Madras High Court
Syed Musafar Sadiq vs The Intelligence Officer on 25 June, 2018
Author: M.V.Muralidaran
Bench: M.V.Muralidaran
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Reserved on : 23.03.2018 Pronounced on : 25.06.2018 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2017 1.Syed Musafar Sadiq 2.S.M.Sirajudeen 3.V.Packiakumar ... Petitioners Vs. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) No.27, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai 600 017. ... Respondent Prayer: Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1829 of 2017 dated 18.07.2017 by the learned II Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, dismissing the application filed under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. for bail filed by in R.R.No.11 of 2016 in F.No.DRI/CZU/VIII/ 48/ENQ-1/INT-48/2016 on the file of the respondent. For Petitioners : Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Respondent : Mr.N.P.Kumar Special Public Prosecutor ORDER
The Petitioners preferred this Criminal Revision Petition against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1829 of 2017 dated 18.07.2017 by the learned II Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai, dismissing the application filed under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. for bail filed by in R.R.No.11 of 2016 in F.No.DRI/CZU/VIII/ 48/ENQ-1/INT-48/2016 on the file of the respondent.
2.The prosecution case is that based on secret information the respondent, on 26.11.2016 proceeded to National Sorting Hub Chennai, St.Thomas Mount Head Post Office Complex, Chennai600016 and had seized an article covered under No.EU667761597 in a Carton Box blocked by Shri Tariq Ali Khan, C/o. Moses Toiler opposite to Saran Hospital, Barerilly, U.P. 243 001, addressed to Shri Syed Ali, 101, New Street, Mannady. The box found to contain 33 packets, each packet contained 5 pads and each pad contained 6 strips. The packets serialed as 33 and 33 were found to contain additional 5 and 4 strips respectively. Hence 5 x 6 x 10 x 33 = 9990 tablets of ALPRAZOLAM IP TRIKA I of 1 Mg Manufactured by Unichem Laboratories Sikkim. The officers had seized in the presence of witnesses under Mahazar. Further prosecution case is that on 28.11.2016 at M/s. Triway CFS, No.149, Ilayanchavadi, New Nappalayam, Ponneri High Road, Chennai had seized 23.900 kgs of pseudo Ephedrine in 48 polythene packages in a cargo covered under the shipping bill No.2418014 dated 24.11.2016 in the name of M.M.Exports concealed in 6 Bales. The officers drew mahazar in the presence of witnesses and in the presence of one V.Packiakumar a Freelance Freight Forwarder, later he was arranged as 43 in this case. The officers had issued summons to all the 3 petitioners on 29.11.2016 to appear before them on the same day at 7.00 hours. The statements under section 67 of NDPS Act were recorded from the Petitioners, later they were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
3.The learned counsel for the Petitioners would submit that the contraband tablets are manufactured by licensed Manufacturer and the tables are schedule H1 Drug available in all medical shops. The tablets and Pseudo Ephedrine were not seized from the possession of any of the petitioners. Pseudo Ephedrine of 23.900 kgs is a controlled substance would fall under the category of 60 days period of investigation. The Learned Trial Judge failed to see that the 9900 tables of Alprozolam Tablets of 1 mg is calculated would come around 9.9 grams. As per table in NDPS Act above grams would fall under the period of investigation 60 days. The Respondent had filed the charge sheet after 60 days more specifically after 175 days. The contention of the Petitioners is that the Special Court could not have extended the period of investigation from 60 to 180 days "in a single order" and also could not have extended the judicial custody of the Petitioner as a consequence thereof without seeking a fresh report of the PP in terms of NDPS Act and the procedure adopted by the Respondent was in violation of the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra (1994) 4 SCC 602 and the extension itself is bad in law.
4.The learned counsel for the Petitioners also referred to the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Sayed Mohd. Ahmad Kazmi vs. State reported in (2012) 12 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had granted statutory bail to an accused on default as a matter of right under UAPA Act even after filing of the Final Report. The Learned Trial Judge had wrongly decided that Section 37 of NDPS Act would attract, as the quantity of 9.900 tables if calculated and weighted with inactive ingredients would fall under commercial quantity. The Learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No. 1421 of 2016. In any event on merits, the petitioners are entitled bail under section 167(2) of Cr.P.C as complaint was not filed in time.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners relied the following Judgments to strengthen his contention as follows:
(i). Mohamed Ali & another v. The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Police Station, Kanyakumari District & another, Order passed in Crl.O.P. (MD).No.15947 of 2016 and Crl.M.P.(MD).No.7675 of 2016.
