The inherent power under Section 482 is not unlimited and is to be exercised only in cases where no offense is disclosed upon a plain reading of the FIR.

O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.179 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-I, Peerumedu ('Trial Court' in short), which has arisen from Crime No.2 of 2024 registered by the Peerumed Excise Range Office, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act , 1985 ('NDPS Act', in short).

2. The prosecution case is that, on 06.01.2024 at around 14.00 hours, at the Elappara-Bonami road, on the way to Tyford Estate, the detecting officer and the party found the petitioner in a suspicious circumstance. On questioning the petitioner, he handed over 6 grams of dried ganja, which was in his possession in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act. Thus, the accused has committed the above offence.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, even if the allegations in Annexure A1 occurrence report and Annexure A2 complaint/final report are taken on their face value, the same will not attract the offence charged against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the crime out of the previous animosity of the detecting officer. A reading of the materials on record would substantiate that the detecting officer has filled in the blanks of the various forms, after getting signatures of the petitioner. This by itself substantiates that the entire proceedings leading to the crime are vitiated and smacked by mala fides. The 2^nd respondent ought to have informed regarding the petitioner's right to be searched by a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, as envisaged under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. It is without following the said mandate that the detecting officer has filed the final report. Going by the principles laid down in various decisions, the prosecution will not stand. Hence, even if the petitioner withstands the ordeal of trial, it will not lead to his conviction.

Therefore, Annexures A1 and A2 may be quashed.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the Crl.M.C. He submits that there no body search conducted on the petitioner. Therefore, the forms produced by the petitioner are totally irrelevant and immaterial. It is actually the petitioner who handed over the contraband articles to the detecting officer. Moreover, all the contentions that have been raised in the Crl.M.C. are matters to be considered by the Trial Court. It is well settled that this Court shall not conduct a mini trial and come to a conclusion that there were procedural irregularities committed by the prosecution. There is no merits or bona fides in the Crl.M.C. Also, the crime committed by the petitioner is serious in nature and against the society. Hence, the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

6. The crux of the prosecution allegation is that the detecting officer found the petitioner in suspicious circumstances and on apprehending him, he handed over 6 grams of dried ganja, which is in contravention of Section 20 (b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act.

7. The trump card of the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the forms appended to Annexure A2 final report are all printed formats and the detecting officer has merely filled in the blanks, after getting the petitioner's signature on the forms. The seizure as well as the entire proceedings leading to the filing of Annexure A2 final report are concocted and fabricated and, therefore, are unsustainable in law.

8. It is well-established that this Court has broad plenary powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , which corresponds to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sa