Kerala High Court
Pavithran vs State Of Kerala on 13 December, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2017 KER 2
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA, 1939
Bail Appl..No. 7841 of 2017
CRIME NO.766/2017 OF VALAPPAD POLICE STATION, TRISSUR
PETITIONER/3RD ACCUSED:
PAVITHRAN,
AGED 49 YEARS, S/O RAMAKRISHNAN,
KALLEPULIKKAL HOUSE,
NEAR MUNIYARA MAHADEVA TEMPLE,
MUNIYARA P.O., VELLATHOOVAL,
IDUKKI DISTRICT.
BY ADV.SRI.RAJIT
RESPONDENT/STATE:
STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN-682031.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AJITH MURALI
THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13-12-2017,
ALONG WITH BA.7770/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
EL
"CR"
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
B.A. Nos. 7841 & 7770 of 2017
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2017
O R D E R
1.The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No.766 of 2017 of the Valappad Police Station. Having been found in illegal possession of commercial quantity of Ganja, they are in judicial custody in the aforesaid crime registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2.The alleged detection was on 27.5.2017 and it was by the Station House Officer, Valappad Police Station. Secret information was received by the detecting officer about the storage for the purpose of sale of contraband substance in a car bearing Reg.No. KL-24/E-1406 and a pick-up van bearing Reg.No.KL-09/M-2430 which were parked at Kothakulam Beach. After complying with all the formalities, the vehicles were intercepted and search was conducted. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found inside the car and search of the vehicles BAs.7841&7770/17 -:2:- resulted in the seizure of 25.790 kg of Ganja from the dickey of the car. Thereafter, the pick-up van in which the petitioners were travelling was searched. From a secret compartment in the cabin Platform, 42.730 kg of Ganja was seized. The contraband articles were sealed and labelled in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the accused were arrested. Investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police and on its completion, final report was laid on 31.7.2017 before the Court of Session, Thrissur.
3.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
4.It is submitted by Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel, that the petitioners were arrested on 27.05.2017 and is now in judicial custody. According to the learned counsel, they are innocent of the allegations and in view of the fact that the final report has been laid before the jurisdictional court, no purpose will be served in keeping them in judicial custody. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohanlal and Another [2016 (3) SCC 379] it was contended that the BAs.7841&7770/17 -:3:- substratum of the prosecution case will be knocked off for non- compliance of Section 52A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the officer concerned ought to have moved an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 52A (ii) for certification of the inventory prepared by him on the date of production of the contraband before the learned Magistrate or subsequent thereto. According to the learned counsel, the said provision being mandatory as held by the Apex Court, its non-compliance will render the prosecution bad. If that be the case, the petitioners are to be enlarged on bail.
5.Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel, Sri. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that since an enormous quantity of Ganja, which would statutorily fall under the classification of "commercial quantity" was seized from the possession of the petitioners, the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 will have to be satisfied. Unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused are not guilty of the offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioners cannot be released. BAs.7841&7770/17 -:4:- Highlighting the deleterious effects and deadly impact of such substances, it is submitted that the legislature has included Section 32A and Section 37 in the Statute Book to deter such nefarious activities by traffickers such as the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] and Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Another [(1999) 9 SCC 429] to support his contentions. Countering the submissions of the learned counsel that Section 52A is mandatory, it is submitted that Section 52A has nothing to do with search and seizure. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the purpose of Section 52A is to ensure that the contraband substance is disposed of under the supervision of a Magistrate and if the Magistrate follows the mandate of Section 52A, it is not necessary for the police or the investigating agency to produce the bulk seized materials before the trial court. It is submitted that in Mohanlal (supra), the Apex Court took note of the unsatisfactory storage facilities in various States and reminded the detecting officers to follow the procedure under Section BAs.7841&7770/17 -:5:- 52A to prevent the replacement and pilferage of narcotic drugs so that the seized drugs are not recirculated in the market. It is submitted that in the State of Kerala, the seized drugs are immediately shifted to the safe vaults in godowns and the Government has constituted a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Disposal Committee at State Level in Excise and Police Departments with a view to introduce a uniform procedure for the destruction of narcotic drugs which has been seized. The seized drugs in the instant case are stored in the Kottayam AR Camp to prevent any pilferage or replacement. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, no leverage can be given to the petitioners on alleged non-compliance of Section 52A of the Act.
6.I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the materials on record.