(ii). Mohamed Ali Jinna & others v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai-600 017 reported in 2017 (2) MWN (Cr.) 41
(iii). Ouseph Alias Thankachan v. State of Kerala reported in (2004) 4 SCC 446.
(iv). E.Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau reported in (2008) 5 SCC 161.
(v). Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2011) 4 SCC 441.
(vi). Mohd. Sahabuddin and another v. State of Assam reported in (2012) 13 SCC 491.
(vii). M.Veludurain v. The State, rep. By The Superintendent of Customs, Special Narcotic Cell, Nagercoil, O.R.No.1 of 2001 reported in 2012 -1- L.W. (Crl.) 70.
(viii). John Paul v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and another, Order passed in W.P.No.28715 of 2015.
(ix). Sadiq Basha v. Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi and another, Order passed in W.P.No.28702 of 2015.
(x). Superintendent of Customs, Central Intelligence Unit, Trichy. (O.R.No.1 of 2016) v. L.Abuthahir, Order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14252 of 2016 & Crl.M.P.(MD)No.6652 of 2016.
(xi). Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and another v. L.G.Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors reported in (2012) 3 SCC 495.
6.On the other hand the Learned Counsel for the Respondent submits that the petitioners/Accused alleged in their voluntary statement given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) and under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 about the concealment of drugs in the consignment and Shri Syed Musafar Sadiq, A-1 and Accused A2 along with Shri.V.Packiakumar, Accused 3, who is a freelance forwarding agent, used to clear the export goods to Malaysia for Accused 1 and aware of concealment of narcotic drugs inside the fabrics and attempt to smuggle them out of India, which are supplied by Shri. Abu and Usman for monetary consideration. A 23.900 kg of white powder like substance believed to pseudoephedrine seized at M/s. Triway CFS at Chennai on 28.11.2016, Accused A-1, A2 and A-3 admitted that they had organized the concealment and packing of the white powder like substance believed to the pseudoephedrine and attempted to export the same using the ICE of M/s. M.M.Exports, Chennai through Shipping Bill No.2418014 dated 24.11.2016. Then 9990 tablets of Alprazolam totally weighing 3201 grams which is a commercial quantity was also seized at National Sorting Hub, Chennai on 26.11.2016.
7.The Learned Counsel for the Respondent would further submit that seized contraband of Alprazolam (9990 Nos) is a commercial quantity and the Petitioners / Accused A1, A2 and A3 in their voluntary statements admitted that these were sourced by Shri. Abu and the parcel were to be collected by him for concealment and smuggling out in subsequent export consignments. The petitioners/Accused A1 to A3 herein and Shri Sathees were arrested on 29.11.2016 on a reason to believe that these persons have contravened the provisions of section 8(c) read with section 22, 23, 27, 28, 29 and 9A read with section 25A of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) and thereby punishable under section 8(c), 9A, 22(c), 23, 25-A, 28, 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) read with section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962 in as much as these persons have admitted that the seized quantity of Ephedrine and 9990 Alprazolam Tablets was meant for illegal export out of India.
8.The Learned Counsel for the Respondent would further submit that against the order passed in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016, the Respondent had filed an SLP before the Honble Supreme Court and the order passed in the above Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 was stayed by the Honble Supreme Court. Further another Learned Judge of this Honble Court at Madurai Bench of Madras High Court vide order dated 23.08.2016 have cancelled the bail granted by the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act cases), Pudukkottai, in Crl.O.P.No.1882 of 2016 dated 05.08.2016, on the basis of total weight of the tablet and not on percentage. And other judgment reported in 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl) 482 disagreed with the judgment passed in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 and the judgment reported in 2011 (4) SCC 441 only weight of the tables has to be taken and not percentage of the contraband to be taken and hold that the seized contraband is commercial quantity. The SLP merged with Criminal Appeal No.722 of 2017 pending before the Honble Supreme Court as the question of law involved is identical and the matter was referred to larger bench and the same is pending before the larger bench. Further Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 filed only for amending the charge and not for bail. Further the seized contraband is commercial quantity and for filling the complaint is 180 days and the complaint was filed within 180 days and the points raised in this Revision petition is without any merit.
