1. The petitioners herein are the accused Nos.3 and 4 in Crime No. 766 of 2017 of the Valappad Police Station. Having been found in illegal possession of commercial quantity of Ganja, they are in judicial custody in the aforesaid crime registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2. The alleged detection was on 27.5.2017 and it was by the Station House Officer, Valappad Police Station. Secret information was received by the detecting officer about the storage for the purpose of sale of contraband substance in a car bearing Reg. No. KL-24/E-1406 and a pick-up van bearing Reg.No.KL-09/M-2430 which were parked at Kothakulam Beach. After complying with all the formalities, the vehicles were intercepted and search was conducted. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were found inside the car and search of the vehicles resulted in the seizure of 25.790 kg of Ganja from the dickey of the car. Thereafter, the pick-up van in which the petitioners were travelling was searched. From a secret compartment in the cabin Platform, 42.730 kg of Ganja was seized. The contraband articles were sealed and labelled in accordance with the procedure prescribed and the accused were arrested. Investigation was conducted by the Circle Inspector of Police and on its completion, final report was laid on 31.7.2017 before the Court of Session, Thrissur.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. It is submitted by Sri.Rajit, the learned counsel, that the petitioners were arrested on 27.05.2017 and is now in judicial custody. According to the learned counsel, they are innocent of the allegations and in view of the fact that the final report has been laid before the jurisdictional court, no purpose will be served in keeping them in judicial custody. Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohanlal and Another [2016 (3) SCC 379] it was contended that the substratum of the prosecution case will be knocked off for noncompliance of Section 52A of the Act. According to the learned counsel, the officer concerned ought to have moved an application before the learned Magistrate under Section 52A (ii) for certification of the inventory prepared by him on the date of production of the contraband before the learned Magistrate or subsequent thereto. According to the learned counsel, the said provision being mandatory as held by the Apex Court, its non-compliance will render the prosecution bad. If that be the case, the petitioners are to be enlarged on bail.

5. Refuting the submissions of the learned counsel, Sri. Anas, the learned Public Prosecutor, submitted that since an enormous quantity of Ganja, which would statutorily fall under the classification of “commercial quantity” was seized from the possession of the petitioners, the parameters of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 will have to be satisfied. Unless there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused are not guilty of the offence and that they are not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioners cannot be released. Highlighting the deleterious effects and deadly impact of such substances, it is submitted that the legislature has included Section 32A and Section 37 in the Statute Book to deter such nefarious activities by traffickers such as the petitioners. The learned Public Prosecutor placed reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) v. Shri Shiv Shanker Kesari [(2007) 7 SCC 798] and Union of India v. Ram Samujh and Another [(1999) 9 SCC 429] to support his contentions. Countering the submissions of the learned counsel that Section 52A is mandatory, it is submitted that Section 52A has nothing to do with search and seizure. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the purpose of Section 52A is to ensure that the contraband substance is disposed of under the supervision of a Magistrate and if the Magistrate follows the mandate of