The petitioners are before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in C.C. No.115/2017 (Crime

No.242/2011) registered for the offences punishable under

Sections 120(b), 420, 511 of the IPC on the file of the

Addl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submits that the issue in the lis stands covered by the

judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P. No.5440/2022,

disposed off on 25^th July 2022.

3.

The order in Crl.P. No.5440/2022 reads as

under:

“The petitioner is before this Court calling in

question the proceedings in C.C.No.115/2017, registered

- 3 -

for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and

511 of IPC. The petitioner is accused No.5.

This Court in Crl.P.No.3228/20218 filed by accused

Nos.1 and 6, has quashed the proceedings vide order

dated 30.11.2021. The order reads as follows:

"3. The brief facts as projected by the prosecution

are as follows:-

On 5-11-2011 the Police Inspector of Costal

Security Police Station, Malpe registers a complaint on

the allegation that on 4.11.2011 at about 8.15 p.m. he

received a message on phone through an informer that in

the parking place of Paradise Resort Hotel near Malpe

Beach an auto driver in a auto bearing registration

number KA 20 B 8411 was waiting to purchase brown

sugar from a particular party which fact he informed to

the Superintendent of Police, Udupi and obtained

permission to go to the spot. The complainant did go to

the spot at about 9.15 p.m. and claims to have watched

the spot from a distance and thereafter the vehicle was

stopped at about 10.15 p.m. and did nab three persons

out of seven and three others ran away from the spot. A

plastic carry bag was confiscated and he found that brown

sugar in possession of the 1^st petitioner weighing 1 kg.

total value of which was Rs.1,65,00,000/-. Based on the

aforesaid

offence

a

case

was registered against

petitioners and others for offences punishable under

Sections 8 and 20(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘the Act’ for short).

The petitioners were remanded to judicial custody of such

incident. Then the case was transferred to the CID of the

NDC Department at Bangalore to take up investigation

- 4 -

and

file

charge

sheet

against

the petitioners and

others for offences punishable under Sections 420, 511

and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. It is

these

proceedings that are called in question in the subject

criminal petition.

4.

The learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners submits that the petitioners are no way

involved in any of the offences charged by the

prosecution. Initially the case was registered for offences

punishable under Sections 8 and 20(B) of the Act on the

allegation that the petitioner No.1 was in possession of 1

kg of brown sugar. The samples of seized substance were

sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Bangalore for

chemical analysis. The report of the Forensic Science

Laboratory at Bangalore is to the effect that it did not

contain brown sugar but contained Sodium Hydroxide

which is neither a narcotic drug nor a psychotropic

substance. The case ought to have been dropped but the

Police have registered the case under Sections 420 and

120B of the IPC out of nowhere.

5.

On the other hand, the learned High Court

Government Pleader representing the respondent would

seek to justify the order on the ground that the

proceedings are at the stage of trial after the Police

having filed the charge sheet and this Court should not

interfere at this stage of the proceedings.

6.

I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

7.

The afore-narrated events of nabbing the

petitioners and confiscating carry bag is not in dispute.

- 5 -

The sample in the carry bag was sent to the Forensic

Science Laboratory for chemical examination which clearly

opined that the sample did not contain brown sugar but

contained Sodium Hydroxide. Not being sat