1. Judgment & Order Heard Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Bibhal Nandi Majumdar assisted by Learned Counsel, Mr. Samrat Sarkar appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused in custody. Also heard Learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Biplabendu Roy appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1, Union of India as well as the I.O. i.e., the respondent No. 2, being the Officer of the Customs Department.

2. By way of filing this petition, the accused in custody has challenged the entire proceeding of Special NDPS Case No.79 of 2024, now pending before the Court of Learned Special Judge, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. By a separate application bearing IA No.2 of 2025, the accused in custody also prayed for staying the further proceeding of the said case pending before the Learned Trial Court. The accused-petitioner has also prayed for releasing him on bail by filing another application bearing IA No.1 of 2025.

3. Admittedly, the accused in custody is lodging in jail on and from 08.08.2025. The respondents, challenging the petition filed by the accused in custody has filed an objection in the form of an affidavit supplying copy to the other side.

4. At the time of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel first of all drawn the attention of this Court referring the provisions of Section 4 and Section 5 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that the Learned Special Court, while dealing with the matter in hand, is also guided by the aforesaid provisions of Cr.P.C., but failed to exercise its power in accordance with law. Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of this Court referring the definitions of “complaint” and “police report” as mentioned in Section 2(d) and Section 2(r) of Cr.P.C. and submitted that the actual meaning of “complaint” and „police report” has been duly explained in the aforesaid provisions.

               4.1. Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of this Court referring the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and submitted under which circumstances an F.I.R. can be filed. Further, Learned Senior Counsel referred the provision of Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. which says what would be the duties of the police after completion of investigation.

               4.2. Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of the court referring Section 190 of Cr.P.C. and submitted that under what circumstances, cognizance of offence can be taken by the Magistrate. In advancing his submissions, Learned Senior Counsel further contended that in Chapter XV, Section 200 of Cr.P.C. prescribes for “examination of complainant” and Section 202 of Cr.P.C. prescribes the role of a Magistrate as to under what circumstances a Magistrate can direct for an investigation.

               4.3. Now, referring the initial order dated 02.08.2023 passed in Criminal Misc.217 of 2023, Learned Senior Counsel drawn the attention of this court that there is no provision either in the Cr.P.C. or in the NDPS Act for drawing up any miscellaneous case under Section 43(a) of the NDPS Act. Learned Senior Counsel also referred the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act and submitted that the Learned Special Judge, without proper application of mind, drawn up the proceeding on 02.08.2023 by opening one Criminal Misc. Case No.217 of 2023, which was totally illegal. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the said proceeding continued for several dates till 23.04.2024 and thereafter, on 24.04.2024, the respondent No. 2 filed the final complaint. On the basis of the final complaint, cognizance of offence was taken by the Learned Special Judge against the accused in custody, which itself was illegal as there is no provision either in the Cr.P.C. or in the NDPS Act for submission of any final complaint. So, Learned Senior Counsel contended that the entire proceeding of the Learned Trial Court, on and from 02.08.2023 to 24.04.2024 suffers from illegality which needs to be set aside, as the same was passed without any legal basis, in violation of the provisions of Cr.P.C. as well as the NDPS Act.

               4.4. Thereafter, Learned Senior Counsel further drawn the attention of the court the subsequent order dated 03.05.2024, wherein Learned Special Judge issued summons upon the accused. In the said order, the accused was described as a “charge-sheeted accused”, but in fact, no charge-sheet was submitted in this case. It was further submitted that the case was thereafter listed on 08.08.2024. On 08.08.2024, another order was passed for complying with the previous order dated 03.05.2024, as the same was not complied with, and the matter was fixed on 27.11.2024 for SR/appearance. However, on 27.11.2024, Learned Special Judge passed an order for issuing notice upon the surety and also for issuing fresh summons. According to Learned Senior Counsel, since the accused was never arrested earlier, so the question of issuing notice to the surety does not arise. But surprisingly, the Learned Trial Judge has passed an order for issuing notice to the surety of the accused, which shows total non-application of mind.

               4.5. Thereafter, the case was posted on 12.03.2025 for SR/appearance. But on that day, Learned Special Judge observed that summons could not be served and as the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the accused as an absconder. So, the Learned Special Judge passed an order for issuing warrant of arrest against him.

