Case: Umesh Badrinarayan Bangur Vs. Sanjay A. Poojary, Narcotics Control Bureau & Others

A.M. Khanwilkar, J.By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner, who has been named as accused No.2 in NDPS Special Case No.192 of 2006, has prayed for quashing of the said proceedings. qua him, pending in the Court of Special Judge for NDPS Cases, Greater Mumbai.2. Only two contentions have been raised during the course of hearing. The first ground, on which the petitioner prayed for quashing of proceedings against him, is that, he has been named as accused No.2 only in his capacity as Professional Director of the Company, which, in turn, was found to have indulged in offence punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 8(c) and 21 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, Section 21(c) read with Sections 8(c) and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Section 23 read with Sections 8(c), 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The second argument is that, the vessel, in which the goods in question were transported, was intercepted by officers of Narcotics Control Bureau on high seas, which is outside the area of operation of the officers of NCB, and for that reason, the entire action by the officers of NCB under the provisions of the NDPS Act is vitiated. At best, it is the Customs officials who could have proceeded in the matter, being a case of importing of illegal goods or smuggling of goods.3. So far as the first argument is concerned, indeed, the description of the petitioner in some of the documents has been mentioned as Professional Director of the Company. If it were to be held that the prosecution case against the petitioner about his involvement in the offence is limited to, in his capacity, as Professional Director, the petitioner may be justified in contending that he cannot be prosecuted for the offence committed by the Company, in which he, incidentally, happens to be only a Professional Director, without any thing more or knowledge about the commission of offence by the Company.4. As the present petition is for quashing of prosecution against the petitioner, which is pending for trial, we would examine the grievance of the petitioner only in the context of the position emerging from the documents now presented by the prosecution. We would, therefore, straightaway refer to the allegations in the complaint, more particularly about the role of the petitioner before us.5. It is alleged that, on the basis of information, officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai, Customs, Nhava Sheva and Police, along with two independent panch witnesses and Omprakash Nogaja (accused No.1), Umesh B. Bangur (petitioner -accused No.2) and Vijay O. Nogaja, Directors of OPM International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, and Vijay Anant Thorve (accused No.3) Managing Director of Mayur Clearing Agency (Custom House Agent) presented themselves at Berth No.1, Gateway Terminal India, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai. The search of the container of Maersk Line bearing No.MSKU 636761, which was shipped on board vessel "Maersk Rotterdam" on 18th April, 2006 at Port Guayaquil, Ecuador, South America, and was bound for JNPT, India, was suspected to contain 200 Kgs. of Cocaine, a narcotic drug, in the name of consignee OPM International Pvt. Ltd. The said container was searched by the panchas, and it was revealed that it contained bags weighing about 2.870 Kgs., 6.662 Kgs., 6.554 Kgs., 6.396 Kgs. and 6.420 Kgs., respectively. The total gross weight of the bags marked 1(a) to 1(e) was 28.902 Kgs. On emptying contents of scotch taped packets recovered from packets marked 1(a) to 1(e) into a larger polythene bag, the same was weighed on a weighing machine and it was found to be about 24.800 Kgs. of Cocaine, which was placed into a carton and tied. The entire search and seizure process was done in the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2, who were the Directors of OPM International Pvt. Ltd. They put their signatures on the label affixed on carton marked I. Be that as it may, accused No.1, on being enquired, disclosed that five more containers were to arrive, besides eight containers. It is alleged that the officers then proceeded to carry out further search, and during the said search, recovered additional quantity of Cocaine, which also was seized in the presence of the accused, including the petitioner.6. Indeed, mere presence of the petitioner at the time of search and seizure or his putting his signature on the label affixed on carton in his capacity as Professional Director of the Company by itself may not be enough to proceed against him.7. Reverting to the allegations in the complaint specific to the role played by the concerned accused in the import or, especially, that each of them had knowledge about the