9.I heard Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.N.P.Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent coupled with the relevant statutory provisions.
10.The Petitioners are A-1 to A-3. The case of the Prosecution is that A-1 is a drug smuggler, A- 2 is alleged to have financed A-1and A-3 assisted him. On specific intelligence, DRI registered a case in RR No. 11 of 2016. In connection with this case, the petitioners have been arrested by DRI and remanded to judicial custody. During the search the DRI officials seized Pseudoephedrine weighing 23.900 kg in International Market, it is valued at Rs.4,78,00,000/. It is a controlled substance. This was seized in the presence of mahazar witnesses along with certain fabrics and it is under the Shipping Bill No.2418014 dated 14.1.2016 with the Invoice No.003 dated 29.10.2016 and it is intended to be exported. Further in the course of investigation, on 26.11.2016, DRI intercepted Speed Post article at the National Sorting Hub at St. Thomas Mount Head Office, Chennai. It contained Alprazonem Tablets, a scheduled H1 drug under NDPS Act. These items were seized under the cover of a mahazar. The seized remnant sample was deposited to the Custom Warehouse under deposit Memo Sr.No. 04/2016(N) dated 30.12.2016. The Joint Director, Custom House Laboratory, Custom House, Chennai, vide Report No. lab no. 971 & 972/09.12.2016 dated 27.12.2016 has reported as below:
Report: Lab No. 971 (marked as P1S1(A)) Alprazolam Answers the test for the presence of Alprazolam;
Report: Lab No. 972 (Marked as P1S1(B)) Ephedrine hydrochloride :
Answers the test for the presence of Ephedrine hydrochloride.
After investigation, the Respondent filed the Final Report under Section 22(c), 28, 29 and 9A read with Section 25A of the NDPS Act, 1985 (as amended) read with Section 8(c) ibid and Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962.
11.The only question is to be decided in this case is whether the inactive ingredients required to hold the active ingredients constitute commercial quantity or not and the petitioners are entitled for bail?
12. Section 2(xxiii) of the NDPS Act, 1985, defines psychotropic substance thus:
Psychotropic substance means any substance, natural or synthetic, or any natural material or any salt or preparation of such substance or material included in the list of psychotropic substances specified in the Schedule.
13.This Court would begin by informing that the opening words 'any mixture or' in Item No.239 of the table are redundant since Section 2(xxiii) of the Act which defines 'preparation' places preparation in two distinct slots. The preparation in relation to a Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance means (1) any one or more such drugs or substances in dosage form, or (2) any solution or mixture in whatsoever physical state containing one or more such drugs or substances.
14.Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides for graded punishment for any contravention of the provisions of the Act, categorizing the contravention into (i) small quantity, (ii) intermediary quantity and (iii) commercial quantity. The expression 'small quantity' is defined in Section 2(xxiiia) of the Act, to mean any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by Notification in the official Gazette. The expression commercial quantity is defined in Section 2(viia) to mean any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by Notification in the official Gazette.
15.Under Clause (a) of Section 18, if the contravention of the provisions of the Act involves small quantity, it is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Under Clause (b) of Section 18, a contravention involving commercial quantity is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and which shall also be liable to fine to the extent of not less than rupees one lakh, but which may extent up to rupees two lakhs. Insofar as quantities not falling either under the category of 'small quantity' or under the category of 'commercial quantity' Clause (c) of Section 18, prescribes rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to ten years and fine which may extend up to rupees one lakh.
16.In exercise of the power conferred under the Act, to notify what could constitute a 'small quantity', the Central Government issues Notification from time to time. One Notification that was issued was in S.O.No.1055(E), dated 19.10.2001. The said Notification contained a table, having six columns. Column No.1 provides Serial Numbers. Column No.2 provides the names of the Narcotic drugs or a Psychotropic Substance. Column No.3 is intended to private, a non-proprietary name for the drug, whose name is mentioned in Column No.2. Column No.4 is intended to private the commercial name of the substance. Column Nos.5 and 6 of the table respectively prescribes 'small quantity' and 'commercial quantity'.
17.In the table contained under the Notification dated 19.10.2001, about 238 substances had been identified. At Serial No.239, Column No.2 of the table states as follows:
'Any mixture or preparation that of with or without a neutral material, of any of the above drugs.'
