Officers authorized by the Central or State Government under the NDPS Act have the power to search, seize, and arrest without a warrant or authorization, and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the requirement for an FIR, do not apply to investigations conducted by such officers under the NDPS Act.

PANKAJ BHANDARI, J.

1. The petitioner has moved this Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of entire proceedings in relation to DRI File No. DRI/MZU/C/INTE-109/2016.

2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that no formal FIR was lodged in this case and without lodging of FIR, the DRI Officers were not competent to either arrest the petitioner or record the statement under Section 67 of the Act and seize the contraband or proceed in any manner. It is further contended that the powers of an investigating officer is similar to that of a police officer and the NDPS Act specifically makes a provision that the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply, meaning thereby that a formal FIR is required to be lodged before proceedings in the case.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention towards Section 36C of the NDPS Act, which is reproduced hereunder :-

"36C. Application of Code of proceedings before a Special Court.—Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (including the provisions as to bail and bonds) shall apply to the proceedings before a Special Court and for the purpose of the said provisions, the Special Court shall be deemed to be a Court of Session and the person conducting a prosecution before a Special Court, shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor."

4. It is also contended that no offence whatsoever is made out against the present petitioner, in his statement recorded under Section 67 also, there is no mention with regard to the commission of any offence under the NDPS Act. It is contended that the Methaqualone tablets (Mandrax tablets) were not recovered from the premises of the present petitioner who is a Chartered Accountant by profession and who is residing in Mumbai.

5. The other limb of argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the entire proceedings including taking on remand and then sending to judicial custody is de hors the Act and for that reason, the petitioner has prayed that the proceedings with relation to the DRI file as far as the petitioner is concerned be quashed. It is further contended that there is no admission with regard to commission of offence by the present petitioner and it is only on the statement of the co-accused that the Revenue Intelligence Officers are proceeding against the present petitioner.

6. Counsel for the Union of India has opposed the misc. petition. His main contention is that Section 53 of the NDPS Act authorizes the Central Government to invest any officer of the department of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence or any class of such officers with the powers of an office-in-charge of a police station for the investigation of the offences under this Act. It is contended that the powers which are vested in Station House Officer with relation to investigation of the offence, in view of Section 53, vest in the Revenue Intelligence Officer. It is further contended that sub-clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 36A provides that a Special Court may, upon perusal of police report or upon complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorized in this behalf, take cognizance of the offence.

7. It is contended that if the SHO is investigating the matter then a police report is required to be filed but if the investigation is being done by any other officer authorized by the Central or State Government, a complaint is required to be presented before the Special Court and the Special Court on receipt of such complaint is required to take cognizance of the offence, if offence is made out. It is contended that there is no requirement under the law for lodging an FIR.

8. Counsel for Union of India has placed reliance on Kishin S. Loungani v. Union of India in WP(Crl.) No. 333 of 2015 decided by Division Bench of Kerala High Court on 19-12-2016. The Kerala High Court was seized with a case under the Customs A