IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that prima facie evidence is necessary for proceeding with drug-related prosecutions, and confessions made to certain officers are inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.) :

1. The criminal case has been initiated against the present petitioner, that is, NDPS Case No. 16 of 2014 dated February 4, 2014, under Section 21 read with Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The corresponding Case No. is 01/NDPS/CL/CUS/COBPU/13-14 dated February 4, 2014.

2. The petitioner has filed the present revision under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the said proceeding.

3. Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 provides for punishment for contravention of the statutory provisions in relation to manufactured drugs and preparations. Section 22 thereof, has dealt with punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substance and section 29 of the said Act is for punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy with relation to an offence under the said Act.

4. Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 has provided that any manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, inter-state imports and exports or uses of any manufactured drug or any preparation containing the manufactured drug, in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or order made or conditions of license granted thereunder, shall be punishable with that as prescribed.

5. Similarly, manufacture, possession, sale, purchase, transportation, inter-state imports and exports or uses of any psychotropic substance, in contravention of the provisions of the Act or Rules or order made or conditions of license granted thereunder, shall be punishable as per the provisions of section 22 of the said Act.

6. Section 29 thereof is to provide that an abettor or a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable under the Act (Chapter), is liable for punishment as provided for that offence itself, irrespective of the fact whether such offence has been or not committed in consequence of such abetment or in pursuance of such criminal conspiracy. The rigours of the provision has further depicted that it has been provided that, an act of abetment or criminal conspiracy under the said Act shall be punishable, notwithstanding anything contained in section 116 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Mr. Mukherjee, learned Senior Counsel, appears for the petitioner. The following grounds have been made out by him, in this case.

8. Firstly, that the petitioner does not fall within the stipulated six categories of persons who can be implicated for an offence under section 21 or 22 of the said Act. That is, no material is available to find the petitioner’s role in commission of the alleged offence, either as a manufacturer, or as a possessor, seller, purchaser, transporter, importer or exporter of the contraband recovered. On the contrary, the petitioner is the owner of drug license and also owns a medicine shop at Indore. That, no material could be collected to establish direct or indirect involvement of the petitioner with the supply or transportation of the alleged contraband. That, the foundational facts on which the prosecution has tried to rest its case against the petitioner, would not be eligible for acceptance, being de hors the law.

9. Next, is that the petitioner’s performance as an abettor or conspirator under the said Act, for commission of an offence thereunder, has also not come on record, by dint of any sufficient material. That, in order to book a person under Section 29 of the NDPS Act, there has to be prior meeting of minds to do an illegal act, as contemplated in the statute. That, in the petitioner’s case, there is no such material available. Therefore, in absence of even any prima facie material as to the petitioner’s involvement in an alleged offence under section 29 of the said Act, any prosecution against him under the said provision of law, would be an abuse of the process. Also that, there is no evidence of the petitioner either having supplied the contraband or possessed the same. The alleged seizure of the same is neither from the possession of the petitioner nor fr