Madras High Court Quashes NDPS Proceedings After Authorities Fail To Test Contraband Even After 5 Years

The Madras High Court recently quashed FIR against a man booked under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 for possessing ganja after observing that there were serious lapses on the part of the investigating officer. 

Justice G Jayachandran observed that the seized contraband had not been tested for its content even after 5 years. Further, in spite of directions by the court, the Investigating Officer had not taken steps to number the final report. 

This attitude of the Investigating Officer who has registered the case, clearly indicates that the case is not registered based on true facts. It is for the Senior Official to look into this case and take appropriate action for registering the complaint and not proceeding further in accordance with law, the court observed.

Seeing that the offence is punishable to the extent of 1 year and there is failure to file the final report within a period of one year, the Cort was of the opinion that the case is hit by law of limitation as prescribed under Section 468 CrPC. 

In view of the fact that more than 1 year has lapsed after registering the complaint and the maximum punishment for possession of 0.650 grams of ganja is up to one year, the complaint suffers limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 

Background

The petitioner was arrested by the Inspector of Police based on a suo moto criminal complaint. A polythene bag carried by him was seized and after examination, it was found that the petitioner was carrying ganja leaves and flower buds weighing around 0.650 grams. 

When a previous application was filed to quash the FIR alleging that the case was false, the court was informed that the police had already completed investigation and had filed the final report. However the same was yet to be taken on file and numbered. The court had thus directed the respondent police to get the final report numbered within two weeks. Even though this direction was passed way back in 2018, the Petitioner contended that till date, the final report has not seen the light of day. It was submitted that the contraband seized had also not seen the light of day. Thus, the petitioner contended that the case was registered with malicious intent.

The court was satisfied that the samples were neither sent to lab for testing even though the Magistrate had ordered for the same, nor were they produced before the court under Form 95.

Thus, finding lapses in the investigation the court quash the proceedings.

Case Title: Murali v. The Inspector of Police 

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Mad) 428

Case No: Crl OP No. 4980 of 2019

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. B Raja

Counsel for Respondent: Mr N S Suganthan, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)