TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 307
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....maintained by the NCB; (d) Panchanama dated 1st May 2019 conducted at 22.00 hours is contrary to law; (e) 'Ketamine Hydrochloride' is not a drug under the NDPS Act but finds it's place in Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940; 3. Amplifying the grounds he made following submissions: * prosecution's case is, NCB received a source information at 15.00 hours on 30th April, 2019 that petitioner would cross 'golden arrow fitness club' near 'Coffey Mane', Rajarajeshwari Nagar in his black colour 'Toyota Corolla' Car bearing registration No.KA-03 MD-7250. He would carry and deliver huge quantity of 'Ketamine' to one or two receivers near Maurya Hotel, Ananda Rao Circle, Bengaluru. At around 19.15 hours the car crossed the point of surveillance near 'Golden Arrow Fitness Club'. The NCB team followed the car. The car stopped near Movie Land Theatre. Petitioner opened the boot of the car and handed over a red-coloured trolley luggage bag to the person waiting and immediately got into the car. The NCB officials stopped the car and asked petitioner to come out and co-operate. Instead, petitioner accelerated his car and sped away. The person who received the bag was apprehended and he identif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rnment of Uttar Pradesh and others (2014)2 SCC 1 (paragraphs No.93 to 95) and submitted that registration of FIR is necessary. 5. Thus in substance, Shri. Hasmath Pasha contended that there is serious infraction of procedure and the same must enure to detenue's benefit. 6. Petition was opposed by Shri. Madhukar Deshpande for NCB. He made available copies of authorization issued under Section 41(2) of the NDPS Act to search the premises, voluntary statements of petitioner and accused No.1, notice issued under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, driving licence in the name of 'Mahesh Uthappa' used by the petitioner and copy of arrest Memo dated 3rd May 2019 for perusal of this Court. 7. Shri. Deshpande submitted that information was received on 30th April 2019. Authorization was given by the competent authority on 1st May 2019. Panchanama was drawn on the same day. Petitioner's voluntary statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act was recorded on the following day namely 2nd May 2019. Petitioner was arrested on 3rd May 2019 and produced before the Special Court on 4th May 2019. 8. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 9. Admittedly, petitioner is alleged....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that the garage is not part of the building. The lease agreement prima facie shows that petitioner was in occupation of entire building. Therefore, this ground is also not tenable. 13. The third ground is that no FIR has been registered as on date. Shri. Deshpande, placing reliance on paragraphs No. 51 to 54 of Directorate of Enforcement Vs Deepak Mahajan and another (1994) 3 SCC 440 urged that production of arrestee before a competent Magistrate by an authorized Officer empowered to arrest, is sufficient for Magistrate to take such person into custody. It is held in Deepak Mahajan that learned Magistrate must be satisfied of three preliminary conditions. Firstly, the arresting officer is legally competent to arrest. Secondly, particulars of offence do exist and thirdly that provisions of special Act in regard to arrest of a person serve the purpose of Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 14. In the case on hand, arrest memo has been served upon the petitioner. He has been produced before the learned Trial Judge. A remand application containing violation of various provisions of the Act has been filed. Suffice to note that, this Court is not examining the requirem....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.110A of the Schedule. Salts and preparations find place at Sl. No.111. Hence, 'Ketamine Hydrochloride' will have to be treated as a preparation of Ketamine. 19. In State of Punjab Vs. Rakesh Kumar (2019) 2 SCC 466, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was considering a case in which Trial Court had convicted the accused for offence under NDPS Act. The High Court of Punjab, while considering an application for suspension of sentence, observed that manufactured drugs, be it containing narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, if manufactured by a manufacturer, must be tried, if violation is there under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and not under the NDPS Act, except those in loose form by way of powder, liquid, etc., and accordingly, granted suspension of sentence. Reversing High Court's order the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows: "7. At the outset it is essential to note the objectives of the two legislations before us i.e. the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the NDPS Act. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 was enacted to specifically prevent substandard drugs and to maintain high standards of medical treatment (Chimanlal Jagjivan Das Sheth V. State of M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r of Customs, New Delhi v. Ahmadalieva Nodira, (2004) 3 SCC 549. The latter of the two judgments after taking note of the earlier decision explained the context of section 37 as follows:(Ahmadalieva Nodira case, SCC p.552, paras 6-7) "6. As observed by this Court in Union of India v. Thamisharasi clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 imposes limitations on granting of bail in addition to those provided under the Code. The two limitations are: (1) an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the bail application, and (2) satisfaction of the court that 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. 7. The limitations on granting of bail come in only when the question of granting bail arises on merits. Apart from the grant of opportunity to the Public Prosecutor, the other twin conditions which really have relevance so far as the present accused-respondent is concerned, are: the satisfaction of the court that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bai....