Sri. Rushabh Shramik Mastrulal Vs State by Intelligance… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Rushabh Shramik Mastrulal Vs State by Intelligance… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Regular bail in Spl. C.C. No.2251/2024 (XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru): petitioner to execute a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, and comply with conditions - regular appearance before the Trial Court, no threatening/tampering with prosecution witnesses, no involvement in similar offences, and not leaving the Trial Court's jurisdiction without its permission until disposal of the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, Accused No.1 in Spl. C.C. No.2251/2024 (arising out of NCB F.No.48/1/13/2024/BZU for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 23(c), 27, 27A and 29 NDPS Act), is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023. +2 more

Court's answer

Considering the lacunas in the prosecution's case, the court held that the petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively; the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl. C.C. No.2251/2024 subject to stated conditions.

Ratio / Principle

Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 gives fifteen days from issuance of the qualitative test report for furnishing the quantitative report to the jurisdictional Sessions Court; in the present case the qualitative test report was issued on 31.07.2024 but the quantitative test report has not been obtained by the Investigation Officer till date, even though the final report has been filed before the Trial Court.

Key takeaways

Though the seized contraband (ganja gummies containing Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabidiol and Cannabinol per the FSL report) totally weighed 37.527 kgs, the entire contraband article cannot be considered ganja within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act.ratio¶55
Because the quantitative analysis test report was not obtained, it cannot be definitely said that the seized contraband article is of commercial quantity; considering the lacunas in the prosecution's case, the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act cannot be strictly made applicable against the petitioner, who has no other criminal antecedents.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.483 BNSS) - NDPS bail - granted. High Court of Karnataka (S Vishwajith Shetty J., cav order dated 21.03.2025) allowed CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025 by Rushabh Shramik Mastrulal, Accused No.1 and CEO of M/s. Rolling Filters Private Limited, in Spl. C.C. No.2251/2024 arising out of NCB F.No.48/1/13/2024/BZU (S.8(c) r/w Ss.23(c), 27, 27A, 29 NDPS Act), his trial-court bail application having been rejected on 22.01.2025. Seizure: three USA-addressed parcels intercepted on 27.05.2024 at the Fedex Express Cargo Terminal, Devanahalli, contained 37.527 kgs of 'ganja gummies'; petitioner arrested 30.05.2024, in custody nearly 10 months, no other criminal antecedents. Holdings: (i) the qualitative FSL report (31.07.2024) showed Delta-9 THC, Delta-8 THC, Cannabidiol and Cannabinol, so the entire 37.527 kgs cannot be deemed 'ganja' under S.2(iii)(b) NDPS Act; (ii) the Rule 14 NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 quantitative-analysis report was never obtained despite the final report being filed, hence commercial quantity was not established and the rigour of S.37(1)(b) NDPS Act could not be strictly applied (relying on Bharat Chaudhary vs. Union of India (2021) 20 SCC 50; Shekappa vs. DRI, Crl.P.No.12347/2023, 17.01.2024; Mujeeb Mehboob vs. State, 2012 SCC OnLine KAR 9043); (iii) S.38 NDPS Act non-compliance - the Company, alleged to have ordered, funded and stored the contraband, was not arraigned, casting doubt on prosecuting the CEO alone, undisputed by the respondent. Bail granted on Rs.1,00,000/- personal bond with two sureties, subject to attendance, non-tampering, no-similar-offence and travel-restriction conditions.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1429 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SRI RUSHABH SHRAMIK MASTRULAL S/O SHRAMIK MASTURLAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT #16/1, BANNERGATTA ROAD AREKERE, BILEKAHALLI BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE.

...PETITIONER

(BY SRI HASHMATH PASHA, SR. COUSEL FOR SMT. GEETHA R, ADV.)

AND:

Digitally signed by NANDINI D Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT BENGALURU, REP. BY SPL. PP HIGH COURT, BENGALURU.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV.)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 483 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY GRANTING BAIL TO THE PETITIONER SPL.C.NO.2251/2024 ARISING OUT OF NCB F No.48/1/13/2024/BZU REGISTERED BY NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, BENGALURU ZONAL UNIT, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8(C) R/W 23(C), 27, 27A, 29 OFF NDPS ACT.