               4.6. According to Learned Senior Counsel, in this case, a complaint was submitted by the respondent No.2 and on the basis of the said complaint, cognizance of offence was taken and summons was issued. However, from where the Learned Trial Court came to the observation that the charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner, when practically no charge sheet was submitted, shows total non-application of mind and carelessness on the part of Learned Trial Judge. It was further submitted that the entire orders passed by Learned Trial Court regarding issuing of summons and warrant of arrest against the accused was illegal and misconceived, which needs immediate interference of this court. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that on the basis of that warrant, the accused was arrested on 08.08.2025 and on and from that day, he is lodging in custody. So, referring the irregularities, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the accused needs to be released from the custody henceforth, or in the alternative, be released on bail in any condition at once.

               4.7. Learned Senior Counsel again submitted that the present accused had been appearing before the Court in another case in which he was on bail, therefore, the question of his absconsion never arose and he never absconded. Furthermore, referring the counter-affidavit submitted by the respondents, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in para No.9.13, it was specifically mentioned that on 22.10.2023, the accused appeared before the I.O. On that day, the I.O. could arrest him if he was involved in any sort of commission of offence under the NDPS Act, but surprisingly, with an ill motive and just to harass the accused, this false prosecution has been lodged against him by the respondent No.2. Accordingly, it was submitted that the manner in which the case was dealt was totally illegal, for which, the entire proceeding needs to be quashed.

               4.8. It was further submitted by Learned Senior Counsel that Section 43(a) of NDPS Act does not empower the Special Judge to draw up any proceeding. However, the Learned Special Judge by order dated 02.08.2023 drawn up a miscellaneous case without any legal basis and without being supported by any cogent ground.

5. On the other hand, Learned Standing Counsel, Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the respondents, first of all drawn the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 51 of NDPS Act and submitted that Section 51 of NDPS Act specifically prescribes to what extent the provisions of Cr.P.C. will be applied in a case under NDPS Act. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the provisions of Cr.P.C. shall apply in respect of all warrants issued, arrests, searches, and seizures. According to Learned Standing Counsel, the I.O. rightly submitted the petition before the Court under Section 43(a) of the NDPS Act as the said provision permits the I.O., in this case an officer of the Customs Department, to submit a report before the Court.

               5.1. Thereafter, Learned Standing Counsel further drawn the attention of the court referring Section 53 of the NDPS Act and submitted that the said provision empowers the present complainant, i.e., respondent No.2, to investigate all the offenses under the NDPS Act and the powers have been vested upon him to act like an Officer In-charge of a police station.

               5.2. Learned Standing Counsel further drawn the attention of this Court referring Section 36(C) and Section 36A(d) of the NDPS Act and submitted that Section 36A(d) empowers the Special Court to take cognizance of offence based upon a complaint made by Officers of the Central Government or a State Government. So, according to Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents there was no infirmity to that.

               5.3. Further, referring Section 67 of the NDPS Act, Learned Standing Counsel submitted that as alleged by Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-accused in custody that in pursuance of Section 67 of NDPS Act, initially, the accused was asked to appear before the I.O., but it was not necessary that on that relevant point of time, the I.O. ought to have caused arrest of the accused because until and unless the investigation is completed or there is sufficient materials on record against the accused, the scope is very limited for the investigating authority to arrest any person. Moreso, Section 67 of NDPS Act empowers the I.O. to investigate the case in accordance with law.

               5.4. Here, in the case at hand, initially during investigation, the I.O. called upon the accused in pursuance of the provisions of Section 67 of NDPS Act and on completion of investigation, he submitted complaint before the Court under Section 36A(d) of NDPS Act. So, according to Learned Standing Counsel there is no error apparent on the face of the record and considering the materials on record, there is no scope to quash the proceeding since during investigation sufficient materials revealed against him. Accordingly, the I.O. has rightly submitted the complaint against the accused of this case.

               5.5. Finally, in support of his contention, Learned Counsel drawn the attention of the Court referring one judgment dated 03.12.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Pawan Khera vs. State of U.P., wherein in para No.24, Hon'ble the Apex Court laid down the guidelines as to when Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be applied. The relevant portion of para No.24 reads as under:

               24.

               *** *** ***

               26. The proposition of law relating to Section 482 CrPC has been elaborately dealt with by this Court in Bhajan Lal case [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426]. The relevant paras 102 and 103 of which read thus : (SCC pp. 378-79) "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised:

               (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

               (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

               (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

               (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

               (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

               (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

               (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

               103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice."

               Referring the same, Learned Standing Counsel submitted that here in the case at hand, the petitioner could not make out any case for interference by this Court, and as such, the same is liable to be quashed henceforth, with costs.

6. Heard both the sides at length and perused the relevant papers annexed with the petition filed by the accused in custody.

