ORDER :

Seeking the Court to enlarge the petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1 in Crime No.735 of 2022 of Shadnagar Police Station, Cyberabad, on bail, the present Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

2. Heard Sri M. Amarnath, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri T.V. Ramana Rao, learned Additional Public Prosecutor who is representing the respondent-State.

3. The matrix of the case, as could be perceived through the contents of the First Information Report, is that the Station House Officer, Shadnagar Police Station, who received credible information that one person is coming from Jadcherla side by a private vehicle carrying huge quantity of ganja and is proceeding towards Hyderabad through NH.44, made a GD entry to that effect and proceeded to Raikal Toll gate and apprehended the petitioner. In the presence of the mediators, Police seized 110 kgs of ganja which was present in four plastic bags from the Tata Hexa vehicle under a cover of panchanama. The seized material and the petitioner were produced before the Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Police Station immediately.

4. Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the procedure prescribed, the alleged seized contraband ought to have been produced before the Magistrate concerned immediately, but there is no material on record to show that such a thing happened. Learned counsel submits that he filed a copy application on 29.12.2022 before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar, for getting a certified copy of Inventory, but the same was returned with an endorsement that record is not available. Learned counsel further submits that a day earlier i.e., on 28.12.2022, he filed a copy application before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District for getting certified copy of the Inventory, but it was returned with an endorsement that the record would be available at the lower Court. Indeed, no such record was present at any of the Courts. Learned counsel thereby states that as the procedure prescribed is not followed, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

5. Opposing the submissions thus made, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contends that the procedure prescribed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”, for brevity) was well followed by the investigating agency. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that on seizure of the contraband, the same was produced before the Magistrate concerned along with a requisition to draw samples, issue certificate and thereafter to send the samples drawn to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis and accordingly, the samples were drawn and they were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor produced relevant record to that effect.

6. Section 52A of the NDPS Act, which was inserted by Act 2 of 1989, prescribes procedure for disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic Substances. As per Section 52A(2) of the NDPS Act, where the contraband was seized and was forwarded to the officer in-charge of the nearest Police Station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 thereof, the said officer shall prepare an inventory of the seized material with details mentioned in the said provision regarding the packing, the country of origin, etc., together with the relevant details as to the identity of the said seized material and thereafter, the said officer has to make an application to any Magistrate. The purpose of making an application to the Magistrate is three fold;

firstly, for certifying the genuineness of the inventory so prepared;

secondly, for taking the photographs of the seized material in the presence of Magistrate and for certifying such photographs to be true; and

lastly, for allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the cor