THIS PETITION, HAVING BEEN RESERVED ON 17.03.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

CAV ORDER

Accused No.1 in Spl. C.C. No.2251/2024 pending before the Court of XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, arising out of NCB F.No.48/1/13/2024/BZU registered by NCB, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 23(c), 27, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, is before this Court under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023, seeking regular bail.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Based on credible information received at about 04.00 p.m. on 27.05.2024, Inspector of NCB, Bengaluru Zonal Unit had visited Fedex Express Cargo Terminal, KIAL Road, Devanahalli, Bengaluru and had intercepted three parcels, which were addressed to the petitioner sent from United States of America. The said three parcels were opened and it was found it contained 37.527 kgs of ganja gummies, which were seized under a mahazar and thereafter, a notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was issued to the petitioner and after recording his statement, he was arrested on 30.05.2024 and

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

subsequently, remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case is completed and complaint is now filed before the jurisdictional Court against petitioner and another for the aforesaid offences. Bail application filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court in Spl. C.C.No.2251/2024 was rejected on 22.01.2025. Therefore, he is before this Court.

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and he is in custody for the last nearly 10 months. FSL Report of the sample drugs would go to show that the drug contained 'Delta9 tetrahydrocannabinol, Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol,

Cannabidiol and Cannabinol. He submits that seized contraband article is not ganja within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act and for verifying the contents of the drug/substances in the seized contraband articles, quantitative test of the same is necessary. In the present case, though complaint is filed, till date, no quantitative test report is placed on record. Therefore, rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act cannot be made applicable to the petitioner.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary vs. Union of India - (2021) 20 SCC 50 , the judgments of this Court in the case of Mujeeb Mehboob vs. State - 2012 SCC OnLine KAR 9043 and in the case of Shekappa and Another vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence in Crl.P.No.12347/2023 disposed of on 17.01.2024.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, who has filed his statement of objections has opposed the petition. He submits that seized contraband article is of commercial quantity. Therefore, in view of rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, petitioner's prayer for bail is liable to be rejected. However, he does not dispute that quantitative analysis test report has not been obtained in the present case by the prosecution.

Petitioner has been arrested in the present case on 30.05.2024 and for the last nearly 10 months, he is in custody. Investigation of the case is already completed and complaint has been now filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. Undisputedly,

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

petitioner has no other criminal antecedents. According to the prosecution, seized contraband article allegedly ganja gummies totally weighed 37.527 kgs. The contraband article were found in 19 packets packed in three carton boxes. Therefore, 19 samples were collected by the Investigation Officer during compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the samples were forwarded to FSL for chemical examination. FSL Report would go to show that the following substances were found in the sample drug forwarded by the Investigation Officer -

' (i) Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, (ii) Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, (iii) Cannabidiol and (iv) Cannabinol.'

Therefore, to know the exact quantity of the drug/substance found in the seized contraband article, quantitative analysis test report becomes necessary. Rule 14 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, provides for the same. The said Rules reads as follows:-

"14. Expeditious Test.The chemical laboratory shall submit its report to the court of

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

Magistrate with a copy to the investigating officer within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the sample.

Provided that where quantitative analysis requires longer time, the results of the qualitative test shall be dispatched to the court of Magistrate with a copy to investigating officer within the said time limit on the original copy of the Test Memo and in the next fifteen days the result of quantitative test shall also be indicated on the duplicate Test Memo and sent to the court of Magistrate with a copy to the investigating officer."

