapter VA.
15. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379 relied on by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, “20. To sum up we direct as under:
(1) No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer in-
charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall 8/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under Sub-Section 3 of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading ‘seizure and sampling’. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the magistrate as discussed in paras 13 and 14 of this order.
(2) The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shall within six months from today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an officer each for their respective storage facility and provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs.
(3) The Central Government and the State Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more than one districts.
(4) Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying in the police maalkhans and other places used for storage 9/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 shall be carried out by the DDCs concerned in terms of the directions issued by us in the body of this judgment under the heading ’disposal of drugs’.
21. Keeping in view the importance of the subject we request the Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned to appoint a Committee of Judges on the administrative side to supervise and monitor progress made by the respective States in regard to the compliance with the above directions and wherever necessary, to issue appropriate directions for a speedy action on the administrative and even on the judicial side in public interest wherever considered necessary.”
16. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued various directions, the same were not followed in true spirit till now.
17. As already pointed out, Section 63 of NDPS Act gives power to the Court to decide whether any article or thing seized under NDPS Act is liable to be confiscated in terms of Sections 60, 61 and 62 of NDPS Act. Section 57A of NDPS Act contemplates that the officer notified under Section 53 shall make a report of the illegally acquired properties to the jurisdictional competent authority within 90 days of the arrest or seizure. 10/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
18. As already pointed out, Section 63(1) of NDPS Act states that the Court if decides that the article is so liable, it may order confiscation accordingly and as per Section 63(2) of NDPS Act, if the person, who committed the offence, is not known or cannot be found, the Court may inquire into and decide such liability and may order confiscation accordingly. But proviso contemplates that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if he produces in respect of his claim.
19. Considering the above provisions, it is very much clear that after seizure of the articles or things, the competent authority has to proceed to decide and subject to the decision to proceed with the confiscation proceedings.
20. It is pertinent to note that Rule 257 of Tamil Nadu Criminal Rules of Practice, 2019 states that the Court may entertain Section 451 Cr.P.C. subject to the procedure laid down in special statute. 11/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
21. A learned Judge of this Court in Nahoorkani Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Puliyangudi Police Station in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.41 of 2019 dated 16.06.2023 has held that in view of the provision under Section 63 of NDPS Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as contained in Sections 451 and 452 Cr.P.C. will stand modified to the extent and any claimant to the property will be obliged to satisfy the Court in terms of the exceptions carved out in Sections 60, 61 and 62 of NDPS Act before he is returned the custody of the vehicle taken into consideration when it was being used for transporting a narcotic substance, that therefore, when the conveyance was seized under NDPS Act, the return of property does not arise as contemplated under Sections 451 and 452 Cr.P.C. and it is liable to be confiscated under Section 63 of NDPS Act and that the Magistrate may not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C in the light of the Special Rule made under Section 52A of NDPS Act. It is pertinent to note that the learned Judge has also issued several directions to the Special Courts and the investigating officers with regard to the disposal of the conveyances seized under NDPS Act. 12/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024
22. The Central Government, in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohanlal's case above referred, has introduced Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, in which, Chapter IV deals about the disposal of the properties including conveyance. Rule 3(5) provides for preparing a detailed inventory of the conveyances and attaching it to the panchnama. Rule 16 provides that the conveyance, including the vehicles can be disposed of immediately after the seizure. Originally under section 52A also it is provided that it can be disposed of immediately after seizure. But under the Rule 17, disposal of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances can be made after the receipt of the chemical analysis report. Rule 23(5)(e) provides that the seized conveyances shall be sold by way of tender or auction as may be determined by the Drug Disposal Committee, after the Drug Disposal Committee verifies the engine number, chassis number and other details mentioned in panchnama and certify the inventory thereof, in terms of Rule 21(3). Since the Chemical Analysis report is to reach the court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the samples as mandated under Rule 14, the whole process leading to the stage of disposal of the vehicle would 13/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 culminate in a month's time. Section 63(2) Proviso also provides that no order of confiscation of an article or thing shall be made until the expiry of one month from the date of seizure, or without hearing any person who may claim any right thereto and the evidence, if any, which he produces in respect of his claim. In the light of the above rules and time frame fixed, it cannot be said that the vehicle would be kept idle for long period exposed to sun and rain, warranting for granting of interim custody of the vehicle.
23. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, combined reading of the provisions of 2022 Rules would make it clear that the vehicles cannot be detained indefinitely by the prosecution agency or by the concerned Court. In the light of the above rules and time frame fixed, it cannot be stated that if the vehicle is kept idle in open place for long period exposing to sun and rain, the value of the vehicle would be deteriorated warranting for granting of interim custody of the vehicle. Since the amendment provisions of NDPS Act and newly introduced 2022 Rules mandate the disposal of the property including conveyances seized under NDPS Act within a short span of time irrespective of trial, the 14/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 question of granting interim custody under Section 451 Cr.P.C. till the disposal of the main case does not arise at all.
24. No doubt, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely on some decisions of this Court and some other High Courts, wherein, interim custody of the vehicles seized under NDPS Act came to be granted under Section 451 Cr.P.C.
25. As already pointed out, in Tarsem Singh's case above referred, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has specifically observed that in view of the provision of Section 63 of NDPS Act, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as contained in Sections 451 and 452 Cr.P.C. will stand modified to the extent and any claimant to the property has to satisfy in terms of the exceptions carved out in Sections 60, 61 and 62 of NDPS Act.
26. A Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Shajahan Vs. Inspector of Excise and others reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 3685, when a reference was made by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble 15/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 Supreme Court in Mohanlal's case above referred, has held that the power of the Magistrate to consider a claim under Section 451 Cr.P.C. stands denuded and thereby answered reference. When another Division Bench of Kerala High Court, considering the decision in Shajahan's case, has expressed his opinion that the issue needs a re-look, the matter was referred to Full Bench of Kerala High Court. In Pradeep, B. Vs. The District Drug Disposal Committee, Kasargod and others in W.A.No.1304 of 2022 dated 19.02.2024, the Full Bench, by observing that there is no provision in the Act enabling the Drug Disposal Committee to order interim release of the vehicle/conveyance, has held that the jurisdictional Special Court under NDPS Act has the power to consider the grant of interim custody of vehicles seized under NDPS Act, by invoking the powers under Section 457 Cr.P.C. It is pertinent to note that the Full Bench has mainly observed that there is no provision in the Act or in the Rules giving power or jurisdiction to the Drug Disposal Committee to decide about the granting of interim custody of vehicles seized under NDPS Act.
27. With great respect to the Full Bench of Kerala High Court, when Drug Disposal Committee is conferred with powers to decide about the 16/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 final disposal of the property including the vehicles itself, the contention that the Drug Disposal Committee has no power to grant interim custody, has no legs to stand.
28. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Savitri Vs. Govind Singh Rawat reported in 1985 4 SCC 337, wherein, though there is no express provision in the Code which authorises a Magistrate to make an interim order directing payment of maintenance pending disposal of an application for maintenance, has held that in the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the Magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under Section 125 of the Code to pay interim maintenance and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
"23. ...
“It is true that there is no express provision in the Code which authorises a magistrate to make an interim order directing payment of maintenance pending disposal of an application for maintenance. The Code does not also expressly prohibit the making of such an order. The question is whether such a power can be implied to be 17/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 vested in a magistrate having regard to the nature of the proceedings under Section 125 and other cognate provisions found in Chapter IX of the Code which is entitled "Order For Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents"....”
24. ....
