The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the NDPS Act, 1985, particularly in relation to the presence of codeine phosphate in the contraband, and the court's reliance on relevant legal provisions and precedents to uphold the prosecution under the NDPS Act, 1985.

JUDGMENT

Rai Chattopadhyay, J. - Allegedly the petitioner in this revision is the king pin of the syndicate responsible for illicit traffic, diversion and illegal sale of prohibited phensedyl.

2. He has been implicated and shown arrested in connection with Jalangi Police Station Case No.1121 dated 29.11.2013 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). This revision case of the petitioner rests on the points inter alia that the proceedings against him is not to subsist for - the offending substance being phensedyl, lodging the case against him under the provision of the NDPS Act, 1985 has not been proper; that, the component thereof, i.e, codeine is not a contraband and prohibited drug as per provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985, that in this case provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 would not at all attract; that in case of non-applicability of the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 in this case - initiation of proceedings against the petitioner if has not been proper and that such a criminal proceedings against him should be quashed.

3. The criminal proceeding started by registering the FIR lodged by S.I, Jalangi Police Station, Jalangi, District - Murshidabad on 22nd December, 2013. In the FIR, it was, inter alia, alleged that the complainant got information on the same date at 17:15 hours and raided near Sirochar Bridge. Immediately he diariesed the matter and proceeded to work out the source information along with his team. There, he could apprehend two persons with total 600 bottles of liquid styled as phensedyl, each containing 100ml quantity of the article. The cash amount of Rs.38,000/- was also recovered from their custody.

4. Informant had stated that the name of the present petitioner appeared to be a group leader leading the entire operation of illicit transmission of 'phensedyl'. This fact has revealed from one of the accused persons apprehended, by interrogating him. It is found from the record that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was in custody in connection with some other police case. That is why, after obtaining permission from court, he was shown arrested in connection with the present case.

5. Upon registering the FIR on 22nd December, 2013 the police started investigation and the same ended into filing of charge sheet on 30th May, 2014 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Petitioner is aggrieved of the entire proceeding as well as filing of charge sheet against him in the said proceedings and has challenged the same by filing the present revision case. Petitioner's grounds in a nut-shell are that the offence as alleged against him is only unfounded and no ingredients thereof would be available against him; that the entire investigation as well as the finding of fact leading to submission of charge sheet against him is only baseless, in so far as no material has been recovered in this case from his custody; that the statement of the co-accused persons who is in police custody shall have no credibility or value to implicate the petitioner in the instant case; that the instant proceeding is a result of mala fide intention of the prosecution and the investigating agency to unnecessarily harass and commit him on the false allegation.

6. Mr. Sujash Ghosh Dastider, Ld. Advocate on behalf of the petitioner has submitted on one hand that no offending material has been recovered from the custody of his client. Implication of his client on the basis of the submission of the other co-accused person is only mala fide and prejudicial to his client's interest. He has also urged about the alleged inherent illegality in the entire process.

7. It has further been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the recovered contraband is 'phensedyl' which is not categorized under the NDPS Act, 1985, under which the petitioner has been booked. In such circumstances, according to him, the petitioner could never have been booked under the provisions of the said Act,