From a reading of the aforesaid Rule, it is seen that 15 days time is given from the date of issuance of qualitative test report by the laboratory to furnish quantitative report which is required to be placed before the jurisdictional Sessions Court. In the present case, qualitative test report is issued on 31.07.2024 however till date, quantitative test report has not been obtained by the Investigation Officer. After completion of investigation, final report is already filed before the Trial Court.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary (supra) , In paragraph Nos.12 and 13 has observed as follows:-

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

"12. After carefully examining the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and having cursorily glanced at the records, we are of the opinion that the impugned order cancelling the bail granted in favour of Bharat Chaudhary (A-4), is not sustainable in view of the fact that the records sought to be relied upon by the prosecution show that one test report dated 6-12-2019, two test reports dated 17-12-2019 and one test report dated 21-12-2019 in respect of the sample pills/tablets drawn and sent for testing by the prosecuting agency conclude with a note appended by the Assistant Commercial Examiner at the foot of the reports stating that “quantitative analysis of the samples could not be carried out for want of facilities”.

13. In the absence of any clarity so far on the quantitative analysis of the samples, the prosecution cannot be heard to state at this preliminary stage that the petitioners have been found to be in possession of commercial quantity of psychotropic substances as contemplated under the NDPS Act. …"

This Court in the case of Shekappa (supra) in paragraph No.14 has observed as follows:-

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

"14. … In the absence of the report as provided under Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure) Rules, 2022, serious doubt arises with regard to the quantity of Psychotropic Substance contained in the tablets which were allegedly being exported in the name of the company of which the petitioners are the directors. The object behind obtaining a report under Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure) Rules, 2022 is to ensure fair play in the investigation. Punishment for offences under NDPS Act depends on the quantity of contraband article seized. Even if it is presumed that the investigating officer may have some difficulty in strictly complying the time frame provided under Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure) Rules, 2022, but atleast at the time of filing final report, compliance of this Rule is expected to be adhered to."

In the case of Mujeeb Mehboob (supra) since FSL Report does not clearly indicate about the contents of the seized contraband article, this Court has observed that "FSL Report throws no light as to the percentage of the aforesaid ingredients in the quantity seized and there is still doubt as to what was seized was actually charas and ganja" and had granted regular bail to accused where commercial quantity of contraband article was seized.

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

In the present case, though contraband article seized totally weighed 37.527 kgs, the entire contraband article cannot be considered as ganja within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. The seized contraband article is said to be ganja gummies which contains aforesaid four contents, which are said to be prohibited drug/substance.

In addition to the aforesaid, it is also noticed that there is no compliance of requirement of Section 38 of the NDPS Act in the present case. Section 38 of the NDPS Act, reads as follows:-

" 38. Offences by companies. —(1) Where an offence under Chapter IV has been committed by a company, every person, who, at the time the offence was committed was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company, shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence.

10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where any offence under Chapter IV has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(a) “company” means any body corporate and includes a firm or other association of individuals; and

(b) “director”, in relation to a firm, means a partner in the firm."

In the complaint which is filed after completing investigation, allegation is made that orders were placed by the petitioner for importing contraband article in the name of the Company known as M/s. Rolling Filters Private Limited of which petitioner is said to be the CEO. It is also alleged that the money was transferred from the account of the Company for the purpose of importing the contraband article and the Company has made huge profit for the financial years 2018-19 onwards till 2022-23. It is stated that there is a manifold

11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

increase in the profits of the Company, which is suspicious and it is also alleged that the premises of the Company was being used for the purpose of stocking the contraband article. In view of the aforesaid allegations, prima facie, it appears that Company is a necessary party to the proceedings and it becomes doubtful whether in the absence of the Company, petitioner, who is said to be the CEO of the Company alone can be prosecuted for the alleged offences. When the aforesaid aspect of the matter was pointed out to the learned counsel for the respondent, he has not disputed the same. Considering the aforesaid lacunas in the case of the prosecution, rigour under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act cannot be strictly made applicable as against the petitioner, who has no other criminal antecedents and it also cannot be definitely said that the seized contraband article is of commercial quantity. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively. Accordingly, the following order:-

The petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl. C.C. No.2251/2024 pending before the Court of XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11934 CRL.P No. 1429 of 2025

Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru, arising out of NCB F.No.48/1/13/2024/BZU registered by NCB, Bengaluru Zonal Unit, for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with Sections 23(c), 27, 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, subject to the following conditions:

a) Petitioner shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for the likesum, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court;

b) The petitioner shall appear regularly on all the dates of hearing before the Trial Court unless the Trial Court exempts his appearance for valid reasons;

c) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly threaten or tamper with the prosecution witnesses;

d) The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences in future;

e) The petitioner shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without permission of the said Court until the case registered against him is disposed off.