import of contraband drugs, in paragraph 28 of the complaint, on the basis of the statement of accused No.1, it is stated that the consignor of the said eight containers, including Container No.MSKU 8636761, was Megha International Pte. Ltd., Singapore. It is stated that S.P. Biyani was the Marketing in-charge of Megha International Pte. Ltd., and they were regularly importing teak logs from Ecuador and other countries through the said Company. After giving details regarding the consignment, he has stated that earlier, the business of import was being done by Royal Global Pte. Ltd., but he wanted to maintain a distance with his brother, and, accordingly, as per the latters advice, he started importing through Megha International Pte. Ltd. He has stated that Madhu (wife of Manak Maheshwari, his brother) was having 25% shares in OPM International Pvt. Ltd., while Neelu (wife of S.P. Biyani) was having 49% shares in his company and the petitioner herein, Umesh Bangur, and Om Prakashs son, Vijay Nogaja, together held 1% shares in the said company. So far as the role played by the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that accused No.1, in his statement, has mentioned that the petitioner (Umesh Bangur, accused No.2) handled the legal and company matters.8. In paragraph 29 of the complaint, reference is made to the statement of Umesh Bangur (petitioner herein - accused No.2), who is Director of said OPM International Pvt. Ltd. His statement was recorded on 4th June, 2006 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. In his statement, he has admitted that he was the Director of the said OPM International Pvt. Ltd. He has then stated that the said company was mainly importing teak wood logs, metal scrap and pulses from various countries; that the purchases were done through Megha International Pte. Ltd., Singapore. Significantly, he confirmed all the other details given by Omprakash Nogaja (accused No.1) regarding the transactions of OPM International Pvt. Ltd. with the persons based abroad. He further added that he had met S.P. Biyani on one or two occasions. He also gave the physical description of S.P. Biyani, and identified Omprakash Nogaja (accused No.1) and his son, Vijay Nogaja, as well as Vijay A. Thorve (accused No.3).9. In paragraph 30 of the complaint, reference is made to statement of Vijay Omprakash Nogaja, Director of OPM International Pvt. Ltd. recorded on 4th June, 2006 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Even in this statement, it is mentioned that the petitioner (Umesh Bangur - accused No.2) was the Director of the said company, i.e., OPM International Pvt. Ltd. Even the statement of accused No.3 (Vijay Anant Thorve), Managing Director of Mayur Clearing Agency, recorded on 4th June, 2006 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act refers to the fact that the petitioner herein (Umesh Bangur - accused No.2) was the Director of the said company. A reference is made to other statements, which reinforces the position that the petitioner (accused No.2) was Director of OPM International Pvt. Ltd., who was responsible for importing the consignment containing contraband drugs.10. In paragraph 39 of the complaint, reference is made to the further statement of the petitioner dated 13th June, 2006, in which, he gave details regarding his family and other relatives and business shares held by them. He has admitted that he knew S.P. Biyani of Royal Global Exports Pte. Ltd. and Megha International Pte. Ltd. for the last four to five years, as OPM International Pvt. Ltd. was dealing with the said companies in connection with the import of timber consignments. He also admitted that he and S.P. Biyani had travelled together to the office of OPM International Pvt. Ltd. at Gandhidham. He, however, stated that he was a Professional Director of the Company, looking after the Income Tax, Sales Tax and Company Law matters on behalf of OPM International Pvt. Ltd. and also looking after the other affairs of the company in absence of Omprakash Nogaja. In this statement, he has also narrated all facts regarding the recovery and seizure of 200 Kgs. of Cocaine from Container No.MSKU 8636761 and the subsequent events that followed, corroborating the facts as stated by accused No.1 and confessed that 200 Kgs. of Cocaine was to be disposed of as per the instructions of S.P. Biyani of Megha International Pte. Ltd., Singapore.11. With reference to this statement of the petitioner, recorded under Section 67 of the Act, reveals the role of the petitioner, which is not simpliciter of a Professional Director, but also of taking active part in the affairs of the company in the absence of Omprakash Nogaja (accused No.1), who happened to be his brother-in-law.12. Paragraph 44 of the complaint refers to the further statement of the petitioner dated 26th June, 2006, wherein he has accepted that he knew that