ORDER

K. T. Sankaran, J.—The petitioner is the accused in O.R. No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Calicut, for the offence under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘N.D.P.S. Act’). The petitioner seeks bail in this bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The prosecution case is the following. The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I.. Calicut, of specific information at 16.20 hours on 24.12.2010 that a person aged about 40 years, with slight limp while walking, would be present hear the main ticket counter of Calicut Railway Station at about 5 p.m. with 500 grams of heroin in his possession, for the purpose of carrying the same to Kuttipuram. The Intelligence Officer reduced the information in writing and transmitted the same to the Senior Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Regional Unit, Calicut. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proceeded to the spot. Two persons available there were requested to be the witnesses. Within a short time, the person with the given description arrived at the spot carrying a plastic bag. The Senior Intelligence Officer intercepted the person. On formal questioning, he revealed his name and identity. After complying with the procedural formalities, the officers of the D.R.I. examined the plastic bag in the possession of the petitioner. They found a brown coloured powder kept in the bag. The officers of D.R.I. felt that it was not convenient to conduct further detailed examination at the Railway station premises. Therefore, the petitioner was taken to the D.R.I. Regional Office situated at a distance of half a kilometre. The plastic bag was kept with the petitioner and the petitioner was also taken along with the D.R.I. officials. After reaching the D.R.I. Regional Office, the plastic cover was opened in the presence of witnesses, examined the contents in the bag, tested the contents with the help of field testing kit, weighed the substance and samples were taken.

2. The statement of the petitioner was taken under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. On his arrest, he was produced before Court and he was remanded to judicial custody.

3. Sri T.G. Rajendran, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the procedure adopted by the D.R.I. officers was contrary to law. The contraband was seized at the Railway Station premises and the officers were satisfied that the petitioner was in possession of heroin. However, the samples were taken only at the D.R.I. office. This procedure was illegal. The search and seizure were contrary to the provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Moreover, the officers of the D.R.I. did not take down in writing the information allegedly received by them. This is also violative of Section 42 of the N.D.P .S. Act. Sri Rajendran submitted that there is no chance for conviction in the case as there was violation of the mandatory conditions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act. If it is shown that the petitioner has every chance of being acquitted, that by itself is a sufficient ground to grant him bail. In such circumstances, it must be taken that the dual conditions of 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act are satisfied.

4. Sri Udayabhanu, the learned Special Prosecutor, submitted that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. The petitioner was intercepted at the busy Railway Station premises. It was not practicable to conduct the test, prepare the mahazar and make search and seizure at that place. Summons was served on the petitioner to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer at the D.R.I. Regional Office, Calicut. The petitioner agreed to accompany the officers in their vehicle to the D.R.I. office. Weighing, testing and sampling were done at the D.R.I .office. The petitioner was carrying the bag with him till he reached the D.R.I. office. In the voluntary statement given by the petitioner he had st