P.N. Prakash, J.

1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the entire records pertaining to the case in C.C.No.300 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Special Court for E.C. and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai and to quash the same.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 12.03.2005, around 16.30 hours, the Inspector of Police, Thuckalay and his team, on prior intelligence, visited Devi Medicals, Thuckalay, a pharmacy which was manned at that time by one Manoharan [A4]. When the police team made enquiries, it is said that Manoharan [A4] voluntarily came forward and handed over 46 ampoules of intoxicating injection without any label. The police seized the drug and arrested Manoharan and based on the information provided by him, they intercepted accused 2, 3 and 5 at Thottiyodu and recovered from each of them, large number of vials containing the same substance. To be precise, from A2 - 74 ampoules; A3 - 75 ampoules; and A5 - 30 ampoules. On further information provided by the accused, the police searched the house of A1 and recovered 850 ampoules of similar unlabelled intoxicating injection. The accused were arrested and the samples that were drawn from the contraband was sent to the Chemical Examiner for report and the report disclosed that the drug contained Buprenophine, a psychotropic substance, falling within SI. No.92 of the Schedule to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"]. The police had totally seized 1076 ampoules of the drug, each containing 2 ml. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.300 of 2009, which is now pending on the file of the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Act cases, Madurai, against the five accused for offences under Sections 22 read with 8(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, challenging which, A2 and A3 are before this Court, for quashing the prosecution.

3. Heard Mr. R. Anand, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. K. Anbarasan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the State.

4. At the outset, Mr. Anand submitted that from A2 and A3, only 75 and 74 ampoules, respectively, were seized and that even according to the prosecution, each vial contained only 2 ml. of the drug and if that is multiplied with the number of vials seized, the accused can be prosecuted only for possessing small quantity and not commercial quantity. In support of this method of calculation, learned counsel placed reliance on a recent judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court in Mohamad Ali Jinna v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543 = [CrI.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 dated 14.03.2017].

5. Per contra, the State has filed a counter, wherein, it is stated as follows in paragraph 7(b):

"b. I respectfully submit with respect to ground No: (b) that the charge sheet is filed under Section 22 r/w Section 8C of the Act. The contrabands recovered and seized from the accused persons is totally amounting to 1076 ampoules, each containing 2ml, i.e., 2152 ml as a whole, which is more than two litres."

6. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the rival submissions.

7. This Court carefully studied the order in Crl.R.C.No.1421 of 2016 relied upon by the learned counsel for the accused and is unable to persuade itself to agree with the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge for the reasons which will be set down herein below.

8. For the sake of convenience, Mohamad Ali Jinna v. The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai, will be referred to as M.A.Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543.

9. It may be relevant to briefly state the facts obtaining in M.A. Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543. In M.A. Jinna's case 2017 (1) L.W. (Crl.) 543, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized 28,358 tablets w