Anand Somani was a relative of S.P. Biyani and was presently based in Ecuador. He has further accepted that he met Anand Somani once in Mumbai at a marriage function four years ago. He has then given details regarding his financial transactions and identified S.N. Modani, brother of his brother-in-law, Rajesh Modani, an NRI, whose transactions were handled by him in India. He has stated that his brother-in-law, Rajendra Modani, was holding an NRO Account in Bharat Overseas Bank, Fort Branch, and that he had left blank signed cheques pertaining to this account with him, and, as per his (Rajendra Modanis) instructions, he used to deposit the same into the account of S.N. Modani and that of Subh Laxmi Syntex Ltd.13. In paragraph 54 of the complaint, it is stated that, in view of the information gathered during the course of the investigation, which was found to be contradictory to facts stated by the accused persons, including the petitioner (accused No.2), in their statements recorded earlier, NCB moved the Special Judge for NDPS Cases for Greater Mumbai, for seeking examination warrants of accused No.1 and petitioner (accused No.2). After the said prayer was accepted, accused No.1 and the petitioner (accused No.2) were brought from Arthur Road Prison on 11th October, 2006, and were examined with respect to the outcome of investigation carried out till that date. It is alleged that, when they were asked if they wished to give statements, they refused to give their statements both verbally and in writing.14. In paragraph 60 of the complaint, it is alleged that the investigations carried out till date in respect of procurement and despatch of 200 Kgs. of Cocaine under seizure indicate the probable involvement of the persons / establishments in conspiracy to procure and despatch the 200 Kgs. of Cocaine under seizure.15. In paragraph 62, it is alleged that it was found that accused No.3 was not authorised to operate as Custom House Agent. He was operating in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act. Even then, the company of accused Nos.1 and 2, OPM International Pvt. Ltd., with knowledge and mala fide intentions, paid the registered CHA, i.e., Girdhirlal Kalyanji & Co., Rs. 250/- and Rs.500/- per clearance of 20 feet and 40 feet, respectively, whereas accused Nos.1 and 2 herein were paying Rs.3500/- and Rs. 4500/- per clearance of 20 feet and 40 feet, respectively, during the relevant period.16. In paragraph 64 of the complaint, it is summed up that accused Nos.1 to 3, along with other known and unknown persons, during the period from May and June, 2006 at Singapore, Ecuador, Mumbai and at other places, conspired to commit and abetted the commission of offences under the NDPS Act, to acquire, purchase, possess, sell or transport, import and clear cocaine in contravention of the prohibitions imposed under the Act and have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 29 read with Sections 8(c) and 21 of the Act.17. In paragraph 65, it is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2, in pursuance of the said conspiracy or otherwise, imported the seized 200 Kgs. of cocaine, which was recovered from eight bags in Container No.MSKU 8636761 in contravention of the prohibitions imposed by Section 8(c) of the Act and have thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 23 read with Sections 8(c) and 21 of the Act.18. In paragraph 66, it is then alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2, in pursuance of the said conspiracy or otherwise acquired, purchased and transported the seized 200 Kgs. of cocaine, a narcotic drug, in contravention of the prohibitions of Section 8(c) of the Act, and committed an offence punishable under Section 21 read with Sections 8(c) and 29 of the Act.19. Besides the complaint, we may usefully refer to the statement of accused No.1 dated 13th June, 2006. In this statement he has stated that Umesh Bangur (petitioner - accused No.2) is the other Director of OPM International Pvt. Ltd. He (petitioner - accused No.2) is related to him (accused No.1), as his (petitioner - accused No.2) sister is married to his (accused No.1) brother, Manak Maheshwari. He (accused No.1) has further stated that accused No.2 (petitioner herein) is a Chartered Accountant and is handling the office legal and account matters. He (petitioner herein - accused No.2) is also empowered to issue cheques jointly with his (accused No.1s) son, Vijay Nogaja, who is the other Director of the company. He (accused No.1) has further stated that the petitioner herein (accused No.2) also assisted him in opening of account and also dealing with Megha International Pte. Ltd. in his (accused No.1) absence. Further, the petitioner herein (accused No.2) also knows S.P. Biyani of Megha International Pte. Ltd. He has further stated that, to his knowledge, the petitioner herein does not handle accounts of any