SD/(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

Issues for consideration

3 issues framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the petitioner, Accused No.1 in Spl. C.C. No.2251/2024 (arising out of NCB F.No.48/1/13/2024/BZU for offences under Section 8(c) read with Sections 23(c), 27, 27A and 29 NDPS Act), is entitled to regular bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.¶23
The court held
Considering the lacunas in the prosecution's case, the court held that the petitioner's prayer for grant of regular bail needs to be answered affirmatively; the petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail in Spl. C.C. No.2251/2024 subject to stated conditions.ratio¶69
2.
Whether, in the absence of the quantitative analysis test report mandated by Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022, the seized 37.527 kgs of ganja gummies can be held to be of commercial quantity attracting the rigour of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act, given that the entire seized weight cannot be considered ganja within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act.¶38
The court held
Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure, Storage, Sampling and Disposal) Rules, 2022 gives fifteen days from issuance of the qualitative test report for furnishing the quantitative report to the jurisdictional Sessions Court; in the present case the qualitative test report was issued on 31.07.2024 but the quantitative test report has not been obtained by the Investigation Officer till date, even though the final report has been filed before the Trial Court.ratio¶43
3.
Whether, given the allegations that the import orders were placed and paid for in the name of M/s. Rolling Filters Private Limited (petitioner being its CEO) and its premises used for stocking the contraband, the petitioner alone can be prosecuted for the alleged offences in the absence of the Company as an accused (non-compliance with Section 38 NDPS Act requirement).¶68
The court held
In view of the allegations implicating M/s. Rolling Filters Private Limited (orders placed and funded in its name, its premises used for stocking contraband), prima facie the Company is a necessary party to the proceedings; in its absence it is doubtful that the petitioner, said to be the Company's CEO, alone can be prosecuted for the alleged offences, and the learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute this when pointed out.ratio¶68

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Rejection of the petitioner's regular-bail application in Spl. C.C.No.2251/2024 by the Trial Court on 22.01.2025.¶27
Trial Court (Court of XXXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (NDPS), Bengaluru) · 22.01.2025
Prior proceeding
On credible information received at about 04.00 p.m. on 27.05.2024, Inspector of NCB, Bengaluru Zonal Unit visited Fedex Express Cargo Terminal, KIAL Road, Devanahalli, Bengaluru and intercepted three parcels addressed to the petitioner sent from the USA.¶25
Prior proceeding
The three opened parcels were found to contain 37.527 kgs of ganja gummies, which were seized under a mahazar.¶25
Prior proceeding
A notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was issued to the petitioner; his statement was recorded and he was arrested on 30.05.2024.¶25
Prior proceeding
Petitioner remanded to judicial custody; he remained in custody for nearly 10 months.¶33
Prior proceeding
Investigation completed; complaint/final report filed before the jurisdictional Court against the petitioner and another (Accused Nos.1 and 2).¶27
Prior proceeding
Contraband found in 19 packets packed in three carton boxes; 19 samples collected by the Investigation Officer during compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and forwarded to FSL for chemical examination.¶35
Prior proceeding
Qualitative FSL report found Delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol, Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabidiol and Cannabinol in the sample drugs.¶36
Prior proceeding
Complaint alleges import orders were placed by the petitioner in the name of M/s. Rolling Filters Private Limited (of which he is CEO), money transferred from the Company's account, suspicious manifold increase in Company profits (FY 2018-19 to 2022-23), and Company premises used for stocking contraband.¶65
Prior proceeding
Qualitative test report was issued on 31.07.2024; the quantitative test report required under Rule 14 of the NDPS (Seizure) Rules, 2022 was not obtained thereafter, even after filing of the final report.¶43