Point of law : It is relevant to note that Section 4(1) of Cr.P.C. mandates that all offences under the Indian Penal Code shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions of the Cr.P.C. Now, it is significant to note that clause (2) of Section 4 of Cr.P.C. further mandates that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions i.e. of Cr.P.C, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigation, inquiry and trial etc.

ORDER :

This Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) is filed seeking quash of F.I.R in Crime No.324 of 2020 of Gangavaram Police Station, Chittoor District, registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the “NDPS Act”).

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

3. On the allegation that the petitioner herein, who is A-6, is responsible for illegal transportation of 600 gms of Ganja and as Ganja of 100 gms in a packet was found in the vehicle of the petitioner, who left the said vehicle and ran away from the scene of offence, after seeing the police who reached the scene of offence on receipt of reliable information regarding illegal transportation of Ganja, the aforesaid crime was registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per the table furnished in the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (viia) and (xxiiia) of Section 2 of the NDPS Act, dated 16.07.1996, at serial number 55, Ganja of 1000 gms is to be considered as small quantity. Therefore, he would submit that the facts of the case at best attract the offence punishable Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act as the total quantity of Ganja involved in this case is only small quantity and facts of the case do not attract the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act, which pertains to commercial quantity. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act relating to small quantity of Ganja is punishable with one year imprisonment or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both that the present case is amenable to Section 41A Cr.P.C and thereby prayed to order for issuance of notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C to the petitioner without touching the merits of the case. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his request in the Criminal Petition only to order notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since the F.I.R is registered for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and as the said offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than ten years and which may extend to twenty years and also liable for fine that the present case is not amenable to Section 41A Cr.P.C. He would also contend that Section 41A Cr.P.C cannot be applied to an offence punishable under the special enactment i.e. the NDPS Act. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of Vakamulla Chandrashekar Vs. Enforcement Directorate, 2017 SCC OnLine Del 12810, which was rendered under Prevention of Money Laundering Act (for short “PMLA”).

6. Considering the aforesaid rival contentions of both the parties and the facts of the case, it is to be first seen whether any offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act relating to illegal possession or transportation of commercial quantity of Ganja for which the F.I.R. was registered is made out or not.

7. The facts of the case clearly show that the total quantity of Ganja involved in this case is only 600 grams. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor also did not dispute the said fact. He fairly concedes that the total quantity of Ganja involved in this case is only 600 grams. Therefore, the facts of the case attract only an offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, as the said total quantity of Ganja is only a small quantity. Notification specifying small quantity and commercial quantity was issue