The judgment established the balance between the rights of the agencies to investigate and the rights of the accused to challenge the complaint, emphasizing the statutory right of an accused to file a quash application and the need for maintaining secrecy in drug trafficking investigations.

ORDER :

Prayer: Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to direct the Principal Special Judge for EC/NDPS Cases at Chennai to grant the certified copies of 1. Mahazar dated 22.03.2018; 2. Section 67 statement of Balamurugan, Abdul Kareem and Mohamad Sadiq Batcha at the earliest on payment of cost to enable the first respondent to face the legal battle.

1. This petition has been filed to direct the Principal Special Judge for EC/NDPS Act Cases at Chennai to grant the certified copies of (a) the mahazar dated 22.03.2018 and (b) Section 67 statements of Balamurugan, Abdul Kareem and Mohamad Sadiq Batcha at the earliest, on payment of costs to enable the first respondent to face the legal battle.

2. The petitioner, who is a third party, filed a copy application in C.A. No. 516 of 2018 in R.R. No. 5 of 2018 before the Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, for the issuance of a certified copy of the aforesaid documents in NCB F. No. 48/1/5/218-NCB/MDS, which has been rejected in part, by an order dated 26.06.2018, aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Heard Mr. Vijayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. This Court called for the original records from the trial Court and perused the same.

5. To appreciate the contentions of Mr. Vijayakumar, it may be necessary to briefly state the facts obtaining in this case.

6. On receipt of information, the Officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau (for short “the NCB”) seized 14.650 kgs. of white powder believed to be ketamine from the possession of one Balamurugan and Abdul Kareem near Rohini Theatre, Koyambedu, Chennai on 22.03.2018. The contraband was seized under the cover of mahazar and thereafter, the statements of the said Balamurugan and Abdul Kareem were recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short “the NDPS Act”). Thereafter, they were placed under arrest and were produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur and were remanded to judicial custody. After the initial period of remand, the accused were produced before the Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, Chennai, where the NCB submitted the case properties together with requisition to send the samples for chemical analysis:

(a) That being so, during the course of investigation, the involvement of one Mohammed Sadiq Batcha, the first respondent herein, came to light and therefore, the NCB issued a look out circular, pursuant to which, Mohammed Sadiq Batcha was intercepted at Anna International Airport, Chennai when he was attempting to go to Malaysia. On intimation from the Airport authorities, he was questioned by the NCB and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. He was also placed under arrest and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, who remanded him to custody on 27.04.2018. After the initial remand, now, he is being produced before the Principal Special Judge for NDPS Act Cases, for subsequent remand.

(b) Under such circumstances, his father-in-law, Jamal Mohammad, the petitioner herein, filed a copy application before the Principal Special Court for NDPS Act Cases seeking certified copies of mahazar, Section 67 statements of Balamurugan, Abdul Kareem and Mohammad Sadiq Batcha and retracted statements of the accused.

(c) Learned Special Judge, after hearing both sides, by the impugned order dated 26.06.2018, has directed issuance of certified copy of the retracted statement of the accused alone. The request for the other documents was dismissed. Challenging the said order, Jamal Mohammad is before this Court.

7. Mr. Vijayakumar, learned counsel submitted that unlike police investigation where an FIR is registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. in an investigation conducted by agencies like NCB, there is no procedure for registration of an FIR. Therefore, he submitted that only if those documents sought for by the petitioner are furnished, could the accused effectively defend his case and if necessary, file