7. Admittedly, on 24.04.2024, the respondent No.2, i.e. the I.O. submitted one complaint to the court of Learned Special Judge. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that on 18.07.2023 at about 0600 hours, one information was received by Shri Ram Krishna Barman, Superintendent of Customs Preventive Force, Singerbil, Customs Division, Agartala that four packets were kept in a vehicle bearing No. TR-01-AG-1904, on the roadside near the Gandhigram Bazar. The information was recorded in writing and accordingly, the same was placed before the superior officer in compliance with Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. Immediately, the Assistant Commissioner, Customs Division, Agartala directed the officers to take immediate action as per law. Accordingly, on 18.07.2023 at about 6:50 hours, the I.O., contacted two persons and introduced himself and informed them about the subject matter. Thereafter, the officers kept vigil on the consignment and waited for the people who might come for shifting of the said goods. The Seizing Officer requested the persons to remain present as witnesses to entire operation. According to his request, two persons agreed to be present there as witnesses. But, as none came to take delivery of the consignment of goods, the custom officer went near the consignment and took possession of the said 4(four) plastic sacks. The Custom Officer opened all the plastic sacks one by one and found 2(two) cartons in each plastic packets. Thereafter, the officer carefully inspected all the cartons and found that the cartons contain bottle of Eskuf Cough Syrup. On further examination of the bottle, it was found that the said Eskuf Syrup contained Codeine Phosphate and Chlopheniramine malcate. No document or marking on the bags were found to ascertain the owner of the goods. Thereafter, the complainant seized the said goods and prepared the seizure list and since the area was isolated, the officer decided to bring the goods and the vehicle bearing No.TR-01-AG-1904, to Singerbil Customs Preventive Force Customs Division, Agartala for necessary action. The recovered narcotic items valued about Rs 1,40,000/- and the vehicle used in transportation would be around Rs.3,00,000/-, which were seized under section 43(a) of NDPS Act at about 10.15 hours and the same was seized by preparing detailed panchanama in presence of witnesses. Further, after observing all formalities, an unclaimed case was registered under section 43(a) of NDPS Act. Accordingly, a report was submitted to the Learned Court of Special Judge and also a separate application was made before the Learned CJM, West Tripura, Agartala under section 52A(2) and (3) of the NDPS Act for drawing up of representative samples, for certifying the correctness of the inventory and for taking photographs of the seized goods in presence of the Magistrate.

8. Now, let us see what Section 43 of NDPS Act deals with. For the sake of convenience, let us mention hereinbelow the relevant provision of Section 43(a) of the NDPS Act:

               43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place. -- Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may

               (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V-A of this Act;”

               Section 43 discusses about power of seizure and arrest in a public place, and Section 43(a) discusses about seizure in any public place or in transit in respect of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance or controlled substance.

9. Here, in the case at hand, on perusal of the record of the Learned Trial Court, it appears to this Court that after conducting search, seizure of 800 bottles, 100 ml each of Eskuf Cough Syrup was made and accordingly, a departmental case bearing No.01/UCL/NDPS/SBL-CPF/2023-24 was initiated. Thereafter, a report was submitted to the Court of Learned Special Judge on 02.08.2023 in pursuance of seizure dated 18.07.2023. On the basis of that report, Learned Special Judge has drawn up one criminal misc case bearing No.217 of 2023 since as per Section 51 of NDPS Act, the provisions of Cr.P.C. also shall apply in respect of warrants, arrests, searches and seizure.

               Now, if we go through the provisions of Section 102(3) of Cr.P.C., in my considered opinion, the I.O. of this case has rightly reported the matter to Learned Special Judge and on the basis of said report under Section 43(a) of the NDPS Act, Learned Special Judge has rightly drawn up miscellaneous proceeding on the subject matter. To that extent, this Court does not find any irregularity in the proceeding drawn up by Learned Special Judge.

10. In course of hearing, Learned Senior Counsel referred different provisions of Cr.P.C. Now, for the sake of convenience, I would like to mention hereinbelow all the relevant provisions.

               Section 4 of Cr.P.C. reads as under:

               4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws.– (1)All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained.

               (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences.”

               Section 5 of Cr.P.C reads as under:

               5. Saving.–Nothing contained in this Code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special jurisdiction or power conferred, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force.”

               Further, Section 2(d) and 2(r) of Cr.P.C. reads thus:

               2(d) complaint” means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.

