TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (5) TMI 225
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fences punishable under Sections 9(A), 25A, 43 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short) read with Sections 135, 104 of Customs Act, 1962. 2. Heard Shri Hashmath Pasha, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Smt M.C.Nagashree, learned Special Counsel for the respondent. 3. Shri Hashmath Pasha, made following submissions in support of this petition: (a) that the petitioner had obtained an Import Export Code ('IE code' for short) in the name of his Partnership Firm M/s.Overseas Express. The said firm was converted into a Private Limited Company in April 2016 and the accused No.2 was working as a Sales Executive under the petitioner; (b) that the newly formed Private Limited Company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d in the sample. However, the 'quantitative analysis' of the samples was not carried out for want of facilities. Clause 1.18 of the Standing Instruction No.1/88 issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau requires that the analysis of the drug is completed within 15 days from the date of receipt of the sample. It further requires that the results of 'quantitative test' should be sent to the officer from whom the samples were received within the next 15 days. Compliance with the Standing Instruction No.1/88 is a requirement of law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Bal Mukund and others reported in (2009)12 SCC 161. This Court in the case of Ejem Peter v. State of Karnataka (Crl.P.No.7314/2016) has also taken no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 30.3.2017 in Spl.C.C.No.51/2017 and petitioner is in custody since December 2, 2016. With the above submissions, Shri Hashmath Pasha, prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Smt. H.C. Nagashree, learned Standing Counsel for the Customs Department, has filed a detailed counter and vehemently opposed this petition. 5. She submitted that a combined reading of statements of the petitioner, his wife and the Directors of M/s.Overseas Express Consolidators Private Limited clearly shows that they are attempting to shift the entire blame on accused No.2. 6. She further submitted that the statement of Shivaram Pranesh, one of the Directors of M/s.Overseas Express shows that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in question is a psychotropic substance. She further submitted that the contraband is 24.76 Kgs of Ephedrine valued at Rs. 1,23,84,000/- and accordingly prayed for dismissal of this petition. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and perused material papers. 12. In substance, the case of the petitioner is that, his employee, Srinivas Anjaneya (accused No.2) has indulged in attempting to export the alleged contraband by using the IE code of the partnership firm of which the petitioner was a partner; and that the petitioner had no knowledge with regard to the contraband. 13. The Customs Authorities, after completion of investigation have lodged a complaint before the Special....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra. The relevant passage reads as follows:- "18.................... But there could be cases where the Investigating Officer instantaneously, for special reasons to be explained in writing, is not able to reduce the information into writing and send he said information to his superior officers but could do it later and preferable prior to recovery. Compliance of Section 42 is mandatory and there cannot be an escape from its strict compliance." (Emphasis supplied) 18. The list of documents annexed to the complaint are as per Annexure-II. The said list does not contain any document which can satisfy compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. Hence, there is non compliance of the said provision. 19. The report dated Jan....