18.In other words, apart from providing the names of about 238 individual substances, the table under the Notification dated 19.10.2001 also included 'any mixture or preparation of a combination of one or more of those 238 substances, with or without a neutral material, as one of the substances covered by the Notification. The note under the table to the Notification dated 19.10.2011 originally contained only three points. Those three points read as follows:
"Note: (1) The small quantity and the commercial quantity given against the respective drugs listed above apply to isomers, within specific chemical designation, the esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers; whenever existence of such substance is possible.
(2) The quantities shown against the respective drugs listed above also apply to the preparations of the drug and the preparations of substances of note 1 above.
(3) "Small Quantity" and "Commercial Quantity" with respect to cultivation of opium poppy is not specified separately as the offence in this regard is covered under clause (c) of Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985."
19.Therefore, in the light of the existing Notes in the table under Notification dated 19.10.2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had an occasion to consider in Ouseph Alias Thankachan vs. State of Kerala- (2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1303), what was a 'small quantity'. Though in the said case, the prosecution alleged that the appellant before the Supreme Court was found to be in possession of 110 ampoules of buprenorphine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court went by the Notification dated 23.07.1996, that was in existence before the Notification, in S.O.No.1055 of 2001, dated 19.10.2001, came into existence.
20.Similarly in E.Michaeal Raj vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau-((2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 558), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with the seizure of contraband to the extent of 4.07 Kg, but the Court found on facts that the purity of heroin was 1.4% and 1.6% respectively in two samples. Therefore, the Court found that the quantity in his possession was only about 60 gms. It was taken to be below the 'commercial quantity' stipulated by the Notification.
21.It is to be noticed that the word 'or' is used disjunctively. When so understood, it will be seen that use of the asterix mark towards informing what is small or commercial quantity makes clear that the determination therein is only regards the Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance forming part of the mixture as different and distinct from drug or substance in dosage form. Insertion of Note No.4 in Item No.239 under S.O.2941(E), dated 18.11.2009, only further clarifies the position. Such note says that the quantity shown as small or commercial in relation to the respective drugs shall apply to (1)the entire mixture or (2)any solution or (3)any one or more Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances of that particular drug in dosage form or (4)isomers, esters, ethers and salts or salts thereof, wherever existence of such substance (meaning isomers, esters, ethers, salts or salts thereof) is possible and not just its pure content. In other words, where a drug includes isomers, esters, ethers and salts of the drug or salts thereof, the same shall be added to the drug content for purpose of determining whether the drug/substance falls under small or commercial quantity. Therefore the tablets seized from petitioners are in dosage form. Hence this Honble Court comes to the conclusion on reading the complaint and considering the lab report, the inactive ingredients required to hold the active ingredients constitute small quantity.
22.The learned Single Judge of this Honble Court dealt with the similar issue and in his order dated 14.03.2017 passed in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 as follows:
The admitted prosecution case is that petitioners were found in possession of 18415 Zolfresh tablets. A reference to Current Index of Medical Specialty (CIMS) informs that Zolfresh is one amongst several tablets wherein tablets with content of Zolpedim in 5 mg or 10 mgs are sold. In the instant case, what has been seized are 18415 Zolfresh tablets containing 10 mg Zolpedim each. Therefore, tablets seized from petitioners are in dosage form. When so, the notification in S.O.2941(E) dated 18.11.2009 would require a determination of small or commercial quantity on the basis of the content of the psychotropic substance of that particular drug (Zolpidem) in dosage form. When so done it will be seen that petitioners were in possession of 184.15 gms which is below the commercial quantity of 250 gms.
23. This Court finds support for its reasoning in the decision of Apex Court in Md.Sahabuddin and another v. State of Assam [Crl.A.No.1602 of 2012] relied upon by learned Special Public Prosecutor. In holding against the accused and finding them in possession of commercial quantity of codeine phosphate (listed as Item No.28 in the table), the Apex Court took into consideration the fact that each 100 ml. bottle of Phendsedyl cough syrup contained 183.15 to 189.85 mg. of codeine phosphate and each 100 ml. bottle of Recodex cough syrup contained 182.73 mg of codeine phosphate and accused were in possession of 347 cartons containing 100 bottles in each carton of 100 ml. of Phensedyl cough syrup and 102 cartons, each containing 100 bottles of 100 ml. of Recodex cough syrup and thus the very quantum of codeine phosphate in their possession, leaving out the other components of the syrup in dosage form was itself above the commercial quantity of 1 kg. As noted earlier, in Ouseph's case, the actual drug content in the ampoules of buprenorphine (tidigesic) was taken into consideration in informing the quantity to be small quantity. Ouseph's case related to occurrence before Notification in S.O.2941(E) dated 18.11.2009 while Md.Sahabuddin's case was one that arose thereafter. The consideration has remained the same. Indeed, it cannot be otherwise. If prosecution is to contend that the entire dosage is to be taken for purpose of determining whether the possession is in small or commercial quantity, the effect would be a prosecution allegation of the company/manufacturer of the drug/substance violating the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act without charging them therefor. Though unnecessary, this Court would state that reference to a drug/substance in dosage form can only be with reference to a dosage form as permissible in law.
