IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 7178 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI PRANAY NATARAJ AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O NATARAJ KIKKERI SRIKANTAIAH PERMANENTLY R/AT NO.32 BLOOM FIELD ECSTASY, TANDA VILLAGE HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-502 032 NO.16/PETITIONER.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. P P HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. AKSHAY KUMAR JAIN., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MANGALORE EAST POLICE STATION, 2. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE CITY CRIME BRANCH, MANGALORE CITY.

BOTH ARE REPRESENTED BY Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, COURT OF BANGALORE-560 001.

KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N, HCGP)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASHING ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN SPL.C.NO.5/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, MANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER The petitioner, accused No.16, who faces charges under Section 27(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is before this Court.

2. According to the prosecution's case, based on credible information, a raid was conducted with a search warrant from the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Mangaluru. During the raid, a plastic cover containing contraband ganja was discovered under a table. Upon questioning the apartment's inhabitants, the petitioner revealed his identity and allegedly confessed to procuring ganja from Vishaka Pattana tribes. He admitted to packaging and selling quantities of 50 and 100 grams to college students and the public for financial gain.

3. The prosecution further relies on the confession statement of accused No.1, who purportedly confessed to supplying ganja to other accused persons for consumption. Subsequently, these co-accused allegedly stated that the petitioner, accused No.16, also consumed ganja with them.

4. The Sub-Inspector of Police, CCB, Mangaluru, searched the petitioner-accused No.16's residence apartment, arrested him, and then took him to A J Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Mangaluru, for examination.

5. Furthermore, the prosecution contends that upon examination, it was found that the petitioner-accused No.16 had consumed ganja, thereby making him liable for offences under Section 27(B)(2) of the NDPS Act.

6. Mr. P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner-accused No.16, argues that the urine sample taken from him was obtained in violation of Section 16 of the NDPS Act, 1984, as none of the prescribed procedures were followed. He further contends that the Inspector of Police failed to record in writing the information received from the co-accused, which is mandatory under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, any breach of mandatory provisions under Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act would vitiate the trial.

7. In support of his argument, he cites the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh - (1994) 3 SCC 299, Roy V.D. vs. State of Kerala - (2000) 8 SCC 590, and Najmunisha vs. State of Gujarat - 2024 SCC Online SC 520.

8. On the contrary, the learned High Court Government Pleader argues that there was substantial compliance with Section 42(1) of the NDPS Act, and therefore, the trial remains valid. She asserts that the confession statement of accused No.16, combined with medical findings, clearly establishes his involvement in the offence under Section 27(b) of the NDPS Act. She further argues that the issues raised by the senior counsel can only be addressed during the trial and should not be considered in this petition, urging for its dismissal.

9. The submissions of both parties have been duly considered.

10. Initially, the FIR was registered against accused No.1