7.The jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. A reference to Section 37 of the Act will be apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. It BAs.7841&7770/17 -:6:- reads thus:
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non bailable. -- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), --
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for a term of imprisonment of five years or more under this Act shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless --
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
8.The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub Section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail. It can be granted in a case where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. The expression BAs.7841&7770/17 -:7:- used in Section 37(1)(b) (ii) is "reasonable grounds" which expression means something more than prima facie grounds. As held in Shiv Shanker Kesari (supra), it connotes substantial probable causes for believing that the accused are not guilty of the offence charged and this reasonable belief contemplated in turn points to existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused are not guilty of the offence charged. However, this Court while considering the application for bail with reference to Section 37 of the Act is not called upon to record a finding of not guilty. It is for the limited purpose essentially confined to the question of releasing the accused on bail that the court is called upon to see if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused are not guilty and records its satisfaction about the existence of such grounds. For that purpose, the court is not required to consider the matter as if it is pronouncing a judgement of acquittal and recording a finding of not guilty. The court has also to record a finding that while on bail the accused are not likely to commit any offence and there should BAs.7841&7770/17 -:8:- also exist some materials to come to such conclusion.
9.Having considered the submissions and after having gone through the materials on record, I am afraid that there are no substantial probable causes for believing that the accused are not guilty of the offence charge. The petitioners have not been able to point out the existence of any such facts or circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify recording of satisfaction that they are not guilty of the offence charged.
10.Next, I shall deal with the contention of the learned Counsel that the failure to comply with section 52A will enure to the benefit of the petitioners entitling them to bail at this stage.
11.A glance through Section 52, 52A may be necessary to decide on the sustainability of the contention raised by the learned Counsel. Section 52 of the NDPS Act reads as follows.
52. Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized. -
(1) Any officer arresting a person under S.41, S.42 S.43 or S.44 shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest.BAs.7841&7770/17 -:9:-
(2) Every person arrested and article seized under warrant issued under sub-section (1) of S.41 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the Magistrate by whom the warrant was issued.
(3) Every person arrested and article seized under sub-section (2) of S.41, S.42, S.43 or S.44 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to -
(a) the officer - in - charge of the nearest police station, or
(b) the officer empowered under S.53.
(4) The authority or officer to whom any person or article is forwarded under sub-
section (2) or sub-section (3) shall, with all convenient despatch, take such measures as may be necessary for the disposal according to law of such person or article. (emphasis supplied )
12.Section 51 of the Act states that the searches and seizures made under the Act should comply with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless the same is inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act. Section 52 deals with the disposal of the persons arrested and the articles seized. Sub section (2) of Section 52 of the Act states that whenever any article has been seized, the same shall be forwarded without BAs.7841&7770/17 -:10:- any unnecessary delay to the Magistrate by whom warrant was issued. This provision would apply when the seizure has taken place pursuant to a warrant issued by a Magistrate and sub section (2) has no applicability in cases of search and seizures which take place under Sections 41, 42, 43 and 44 of the Act. In those cases, sub section (3) of the Act applies and therefore, it is the duty of the officer concerned to ensure that the person arrested and the article seized are forwarded without unnecessary delay to the Officer-in-Charge of the nearest Police Station or to the officers empowered under Section 53 of the Act. Such an officer is required to take action for disposal of the material in accordance with law.
13.Under Section 53 of the Act, the Central Government may notify certain officers of other departments such as Excise, Narcotic, Custom, Revenue, Intelligence or any class of such officers with the powers of an officer-in-charge of a Police Station for the investigation of offences under the Act. Under Section 55 of the Act, an officer-in- charge of a Police Station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under the Act within BAs.7841&7770/17 -:11:- the local area of that Police Station and which may be delivered to him and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the Police Station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the Police Station.
14.In other words, these provisions were enacted to ensure that the contraband articles which were seized by the authorized or empowered officers are stored in a proper state and condition having regard to its hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution etc.
15.However, in practice, several obstacles were faced by the law enforcement authorities. Large quantity of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances were kept in Police Stations and other places where there were stringent space constraints. It was also noticed that at the stage of trial, which takes place several years after the seizure, substantial quantity of the contraband were found to have been pilfered, lost or substituted. These BAs.7841&7770/17 -:12:- contraband articles somehow or the other got recirculated in the market causing a bigger headache to the State and numbing the actions taken by the law enforcement authorities. It was felt that the objective of the Act cannot be achieved without remedying the situation by incorporating safeguards. Thus Section 52A was inserted into the NDPS Act by Amendment Act 2 of 1989. Section 52A which came into effect on 29.5.1989 reads as follows:
52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. -
(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of psychotropic substances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.
(2) Where any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance has been seized and forwarded to the officer - in - charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under S.53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall BAs.7841&7770/17 -:13:- prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-
section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of -
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or
(b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances and certifying such photographs as true; or
(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.