other company / person.20. Our attention is also invited to the statement of the petitioner herein (accused No.2) dated 13th June, 2006. He has stated as follows:-"On being asked I state that, I am working as a Professional Director at OPM International Pvt. Ltd. I am working in this company for the last 4 to 5 years. My present remuneration is Rs.4 lakhs per annum, on retainership basis. As a Professional Director, I look after the Income Tax, Sales Tax, Company law matters, Court cases, liaising with Govt. Departments and other Departments. On being asked about my day today working, I state that when I am in Mumbai, I come to the office around 11-12 hrs in the morning. I have a separate cabin. Here I check the present status of all the legal issues pertaining to our Company. The company has around 70 civil as well as criminal cases pending in different courts, in Mumbai as well as outside Mumbai. I also look after the assessments of Income Tax, Sales Tax etc. I do not handle accounts on day to day basis. But I look after the finalization of accounts. I am authorized to issue cheques jointly with other Director, for conducting business of the Company. I assist Om Prakash Nogaja, CMD, to place the orders for importing timber, which we dispose off in the market on receiving the consignment, and execute the same. I prepare the documents for opening the L/C with our bankers namely, Punjab National Bank, on the basis of which import transaction is finalized. In the absence of Om Prakash Nogaja, I look after the entire business. On being further asked about my relation with Om Prakash Nogaja, I state that he is brother-in-law of my sister (Mrs.Madhu), who is based in Singapore." (emphasis supplied)Further, while explaining the documents recovered during the search from the residence of the petitioner, in the same statement he has stated as under :-"The document marked D-5 is a telephone diary page with name, address and telephone numbers. The first name is of S.P. Biyani, the same person, whom I earlier referred as the person through whom we import wooden logs. In this diary S.P. Biyanis Singapore residential address is written but his telephone number is not mentioned in the diary.""The document marked D-6 is HDFC Pay-in-slip dt. 07.03.2006 for depositing Rs.40 lakhs (Rs. Forty lakhs only) vide cheque no.076986 in the account of Subhlaxmi Syntex Ltd. Bhilwara, signed by Rajendra Modani. This cheque was issued from his NRE acount. On being asked, I state that Rajendra Modani is my brother-in-law. He is NRI and based in Bangkok. He has left blank signed cheques and as per his instructions said cheque was issued to M/s. Subhlaxmi Syntex Ltd. Bhilwara. I am not aware as to what reason the cheque was issued.""The document marked D-7 is HDFC Pay-in-slip dt. 14.03.2006 for depositing Rs.10 lakhs (Rs. Ten lakhs only) vide cheque no.076988 in the account of Subhlaxmi Syntex Ltd. Bhilwara, signed by Rajendra Modani. This cheque was issued as per Rajendra Modanis instructions to M/s. Subhlaxmi Syntex Ltd. Bhilwara. I am not aware as to what reason the cheque was issued.""The document marked D-9 is ICICI Pay-in-slip dt. 03.05.2006 for Rs.85 lakhs (Rs. Eighty Five lakhs only) deposited in the account of S.N. Modani. This amount was deposited through cheque given by Rajendra Modani from his NRE account. This payment is also a NRI gift from Rajendra Modani to S.N. Modani.""The document marked D-11 is one account payee cheque no.076991 dt. 14.03.06 in favour of Subhlaxmi Syntex from Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd., with signature of issuer and no amount written. This cheque was not issued as the same was treated as cancelled because of overwriting. The signature in this cheque is of Rajendra Modani.""The document marked D-12 is one the pass book of Punjab National Bank, Mumbai in my name for my account No.373100-0105073077. On being asked, I state I pay Income tax and file Income tax returns and the details of this passbook are reflected in my returns.""The document marked D-13 is a cheque book of Rajendra Modani A/c SB NRO-27 of Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd. containing six signed cheques (Sr.No.027235 to 027240) and ten blank unsigned cheques (027241 to 027250). This account is nonoperative since last several years.""As a token of seeing these documents marked D-1 to D-13, I put my dated signature on the same.""Now you have shown me a Invoice No.4000189 dt. 30.05.2003 issued by Jetchase Travels Pvt. Ltd., which features my name and S.P. Biyanis name as passengers. On being asked, I state that this for the travel done by both of us to Bhuj on 03.06.2003 by Jet Airways. As I have already stated, from Bhuj, we traveled to our Gandhidham office. As a token of seeing this invoice, I put my dated signature on the same.""Now you have showed me a letter dt. 12.06.2006, addressed to The Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai from Punjab National Bank, Mumbai with the enclosures of L.C. application, sale contract and the LC No.3731FLC20015/06. On being asked I state that the said enclosures belong to our company for our purchase of timber logs. I state that the present consignment of timber logs is also covered in this LC. As a token of seeing this letter and enclosure I put my dated signature on the same.""Now you have showed me another letter dt. 12.06.2006, addressed to The Superintendent, Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai from Punjab National Bank, Mumbai enclosing all the documents received by them along with the BL No.DSLSGYR0000773. The document is serially numbered. The Sr.No.1 to 5 belongs to the consignment of 8 containers of wooden logs imported by us through M/s. Megha International, out of which one container contained teak wood as well as 8 bags other than teak wood, contents of which on testing gave result of cocaine, a Narcotics Drug. As a token of seeing these document I put my dated signature on the letter and first 15 serially numbered pages.""Question 1: Do you admit recovery of 200 Kgs of Cocaine from Container No.MSKU 8636761 on 03.06.2006 at Maersk CFS Nhava ShevaAnswer: Yes.Question 2: The consignment containing logs was booked by your company executing sales contractAnswer: YesQuestion 3: Do you agree that as per the Panchanama and shipping documents the seals of the containers were intact and bearing same numberAnswer : Yes but it was bend.Question 4: Did you inform your bank or any other authority regarding recovery of cocaine from container No.MSKU8636761Answer: No.Question 5: Did you inform any of your supplier about recovery of cocaine on 03.06.2006 and requested for documentary clarificationAnswer : I have not informed.Question 6: Why you did not inform this incident to the Directors of M/s. Megha International Pte. Ltd., your supplierAnswer: In this regard, the CMD Shri Om Prakash Nogaja is in touch with S.P. Biyani of M/s. Megha Pte Ltd.Question 7: As offices of Royal Global Exports Pte Ltd. and Megha International Pte Ltd. are at adjacent premises and S.P.Biyani is Director in Royal Global Exports Pte Ltd. and Sales executive in M/s. Megha International Pte Ltd. he uses offices of Royal Global and discharge the duties on behalf of Megha International Pte Ltd.Answer : I know that Manak Maheshwari, my brother-in-law is a Director in Royal Global Exports Pte Ltd. and S.P. Biyani is working in the same company. I also know that S.P. Biyani is working with M/s. Megha International Pte Ltd. with whom we have business relations. Although I have not seen personally, however, as the offices of both these companies are situated in the same building, it is a possibility that S.P.Biyani could use both the offices.Question 8 : Did you file any legal claim on any company, any shipping line, any container line in respect of recovery of cocaine in container No.MSKU 8636761 booked by your CompanyAnswer: No.But we have taken advice from our Advocates and solicitors, M/s. A. Bharat & Co. situated at opposite Old Customs House, Mumbai, to initiate the necessary action against the responsible party.Question 9: In case of breach of contract by your Company or by M/s. Megha International Pte Ltd. where the claims are to be settled, in India or abroadAnswer : The claims have to be settled in Singapore. Question 10: As per the record an amount of Rs.27 crores was outstanding on 31.03.2005 to be paid to M/s. Megha International, Singapore. Now I am showing you a letter dt.12.06.2006 emailed by M/s. Megha International Pte Ltd. to your company wherein they have stated that they are only preparing documents and are not actual exporters, please clarify the exact position. Answer: I have seen and perused the letter dt. 12.06.2006 from M/s. Megha International Pte. Ltd. in token of which I have put my dated signature on the same. In this connection I have to reply that for us they are the suppliers".21. Again, in response to Questions No.13 and 14 asked by the officials of NCB, the petitioner has stated as follows :-"Question 13: What do you want to state in respect of recovery of 200 Kgs. of cocaine alongwith teak logs from container No.MSKU 8636761 which was examined at Maersk CFS, Nhava Sheva, in your presence and the cocaine was seized under the provisions of NDPS Act, 1985 under cover of Panchanama dt. _ .06.2006Answer: I want to state that the said consignment was booked by my Company. However, the consignment was procured and loaded by S.P.Biyani of M/s. Megha International Pte Ltd. and consignment was to be disposed off as per his instructions and he will be in better position to explain said recovery. But since the consignment was seized by your office, no instructions are received by M/s. S.P.Biyani.Question 14: Have you received any such consignment in the past from