IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2554 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SRI. NISHAY MEHROTRA (AS PER CHARGESHEET)

@ NISCHAY MEHROTRA (AS PER AADHAR CARD)

S/O HARI MEHROTRA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 403, 4TH FLOOR, 3RD CROSS ROAD, SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT, CHANSANDRA, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI PERMANENT RESIDENT OF J KARISHETTY Location: H igh WARD NO. 13, Court of Karnataka HOUSING COLONY, INDRA PARK KE PASS, BHIND, MADHYA PRADESH - 477 001.

…PETITIONER (BY MS. SOFIYA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GOVINDAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI. ANANDKUMAR MOPAGAR POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, AGE MAJOR.

GOVINDAPURA POLICE STATION, GOVINDAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 045.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)

PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.54072/2026 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.35/2026 OF 1st RESPONDENT GOVINDAPURA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 27(b) OF NDPS ACT, 1985, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ACJM, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.54072/2026 registered for the offence punishable under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.

2. Heard Ms. Sofiya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue in the lis is answered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WP.No.31069/2024 disposed on

29.04.2025

4. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor on verification of the records would not dispute the position of law, as is laid down by this Court in the aforesaid judgment.

5. This Court in WP.No.31069/2024 has held as follows:

"18. In the case at hand, the test is conducted at Santosh Hospital. The Additional State Public Prosecutor has not produced any material to demonstrate as to why the urine samples were or are always sent to Santosh Hospital, a private laboratory and not to any Government laboratory. Prior to sending the sample for testing what is necessary is, authorisation of the Magistrate. No material is produced that the Magistrate had authorised the testing at a private laboratory. The State has also failed to produce any Government notification or Circular which recognizes Santosh Hospital as a Government recognized/authorised laboratory for any kind of testing. Therefore, the very report that is provided by the 2^nd respondent is seeped in suspicion, as one urine sample cannot project 5 broad band drugs or 5 psychotropic substances. 5 narcotic drugs in one urine sample cannot emerge, let alone psychotropic substances.

19. It is in public domain that narcotic drugs are derivatives of natural products. Psychotropic substances are chemical derivatives. The indication in the urine sample is 5 chemical substances and if a person would consume all five, his life would be at risk. It is, therefore, necessary after the conduct of test of urine samples, confirmatory tests become mandatory. The confirmatory tests are as afore-quoted. It is not that there is no consideration by any Court with regard to confirmatory tests. The Kerala High Court, in extensor, has considered the tests in the case of SUO MOTU v. STATE OF KERALA in 2021 SCC OnLine Ker. 665, and held as follows:

“…. …. ….

6. State Police Chief/Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Thiruvananthapuram, 3^rd respondent, has filed another statement dated 21.11.2019, wherein he has produced a chart showing the number of NDPS Crimes registered during the period 01.01.2016 to 30.09.2019 in each Police Districts in Ker