               2(r) police report” means a report forwarded by a police officer to a Magistrate under Sub-Section (2) of section 173;

               From the aforesaid provisions, it appears that the Legislature, while drafting the said provisions, although specifically stated that in offences under other law excepting IPC, the provisions of Cr.P.C. would be followed, but that shall be subject to any enactment, and Section 5 of Cr.P.C. has given a saving clause wherein it is provided that in spite of the provisions of Cr.P.C., this would not affect any special law. Since the NDPS Act is a special law enacted by the Parliament and Section 51 of the said Act specifically provides that the provisions of Cr.P.C. would also be applied in the matters of warrant, arrest, searches and seizure, so in the matter at hand, as submitted by Learned Senior Counsel, I do not find any satisfactory ground that the I.O. has committed any error in the matter of submission of report to the Court of Learned Special Judge under section 43(a) of NDPS Act.

11. Learned Senior Counsel at the time of hearing also referred the provisions of Sections 154, 173, 190, 200, 201 and 202 of Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the aforesaid provisions are mentioned hereinbelow:

               Section 154 deals with “Information in cognizable cases”.

               Section 173 deals with “Report of police officer on completion of investigation”.

               Section 190 deals with “Cognizance of offences by Magistrates”.

               Section 200 deals with “Examination of complainant”.

               Section 201 deals with “Procedure by Magistrate not competent to take cognizance of the case”.

               Section 202 deals with “Postponement of issue of process”.

               Now, let us mention hereinbelow the relevant provision of Section 51 of the NDPS Act which provides as under:

               51. Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to apply to warrants, arrests, searches and seizures.–The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply, in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, to all warrants issued and arrests, searches and seizures made under this Act.”

               Again, Section 57 of NDPS Act provides as under:

               57. Report of arrest and seizure.—

               Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.”

               From the aforesaid provisions, it appears that on 18.07.2023, the I.O. has caused seizure of the contraband items and immediately reported the matter to his superior authority. The seizure was made in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. and also in pursuance of Section 51 of the NDPS Act. So, I do not find any irregularity in respect of seizure of the contraband items.

12. Now, regarding cognizance of the matter, let us mention hereinbelow the relevant provision of Section 36 A(d) of NDPS Act, which provides:

               (d) a Special Court may, upon perusal of police report of the facts constituting an offence under this Act or upon complaint made by an officer of the Central Government or a State Government authorised in his behalf, take cognizance of that offence without the accused being committed to it for trial.”

               From the aforesaid provision, it appears that the Special Court, based upon the complaint, may take cognizance of offence without the accused being committed to it for trial. Here, the complaint was laid on 24.04.2024 by the respondent No.2. So, based upon the complaint submitted by the I.O. on that day, the Learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of offence punishable under Sections 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 25, 25A and 28 of the NDPS Act against the accused in custody, since during investigation involvement of the accused was revealed being the owner of the seized vehicle-cum-possessor of the contraband items.

13. Thus, on bare perusal of the order also, I do not find any irregularity that has been committed by the Learned Special Judge in taking cognizance of offence.

               Section 36 of the NDPS Act deals with the constitution of Special Courts. Since the order dated 24.04.2024 has been duly passed by a Special Judge constituted under Section 36 of the NDPS Act, so there appears no infirmity in the order passed by the Learned Special Judge in respect of taking cognizance of offence against the accused. Furthermore, by the order dated 24.04.2024, the miscellaneous case drawn up on 02.08.2023 in Criminal Misc No.217 of 2023 automatically merged with the main case which has been registered as Special NDPS case No.79 of 2024.

               So, the submissions made by Learned Senior Counsel that there was no scope to draw up any proceeding or to take cognizance of the offence cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The I.O. has exercised all the powers vested upon him under Section 53 of the NDPS Act.

14. I have also gone through the citation as referred by Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Union of India. In para No. 24, Hon‟ble the Apex Court has mentioned as to when the Court can exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Here, in the case at hand, the accused in custody could not place any materials before the Court at the time of hearing to interfere and to quash the proceeding by showing any patent illegalities. So, after hearing both the sides, I do not find any scope to set aside the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Learned Special Judge and also to quash the proceeding.

               However, on perusal of the copies of orders, it appears that some irregularities were caused by Learned Special Judge at the time of passing orders on 03.05.2024, 08.08.2024, 27.11.2024 and 12.03.2025. In this regard, a separate report shall be called for on the administrative side through the Registrar General, High Court of Tripura.

               A separate interim application has been filed for granting bail to the accused. Necessary order will be passed in the connected application.

15. In the result, the petition filed by the accused in custody is found to be bereft of merit. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. The accused shall appear before the Learned Trial Court as and when the date fixed. Further, from the record it appears that the case is at the stage of supplying of accused copy. So, all endeavour shall be made by Learned Trial Court to dispose of the case latest by 31st December, 2026.

               With this observation, this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

               Send down the record to the Learned Trial Court along with a copy of this judgment and order. Also a copy of this order be supplied to Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent along with the case diary.