S.P.Biyani of M/s. Megha International Pte Ltd. or any one elseAnswer: No. This is the first time I have received a consignment of logs with cocaine in the said consignment. In the past all the consignment were of the teak logs."22. Considering the allegations in the complaint and the contents of the statements of the accused, which are placed before us, we are afraid, it is not possible to accede to the argument of the petitioner so as to quash the complaint pending against the petitioner (accused No.2). In the first place, it is not a case where no allegation is made against the petitioner in the said complaint. Whereas, the prosecution case suggests that the petitioner herein was part of criminal conspiracy. As aforesaid, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is also under Section 29 of the NDPS Act for abatement and criminal conspiracy. In that view of the matter, the argument of the petitioner that the criminal action against the petitioner cannot be proceeded, as he has been roped in merely because he is a Professional Director of the company, who indulged in the offence of importing the contraband narcotic drug does not hold good. Going by the abovenoted allegations, it is the prosecution case that the role played by the petitioner (accused No.2) was not limited to that of Professional Director, but his involvement is something more than that and being party to criminal conspiracy. The correctness of these allegations will have to be examined during the trial keeping in mind the defences of the petitioner, if any. Suffice it to observe that the first argument of the petitioner to invite this Court to quash the criminal complaint against the petitioner is devoid of merits.23. Turning to the second contention, the same proceeds on the premise that the vessel was intercepted by the officials of NCB, on the high sea with the help of Coast Guard before it entered the Mumbai waters, it necessarily follows that the said action is without authority of law. As a result, the entire action initiated by the officials of NCB is vitiated. This argument proceeds on the basis that the area of operation of the officials of NCB is limited, and is not extended, to Mumbai waters, much less high sea. Once again this argument will have to be answered on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint. For that, it may be useful to reproduce paragraphs 6 to 11 of the complaint, which read thus:-"6. On 01.06.2006, NCB requested the Chief Staff Officer (Operational), Commander, Coast Guard Region (West), Mumbai to provide assistance of Coast Guard vessel, which would enable the officers from NCB to board the vessel "SL VOYAGER" in mid-sea for preventing the transshipment of the suspect container MSKU 8636761 while it is in Indian water, prior to its arrival at JNPT.""7. In the light of the proposed interception of suspect container on 03.06.2006, the NCB requested the Navi Mumbai Police (Hqrs) to provide assistance of police vehicle alongwith police personnel at JNPT on 03.06.2006.""8. On 02.06.2006, the complainant along with Vipin Nair, and R.G. Gokhale, all intelligence Officers of NCB, Mumbai, boarded the Coast Guard Vessel, "CGS SANGRAM" and located the vessel SL VOYAGER when it entered the INDIAN waters and boarded the said vessel alongwith few coast guard staff on 03.06.2006. The Captain of the said vessel was served with instructions not to deal in any manner with the suspect container No.MSKU 8636761 and to disembark the suspect container and other seven containers under same Bill of Lading. Accordingly, the vessel SL VOYAGER was docked at berth No.1 of Gateway Terminal India at Nhava Sheva.""9. On the basis of the said information, officers of the Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai, Customs Nhaga Sheva and Police along with two independent panch witness and Omprakash D. Nogaja, Umesh B Bangur and Vijay O Nogaja, Directors of M/s OPM International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai & Vijay Anant Ghorve, MD of M/s Mayur Clearing Agency (Custom House Agent) presented at Berth No.1, Gateway Terminal India, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai at 14.00 hours on 03.06.2006. The complainant then informed the panch witness that, "a 40 ft container of Maersk Line bearing No.MSKU 8636761, which was shipped on board vessel "Maersk Rotterdam" on 18.4.2006 at Port Guayaquil, Ecuador, South America and was bound for JNPT, India was suspected to contain 200 kgs of Cocaine, a Narcotic Drug; that enquiries revealed that the consignee was M/s.OPM International Pvt. Ltd. and the CHA was M/s Mayur Clearing Agency, that during enquiry, it was learnt that in addition to the suspect container, there were 7 more containers covered under the same bill of lading; that on 03.06.2006 at 0930 hours the officials of NCB alongwith 2 officers of Coast Guard boarded the Vessel SL Voyager