23.Admittedly, the learned trial Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 36 of the NDPS Act took cognizance of the offences punishable under the various Sections of NDPS Act and also IPC offences and failed to consider the bail application filed under Section 167 of Cr.P.C. It is held by our own High Court that "Jurisdiction of the Court to grant bail for an offence under NDPS Act is circumscribed by the provisions contained in Section 37 of the Act. This section starts for non obstante clause and has an overriding effect over the provisions regulating bail contained in Cr.P.C. This Section makes offence cognizable and non-bailable. A person accused of offence punishable under Section 19 or Section 24 or 27A and also for offence involving commercial quantity is not entitled to be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application, for such release and / or where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. These limitations on ground of bail specified in the section are in addition to the limitations prescribed under the Cr.P.C.
24.It is also necessary to extract Section 22 of the Act which reads as follows:
22.Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances. - Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any psychotropic substance shall be punishable, -
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the Court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees.
25.As stated supra, while an offence u/s.22(c) of the Act would suffer the rigours of Section 37 of the Act in grant of bail that under Section 22(b) of the Act would not. The purpose sought to be achieved by petitioners is that the case against them falls not under Section 22(c) of the Act but under Section 22(b) of the Act.
26.The petitioners claimed bail as their indefeasible right under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. The submission of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that in respect of the offences under Sections 25, 25(A), 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution agency had to file complaint on completion of investigation within 60 days but they failed to do so and hence in terms of Section 36(A)(4) of the NDPS Act and Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. deserves bail. It is true that since the offence under Section 25(A) of the Act is punishable with imprisonment which may extend up to 10 years and other offences to the line of Section 25(A) of the Act, the prosecution needs to file complaint on completion of investigation within 60 days from the date of remand of the accused in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. It is also true that the petitioners were remanded to judicial custody on 28.11.2016 but the complaint was filed by DRI only on 24.05.2017 i.e, beyond the period of 60 days and thereby the indefeasible right to claim bail was accrued to petitioners/accused immediately after the expiry of the 60 days. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.Bipin Shantilal Panchal vs. State of Gujarat, answered the question whether the accused who was entitled to be released on bail under proviso to sub-Section(2) of Section 167 of the Code, not having made an application when such right had accrued, can exercise that right at a later stage of the proceeding. Referring its earlier judgment in Sanjay Dutt vs. State through CBI, it held that if an accused person exercises his right to be released on bail for the failure of the prosecution to file the charge sheet within the maximum time allowed by law, he had an indefeasible right for bail.
27.This Court is of the considered view that the above principle of law laid down by the Learned Single Judge of this Honble Court in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also contraband involved is Ephedrine Hydrochloride.
28.It is also to be noted that the Petitioners were confined in Prison from 28.11.2016 without any progress of the trial, since the Honble Supreme Court seized the similar issue involved in this case to a larger Bench and the same is now pending in Criminal Appeal No.722 of 2017.
29.Under the circumstances,
(a) this Criminal Revision Petition is allowed and the order passed by the Learned II Special Court for NDPS Cases, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.1829 of 2017 in R.R.No.11 of 2016 dated 18.07.2017 is hereby set aside;
(b) the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail in executing a bond for a like sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) with two sureties each to the satisfaction of the Learned II Additional Special Court under NDPS Act at Chennai;
(c) the petitioners shall appear in person before the concerned Court on all hearing dates and co-operate with the trial.
25.06.2018 vs Index: Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order To The I Additional Special Court under NDPS Act, Chennai.
M.V.MURALIDARAN.J, vs Pre-delivery order made in Crl.R.C.No.1575 of 2017 25.06.2018