Honble THOMAS, J.–Leave granted.

(2). Appellant had a diplomatic outfit earlier (an honorary officer in the Consulate of Liberia at Moambique) of which he was subsequently stripped. He is said to be an Indian citizen as he holds a passport issued from India. He is now facing a charge under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substan- ces Act (for short "the NDPS Act") before a Special Court Chennai. He moved the trial court for a discharge under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but in vain. He then moved the High Court of Madras for gushing the said order of the Special Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed his petition as per the impugned order.

(3). On 21.4.1994, the Royal Police of the Kingdom of Swaziland (situate adjacent to South Africa and Mozambique) intercepted a container truck carrying nearly 2_+_ million tablets of "Mandrax". They were packed in plastic packets of 1000 tablets each and cantoned in slabs consisting of 9 packets each. The contraband was concealed in packets of electric globes. Mandrax is a High potency nar- cotic substance, the chemical name of which is "Methaqualone". As the catch was of a significant quantity of forbidden substance, messages were sent to various Narcotic Control Bureau. It was eventually discovered that the said stock was despatched from the port of Chennai in India in the name of M/s. K.J. Exports, 36 Seventh Street, Shastri Nagar, Chennai-20 and the destination was shown as a com- pany in South Africa by name M/s. Dynamic Electronics Ltd., Annfrere (South Africa). After the investigation, a complaint was filed against four persons (1. Arib K. Patel, 2. Y.V. Nagraj, 3, G.N. Venugopal, 4, M. Arumugam) under different offences of the NDPS Act. Subsequently the investigating agency received some more information about the aforesaid Mandrax and the connection of the appellant therewith. They obtained permission from the Special Court to conduct further investigation into the matter under Section 173(8) of the Code. Such investigation revealed to the investigating officer that appellant was one of the key persons who conspired with the other four accused already charge-sheeted. Subsequently appellant was also arraigned with them for the offence under Sec. 29 of the NDPS Act.

(4). In support of the plea for pre-charge exoneration appellant pleaded before the High Court, inter alia, that no sanction has been obtained under Section 188 of the Code. That plea was repelled by the High Court and learned counsel did not, according to us rightly, raise that plea in this Court during arguments.

(5). Two documents pressed into service by the appellant before the High Court and in this Court are : (1) A letter addressed by the Mozambique Police in August, 1966. (2) A fax message sent by South African Police Service on 3.4.1997 stating that no material has been thus far collected to connect the appellant with the contraband consignment.

(6). The High Court did not accept any of those documents to sustain the plea of the appellant. We too do not find any force in the contention based on those two communications, for, they revealed only what the police then felt on the materials they could unearth till then. Such a view expressed by the police in those countries cannot foreclose the investigating force in India from arriving at the right conclusion, nor even the police authorities of those countries themselves from taking a different view subsequently.

(7). If the allegations are correct, there is an undeniable position that a serious offence under Section 23 of the NDPS Act had been committed in respect of the aforesaid contraband articles. It is for the prosecution to establish the persons who have committed the offence. Four persons who were already charge- sheeted are said to be those engaged at he exporting end. There must have been human persons at the importing stage and it is for the prosecution to establish who they were. Investigation revealed the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document