which was carrying the suspect container MSKU 8636761 and had instructed the captain on the Vessel Shri M.S. Paradkar not to deal with the suspect container and instructed to off-load container No.MSKU 8636761 and 7 other containers bearing No.TCNU 9764788, TCNU 9594925, PONU 7486353, MSKU 8795871, MSKU 8188820, GLDU 7006510 and TCKU 9934051, from the Vessel at Nhava Sheva Jetty. Accordingly, the 8 containers were off-loaded at berth No.1, Gateway Terminal India, Nhava Sheva.""The Captain of the Vessel was served a pre-prepared letter bearing signature of the Superintendent, NCB, Mumbai Zonal Unit informing about the detention of the said 8 containers. A copy of the said letter dated 03.06.2006 was showed to the to the Panchas and the panchas, the officials of M/s OPM International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mayur Clearing Agency Ltd. and the officer writing the panchanama put their dated signature on the said letter marked "A". The officer also showed the official vehicles which were used for reaching the said spot, viz. MH 01 N 800, MH 01 BA 155, MH 01 BA 691 AND MH 01 BA 692, which were parked on the berth No.1 and offered the search of all the said vehicles to the panchas. All the abovementioned vehicles were searched by the panchas in the presence of the officials of M/s OPM International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mayur Clearing Agency Ltd and nothing incriminating other than the search kit containing lap gop, packing materials, sealing materials, Narcotics Field Testing Kit etc. was found. Personal search was also offered to the panchas in the presence of the officials of M/s OPM International Pvt. Ltd and M/s Mayur Clearing Agency Ltd. and nothing incriminating was found except NCB Seal No.03 with Shri A.P. Patil, Superintendent, NCB, Mumbai Zonal Unit. Thereafter the officer showed the panchas all the 8 containers which were stacked at Berch No.1 whereupon the panchas tallied the container numbers with those mentioned in the letter marked "A". The panchas were informed that since the Jetty was an open place and it was not conducive for search of the container, it was decided to conduct the search at M/s Maersk Line Container Freight Station, Plot No.100, Block No.5, Sector-9, Dronagiri Warehousing Complex, Navi Mumbai and requested the Panchas to accompany to the said place for examination of the containers. All the eight containers were found in sealed conditions. The details of the container No.and the seals affixed thereon were as follows :-Container No.Bottle Seal No.Wire Bottle Seal No.MSKU 863676158295MLGUQ0057520TCNU 976478858959MLGUQ0054353TCNU 959294558201MLGYE0057552PONU 748635358230MLGYE0057563MSKU 879587158206MLGYE0057585MSKU 818882058204MLGYE0057564GIDU 700651058223MLGYE0057596TCKU 993405158879MLGYE0054324"10. Thereafter Shri A.P. Patil, Supdt. NCB, Mumbai under his signature issued a letter dated 03.06.2006 addressed to M/s Maersk CFS, and with a copy of it endorsed to Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva and office copy of the said letter with acknowledgement of M/s Maersk India Pvt Ltd. The panchas, the officer drawing the Panchanama and the officials of M/s OPM International P. Ltd. and Shri Vijay Thorve put their dated signatures on the said letter. The said eight containers, including suspect container MSKU 8636761, were escorted to the Container Freight Station of Maersk India P. Ltd. located at Dronagiri Warehousing Complex, Navi Mumbai with the help of the facilities of Maersk.""11. At the Dronagiri Warehousing Complex of Maersk India Pvt Ltd the officer in the presence of the panchas and other officers of NCB, Customs and Police and the Directors of M/s OPM International P Ltd i.e. S/Shri Omprakash Nogaja, Vijay Nogaja and Umesh Banur and Shri Vijay Thorve, Director of M/s Mayur Clearing Agency (CHA) broke open the container No.MSKU 8636761 by cutting the wire bottle seal 5058295 and also by breaking the bottle seal No.ML GUQ 0057520. The said wire bottle seal and bottle seal were recovered and put in a self locking polythene bag which was then placed into a paper envelope on which brief description of its contents were mentioned, pasted shut and sealed with NCB Seal No.03. The panchas, the officer drawing the Panchanama and the officials of M/s OPM International P Ltd and Shri Vijay Thorve put their dated signatures on the said envelope. The officers then opened the container No.MSKU 8636761 in the presence of the panchas and the officials of M/s OPM International P Ltd. and the CHA, Shri Vijay Thorve and on opening, it was observed that the said container was stacked with teak logs and on top of the said stacked teak logs there were eight bags. Out of the eight bags, six were military green canvass bags and remaining two bags were of black rexin cloth. The officers removed all the eight bags out of the said container, serially