(3) Where an application is made under sub-
section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary BAs.7841&7770/17 -:14:- evidence in respect of such offence.
16.Section 52A deals with disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Sub Section (1) of Section 52A empowers the Central Government to specify certain narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances etc. which should soon after the seizure be disposed of by such officer in a manner specified by the Government. Sub Section (2) of Section 52A clearly lays down that where any contraband substance, i.e., narcotic drug, psychotropic substance, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the Officer-in-charge of the nearest Police Station or to the officer empowered under Section 53, the officer referred to in Sub Section (1) of Section 52A should prepare an inventory of such substance. The manner of preparation of the inventory has been provided. Thereafter, an application has to be made to the Magistrate for certifying the correctness of the inventory prepared by the officer. In the presence of the Magistrate, photographs of such drugs, substances, conveyances are to be taken and the Magistrate shall on its conclusion certify the correctness of the inventory BAs.7841&7770/17 -:15:- thus prepared. The Magistrate shall also permit drawing of representative samples of such drugs and shall certify the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. Sub Section (4) of Section 52A overrides the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and where any trial under the NDPS Act is going on the Presiding Officer is to treat the inventory, the photographs and list of samples as certified by the Magistrate to be primary evidence of such offence.
17.Immediately thereafter, by S.O. 381 (E) dated 29.5.1989, the Central Government in exercise of powers conferred by sub- section (1) of Sec. 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 specified certain Drugs as well as Psychotropic Substances which are to be disposed of soon after their seizure in the manner prescribed under Section 52A. Item No. (iv) in the first list for Narcotic Drugs include Ganja.
18.Clearly the intention behind enacting Section 52A was to ensure that the contraband substance which was seized by the detecting officer be prevented from being pilfered, or BAs.7841&7770/17 -:16:- substituted and to prevent its re-circulation. The drug can be disposed of under the supervision of a Magistrate and if the Magistrate follows the mandate of Section 52A, then the certificate issued by him is per se admissible in evidence and it is not necessary for the police or the investigating agency to produce the bulk seized material which is the case property before the Court. In other words, the contraband materials can be destroyed or disposed of in an appropriate manner at the pre-trial stage itself.
19.However, in the course of hearing Mohanlal (supra), the Apex Court noticed that the procedure prescribed for destruction of the contraband seized was not being followed in various States. This resulted in the accumulation of huge quantities of seized drugs and narcotics. The chances of pilferage and re- circulation was very high and that had to be prevented. In the above backdrop, orders were issued for collecting data from all the states in regard to seizure, storage, disposal and destruction of the seized contraband and judicial supervision of the same. The report revealed that no proper storage facilities are available in most of the States. Though Standing order 1 of BAs.7841&7770/17 -:17:- 1989, very early in point of time, recognized the need for providing adequate and effective storage facilities by the States and the Central Government agencies, the failure on the part of the Central Government and the State Government to provide for such storage had defeated and negated the very purpose underlying the said notification and the provisions made therein. Hazardous and lethal substances with great potential to harm those who use the same were found to have been replaced, pilfered, stolen, siphoned off on account of poor supervision and control or invigilation over such storage facilities. Reference was made by the Apex Court to a notification dated 16.1.2015, which in supersession of the earlier notification dated 10.5.2007, stipulated that all drugs and psychotropic substances have to be disposed off but also identified the officers who are to initiate action for disposal and the procedure to be followed for such disposal. Taking note of all these aspects, general guidelines were issued for disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and Conveyances. It would be profitable to extract the guidelines which are as follows:-
BAs.7841&7770/17 -:18:-
19....................................In order to avoid any confusion arising out of the continued presence of two notifications on the same subject we make it clear that disposal of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances shall be carried out in the following manner till such time the Government prescribes a different procedure for the same:
(1) Cases where the trial is concluded and proceedings in appeal / revision have all concluded finally:
In cases that stood finally concluded at the trial, appeal, revision and further appeals, if any, before 29th May, 1989 the continued storage of drugs and Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances is of no consequence not only because of the considerable lapse of time since the conclusion of the proceedings but also because the process of certification and disposal after verification and testing may be an idle formality. We say so because even if upon verification and further testing of the seized contraband in such already concluded cases it is found that the same is either replaced, stolen or pilferaged, it will be difficult if not impossible to fix the responsibility for such theft, replacement or pilferage at this distant point in time. That apart, the storage facility available with the States, in whatever satisfactory or unsatisfactory conditions the same exist, are reported to be over - flowing with seized BAs.7841&7770/17 -:19:- contraband goods. It would, therefore, be just and proper to direct that the Drugs Disposal Committees of the States and the Central agencies shall take stock of all such seized contrabands and take steps for their disposal without any further verification, testing or sampling whatsoever. The concerned heads of the Department shall personally supervise the process of destruction of drugs so identified for disposal. To the extent the seized Drugs and Narcotic Substances continue to choke the storage facilities and tempt the unscrupulous to indulge in pilferage and theft for sale or circulation in the market, the disposal of the stocks will reduce the hazards that go with their continued storage and availability in the market.
