The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory compliance with statutory provisions for seizure, sampling, and production of contraband under Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, and the limitations of the court's jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.PC.

Ajit Borthakur, J.

Heard Mr. S Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. D Das, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, the petitioner, Smti. Rukovein Phuba has prayed for setting aside and quashing the impugned order, dated 30.01.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, Golaghat in Special (NDPS) Case No. 03/2017, whereby charge has been framed against the accused-petitioner under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), and also the entire proceeding in the aforesaid case.

3. The petitioner's case, in a nutshell, is that on 19.06.2017 at around 9:00 a.m., the Officer-in-charge of Golaghat P.S., Inspector Garga Narayan Bora, on receipt of a secret information to the effect that some persons were carrying suspected contraband 'ganja' by a night super bus from Dimapur to Tinsukia, he made a G.D. Entry being 790 and besides reporting the information to the higher authorities, detailed S.I. Jiten Hazarika to Rangajan for necessary action. Accordingly S.I. Jiten Chandra Hazarika, accompanied by Addl. S.P. and Deputy S.P. conducted search in the night buses near Rangajan Petrol Depot and recovered four packets containing 20 kgs of suspected 'ganja' from a night super bus bearing registration No. AS-01-DD-9395, carried by the petitioner and another. After observing necessary process of search, seizure, drawing of samples, arrest of the petitioner etc, S.I. Jiten Chandra Hazarika filed an F.I.R. before the Officer-in-charge of Golaghat Sadar P.S., whereupon Golaghat P.S. Case No. 391/2017 under Section 20(b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner and 3 (three) others.

4. The learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Golaghat, after hearing the parties and perusal of the materials on the case diary, framed charge under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act, vide the impugned order, dated 30.01.2018, against the petitioner and three others.

5. The petitioner has, inter alia, contended that on perusal of the charge-sheet along with the documents relied upon by the prosecution, does not prima facie, brings out a case against the petitioner and further there is clear violation of statutory and constitutional provisions. In this regard, the petitioner filed a petition before the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act), Golaghat for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.PC, but after hearing the learned counsel appearing for both the sides, rejected the petition.

6. Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the fact that there are serious flaws and violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act relating to seizure, sampling and production of the contraband before the learned Magistrate. Mr. Borgohain further submits that the Investigating Officer in clear violation of Section 52(A) of the NDPS Act, which provides the prescribed procedure to be followed in respect of seizure, sampling and production of the contraband before the learned Magistrate. Drawing attention to the mandate of Section 52(A) of the said Act, Mr. Borgohain submits that the Investigating Officer did not at all comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 52 (A)(2) of the said Act which is time and again emphasized by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Another, (2016) 3 SCC 379 and as such vitiated the entire proceeding. Mr. Borgohain, learned counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that in the light of the ratio laid in R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab, (1960) AIR SC 866 as quoted in Madhu Limaye vs. The State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551, the facts and circumstances of the instant case falls within the specified 3rd category of cases, in which the inherent jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Cr.PC can be successfully invoke