to the judicial custody in this case. He further submitted that in this case, there are foundational and fundamental defects. Though the mahazar is said to have been drawn at Sulurpet, Andhra Pradesh, the contraband was seized at T.Nagar, Chennai. Hence, there is vital contradiction in drawing of mahazar and seizure of materials. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in evidence and it can be considered to be a statement of recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. In this case, even before the petitioner's statement, the contraband was recovered. Hence, there is no admissible statement against the petitioner and there is no material. He further submitted that as per Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the officials of the Revenue Intelligence can exercise their power within the jurisdiction of the State. In this case, the seizure and drawing of mahazar had been taken place in the State of Andhar Pradesh, hence, the respondent has proceeded with the case without jurisdiction, which is in clear violation of the standing orders issued by the Central Government. He further submitted that Section 37(1)(b)(ii) obliterates the presumption of innocence, a cardinal principle of liberty under Article 21 of the