(2) Drugs that are seized after May, 1989 and where the trial and appeal and revision have also been finally disposed of:
In this category of cases while the seizure may have taken place after the introduction of S.52A in the Statute book the non - disposal of the drugs over a long period of time would also make it difficult to identify individuals who are responsible for pilferage, theft, replacement or such other mischief in connection with such seized contraband. The requirement of para 5.5 of standing order No. 1/89 for such drugs to be disposed of after getting the same tested will also be an exercise in futility and impractical at this distant point in time. Since the trials stand concluded and so also the proceedings in BAs.7841&7770/17 -:20:- appeal, Revision etc. insistence upon sending the sample from such drugs for testing before the same are disposed of will be a fruitless exercise which can be dispensed with having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the conditions prevalent in the maalkhanas and the so called godowns and storage facilities. The DDCs shall accordingly take stock of all such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances in relation to which the trial of the accused persons has finally concluded and the proceedings have attained finality at all levels in the judicial hierarchy. The DDCs shall then take steps to have such stock also destroyed under the direct supervision of the head of the Department concerned.
(3) Cases in which the proceedings are still pending before the Courts at the level of trial Court, appellate Court or before the Supreme Court:
In such cases the heads of the Department concerned shall ensure that appropriate applications are moved by the officers competent to do so under Notification dated 16th January, 2015 before the Drugs Disposal Committees concerned and steps for disposal of such Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and controlled Substances and Conveyances taken without any further loss of time.
20. To sum up we direct as under:
BAs.7841&7770/17 -:21:-
(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 S.53 of the Act.
The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under S.52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under sub-S.3 of S.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 BAs.7841&7770/17 -:22:- 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 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'.
These directions, needless to say, are to be complied with in its letter and spirit.
20.The contention of the learned counsel essentially is that the above guidelines have been violated and in that view of the matter the chances of securing their conviction is remote. I am afraid that I cannot agree with the said contention. In the instant case, immediately after seizure of the drugs, the seized items have been shifted to the safe vault at the Kottayam AR camp. The said articles are not lying in the Police Station or without supervision. However, in view of Mohanlal (supra), the investigating officers are to initiate immediate steps under section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985. However, the mere fact that there is some delay in filing the application will not enure BAs.7841&7770/17 -:23:- to the benefit of the petitioners. Furthermore, in paragraph No. 14 of Mohanlal (supra) it was observed as follows:
14...................................There is in our opinion no manner of doubt that the seizure of the contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of samples and certification as contemplated under the Act.
There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. While we see no room for prescribing or reading a time frame into the provision, we are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable period and without any undue delay or procrastination as is mandated by sub-
section (3) of Section 52A (supra). We hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in this country partly because of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in this country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions. (emphasis supplied ).
BAs.7841&7770/17 -:24:-
21.In that view of the matter, the mere fact that the Investigating officer has not moved the learned Magistrate under section 52A will not in any way affect the case of the prosecution in the instant case. The very purpose of Section 52A is to ensure that the contraband substance is disposed of under the supervision of a Magistrate and if the Magistrate follows the mandate under Section 52A, then the certificate issued by him is per se admissible in evidence and it is not necessary for the police or the investigating agency to produce the bulk seized material which is the case property before the court. In case Section 52A is not complied with and the seized material is not destroyed, then it is the duty of the prosecution to produce the same before the trial court during the stage of trial. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.
22.Before parting, the officers of the Police, Excise, Narcotic, Custom, Revenue, Intelligence or any class of such officers with the powers of an Officer-in-charge of a Police Station for the investigation of offences under the Act shall take note of BAs.7841&7770/17 -:25:- the directions issued by the Apex Court in Mohanlal (supra) and take immediate steps to comply with the directions issued. Copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the State Police Chief, Excise Commissioner and also to the State Level Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Disposal Committee constituted in the Police as well as Excise Department for issuance of appropriate directions and compliance.
Sd/-
Raja Vijayaraghavan V., Judge krj.13/12 //True copy// P.A. To Judge