IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that violations of mandatory procedures under the NDPS Act, particularly Sections 50 and 52A, can invalidate criminal proceedings against accused individuals.

ORDER :

The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.8250 of 2021 pending before the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru arising out of crime No.227 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Section 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent is the complainant, a police officer who was on probation at the relevant point in time and had not yet been confirmed in service. A complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners. The gist of the complaint is that the complainant receives information through a credible informant that few persons are consuming ganja near Krupanidhi College within the jurisdiction of Varthur Police Station. The complainant is said to have informed the higher officials and is said to have caught the petitioners consuming ganja by exchanging chimneys. Therefore, a complaint comes to be registered for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Act. As necessary in law, blood samples of these petitioners were drawn, as the fulcrum of the complaint was consumption of ganja. It is opined by the Forensic Science Laboratory (‘FSL’) on testing of blood sample that the blood did not contain any contraband substance – ganja. After receipt of FSL report, the 2nd respondent files the charge sheet against these petitioners for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Act. Filing of the charge sheet, cognizance being taken and issuance of summons to these petitioners is what has driven them to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri V. Shashi Kiran, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the offence that is laid against the petitioners is under Section 27 of the Act. It deals with consumption of ganja for which blood samples were taken. The FSL report clearly indicates that there was no ganja found in the blood that was sent for examination. Notwithstanding the said report of FSL, the Police file the charge sheet that blood sample did contain ganja and its confirmation by the report of FSL. He would submit that the petitioners are deliberately framed in the case at hand, only to harass and due to such framing, the petitioners have lost several opportunities of employment and is now getting employment offers from USA but unable to travel because of pendency of narcotic case.

5. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would accept the fact of FSL report and the charge sheet filed by the respondent/Police being contradictory to each other. But, he would add that panchanama reveals that the petitioners were found in possession of 15 grams of ganja. He would further admit that though 15 grams of ganja was a small quantity found, it was not sent to FSL as is required in law. He would contend that it was a clear case of offence under Section 20 of the Act, that is not even laid against the petitioners, what is laid is consumption. Nonetheless, he would seek dismissal of the petition.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners would join issue to contend that panchanama is drawn deliberately and the contraband is not seized in terms of Section 50 of the Act which ought to have been done before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would admit that there has been violation of Section 50 of the Act even in the case at hand.

7. Owing to the deliberate act in filing of the charge sheet, the then Station House Officer was summoned and the Station House Officer accepts that there has been a mistake on the part of the Police in filing the charge sheet contrary to the report of FSL.

8. I have given