"In view of the foregoing it is the duty of the court to interpret the provisions in Chapter IX of the Code in such a way that the construction placed on them would not defeat the very object of the legislation. In the absence of any express prohibition, it is appropriate to construe the provisions in Chapter IX as conferring an implied power on the magistrate to direct the person against whom an application is made under Section 125 of the Code to pay some reasonable sum by way of maintenance to the applicant pending final disposal of the application. It is quite common that applications made under Section 125 of the Code also take several months for being disposed of finally. In order to enjoy the fruits of the proceedings under Section 125, the applicant should be alive till the date of the final order and that the applicant can do in a large number of cases only if an order for payment of interim maintenance is passed by the court. Every court must be deemed to possess by necessary intendment all 18/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 such powers as are necessary to make its orders effective. This principle is embodied in the maxim ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur et id sine quo res ipsa esse non potest (Where anything is conceded, there is conceded also anything without which the thing itself cannot exist.) (Vide Earl Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law 1959 Edn. P. 1797). Whenever anything is required to be done by law and it is found impossible to do that thing unless something not authorised in express terms be also done then that something else will be supplied by necessary intendment. Such a construction though it may not always be admissible in the present case however would advance the object of the legislation under consideration. A contrary view is likely to result in grave hardship to the applicant, who may have no means to subsist until the final order is passed. There is no room for the apprehension that the recognition of such implied power would lead to the passing of interim orders in a large number of cases where the liability to pay maintenance may not exist. It is quite possible that such contingency may arise in a few cases but the prejudice caused thereby to the person against whom it is made is minimal as it can be set right quickly after hearing both the parties....”
29. Subsequently, in Shail Kumari Devi and another Vs. Krishan 19/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 Bhagwan Pathak @ Kishun B. Pathak reported in AIR 2008 SC 3006, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by referring to the Savitri's case above referred, has observed as follows:-
“21. So far as `interim' maintenance is concerned, it is true that Section 125 of the Code as it originally enacted did not expressly empower the Magistrate to make such order and direct payment of interim maintenance. But the Code equally did not prohibit the Magistrate from making such order. Now, having regard to the nature of proceedings, the primary object to secure relief to deserted and destitute wives, discarded and neglected children and disabled and helpless parents and to ensure that no wife, child or parent is left beggared and destitute on the scrap- heap of society so as to be tempted to commit crime or to tempt others to commit crime in regard to them, it was held that the Magistrate had `implied power' to make such order. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Chapter IX (Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents) is not strictly criminal in nature. Moreover, the remedy provided by Section 125 of the Code is a summary remedy for securing reasonable sum by way of maintenance subject to a decree passed by a competent civil Court. Hence, in absence of any express bar or prohibition, Section 125 could be interpreted as conferring power by 20/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 necessary implication to make interim order of maintenance subject to final outcome in the application.”
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhwant Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2009 (7) SCC 559 has held that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in the court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending final disposal of the bail application and of course, it is in the discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not but the power is certainly there.
31. Considering the above decisions, the legal position is very much clear that when a Court or an Authority is having power or jurisdiction to decide petition or case finally, then that Court or Authority must be deemed to have a power or jurisdiction to grant interim orders.
32. Now coming to the case on hand, it is not in dispute that after the amendments and introduction of 2022 Rules, Drug Disposal Committee alone is having power and jurisdiction to decide about the disposal of the property and if that be so, Drug Disposal committee must 21/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 be deemed to have necessary power and jurisdiction to consider the prayer for interim custody of the property including the vehicles. In case, if there is any delay in passing final orders with regard to disposal of the property, in view of the legal position above referred and taking note of the amendments to the provisions of NDPS Act, the power of the jurisdictional Magistrate or the Special Court under NDPS Act to grant interim custody of the conveyances under NDPS Act is impliedly barred. Hence, the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate/Special Court for NDPS Act cases dismissing the petitions filed under Section 451 Cr.P.C. seeking interim custody of the vehicles cannot be found fault with. Consequently, this Court concludes that the revisions are devoid of merits and the same are liable to be dismissed.
33. In the result, these Criminal Revisions stand dismissed.
20.12.2024 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm 22/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Pudukkottai.
2. The Additional District Judge, Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.
3. The Additional District Judge, Special Court under EC Act, Thanjavur.
4. The Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakkanur.
5. The Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.
6. The Inspector of Police, Kundrakudi Police Station, Sivagangai District.
7.The Inspector of Police, Pamban Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
8.The Inspector of Police, S.S.Colony Police Station, Madurai City.
9.The Inspector of Police, Neyveli Town Police Station, Cuddalore District.
10.The Inspector of Police, Bodinayakkanur Town Police Station, Theni District.
11.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kalakkad Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
12.The Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni District.
13.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
23/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm Pre-Delivery Common Order made in Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.646, 745, 750, 853, 866, 867 and 1021 of 2024 Dated : 20.12.2024 24/24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis