Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAMESH SINHA, NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, JJ.
Hemant Kumar Saini – Appellant
Versus
U.O.I. Thru. Ministry Of Home Affairs/Internal Security & Ors – Respondents
MISC. BENCH No. 11190, 11396 of 2021
Decided on : 30-07-2021
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Section 2 - N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - Section 80 - Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 - Rule (1) (2) - Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation - Manufactured Drug - A specific information provided to Narcotics Control Bureau authority by an informer that huge quantity of codiene based syrup have illegally been stored in shop/godown and Shop of Gyan Mondal Plaza @ Imam Mondal Plaza @ Aaj Press Building, by one Sunil Jaiswal - Whether there has been any contravention of provision of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 - Information was reduced in writing by authorities of Narcotics Control Bureau in NCB-I format and submitted to superior officer, i.e. Superintendent
Finding of the Court:
Court opinion of Court, a writ petition against such a kind of notice should not ordinarily be entertained - It is quite possible that if transaction is in accordance with law, authorities may be satisfied by enquiry and in event of adverse decision, it will certainly be opened to accused persons/petitioners to assail the same in appropriate proceedings under the law - Intention of law is always that investigating agency may be permitted to complete investigation - Therefore, it will not be justified that until investigation/enquiry is completed FIR in question be nipped into bud by quashing same at early stage of proceedings - A writ petition against such a kind of notice should not ordinarily be entertained. It is premature in nature because notice by itself does not give a rise of cause of action, as no adverse order has yet been passed. It is quite possible that if the transaction is in accordance with law, authorities may be satisfied by the enquiry and in the event of adverse decision, it will certainly be opened to accused persons/petitioners to assail same in appropriate proceedings under law. Undoubtedly in certain conditions, when there is a question of infringement of fundamental right or on point of lack of jurisdiction, such notice/summon can be challenged, but it is not in present case - Court is not inclined to quash notice/summons issued against petitioners in both writ petitions as well as the FIR as prayed in Writ Petition
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
(The judgment is pronounced in terms of Chapter VII Sub-rule (2) of Rule (1) of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 by Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)
1. Writ Petition (Misc. Bench) No.11190 of 2021 has been filed by the petitioner, Hemant Kumar Saini, one of the partners of the Firm M/s Preksha Trading Company, with the following main reliefs :-
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding and directing the opposite parties particularly opposite party no.2 to 4 not to arrest and harass the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice/summon issued under section 67 of NDPS Act dated 13.05.2021 by the N.C.B. Lucknow relating crime no.16/2021 registered at Police Station -Kotwali, District -Varanasi on 05.04.2021 under section 8/21/29 of N.D.P.S. Act during the pendency of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice."
2. After amendment in the prayer clause (Crl. Misc. Application No.76529/2021), following prayer has been added by learned counsel for the petitioner :-
3. Almost on the same grounds, another Writ Petition (Misc. Bench) No.11396 of 2021 has been filed by petitioner Yogita Nand Yadav, the another partner of the Firm M/s Preksha Trading Company, with the following main reliefs :-
(ii) It is further prayed that the petitioner is ready to appear again before investigating officer as already appeared on 12.04.2021 and this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the investigating officer to not arrest the petitioner after recording his statement if any and the investigating officer first consider about the question of jurisdiction for making search, seizure and investigation in the interest of justice.
(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding and directing the opposite parties particularly opposite party no.2 to 4 not to arrest and harass the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned notice/summon issued under section 67 of NDPS Act dated 13.05.2021 by the N.C.B. Lucknow relating crime no.16/2021 registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District -Varanasi on 05.04.2021 under section 8/21/29 of N.D.P.S. Act during the pendency of the present writ petition, in the interest of justice.
4. Since both the writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners on almost similar facts and grounds, the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