marked them 1 to 8. All the eight bags were stitched from all the sides except the mouth side. The mouth sides of four bags were tied with rope while the other four bags were closed by chain with locks." (Emphasis supplied)24. We may have to also refer to the documents, on which reference has been placed by the parties, being Exhibits C, D and F to the writ petition.25. Exhibit C is the communication sent by A.P. Patil, Superintendent, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, NCB, to the Captain I/c. Vessel S.L. VOYAGER, M/s. Maersk Line, Mumbai, dated 3rd June, 2006, directing that the eight containers on Vessel S.L. VOYAGER are under observation of the Zonal Unit, and should not be dealt with, in any manner whatsoever, without prior permission of the officials of the Zonal Unit, as they are required to be examined and detained under the provisions of the NDPS Act. This direction was issued in view of the intelligence regarding storage of narcotic contraband in some of the containers referred to in the communication.26. Exhibit D is, again, a communication sent by A.P. Patil, Superintendent, Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, NCB, to Shri Anirudha Lele of Maersk CFS, Nhava Sheva, JNPT, dated 3rd June, 2006. By this communication, Anirudha Lele was informed that the Captain of Vessel S.L. VOYAGER has been served with the Detention Order in respect of eight containers to be examined under the NDPS Act. Therefore, on the arrival of Vessel S.L. VOYAGER, the said eight containers should not be sent to Mulund CFS, but may be arranged to be brought to Nhava Sheva CFS for detailed examination by officers of NCB.27. As regards Exhibit F, Panchnama dated 3rd June, 2006, that mentions that the panchas, along with others, were taken to Berth No.1 of Gateway Terminals India, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai, at 14.00 hours on 3rd June, 2006, when the procedure of search and seizure was undertaken in the manner mentioned in the said panchnama.28. Taking the last document first, viz., panchnama, even on a fair reading of the said document. it does not, in any manner, even prima facie, substantiate the stand of the petitioner regarding the eight containers, in which the narcotic contraband was "seized" in mid-sea or, for that matter, after entering the Indian waters. Even the document, Exhibit D, communication sent by A.P. Patil, Superintendent to Anirudha Lele of Maersk CFS, in our opinion, does not even prima facie, indicate that the search and seizure of narcotic contraband was done outside the area of operation of the officials of NCB. Indeed, it refers to the fact that the captain of Vessel S.L. VOYAGER was served with a Detention Order, detaining the eight containers, which were required to be examined under the NDPS Act, with instructions not to send those containers to Mulund CFS, but retain at Nhava Sheva CFS for detailed examination by the officials of NCB. The fact so stated does not take the matter any further for the petitioner.29. Similarly, the document at Exhibit C, being communication sent by A.P. Patil, Superintendent, to the Captain of Vessel S.L. VOYAGER, also is of no avail. It only directs the captain that the eight containers are under observation of the Zonal Unit, and should not be dealt with, in any manner whatsoever, without prior permission of the officials of the Zonal Unit, as the same are required to be examined in detail under the provisions of the NDPS Act. Even this communication, by itself, does not, even prima facie, indicate that the act of search and seizure of the narcotic contraband done by the officials of NCB was, in fact, outside the area of their operation or jurisdiction.30. Reverting to the allegations in the complaint, even though it is stated that NCB requested the Chief Staff Officer (Operational), Commander, Coast Guard Region (West), Mumbai, to provide assistance of Coast Guard vessel to enable the officials of NCB to board Vessel S.L. VOYAGER in mid-sea for preventing the transhipment of the said container while in Indian waters prior to its arrival at JNPT, does not mean that the act of search and seizure, which is the quintessence for initiating criminal action against the accused for offence under the provisions of the NDPS Act, was undertaken outside the jurisdiction of the officials of NCB as such. Even from the contents of the extracted paragraphs of the complaint, it is not possible to hold, even prima facie, that the act of search and seizure was, in fact, carried out outside the area of operation or jurisdiction of the officials of NCB. On the other hand, in paragraph 8, it is clearly mentioned that, when the vessel entered the Indian waters, the officials of NCB boarded the vessel, along with few Coast Guard staff, and thereafter, served with instructions not to deal, in any manner, with the suspect container and to disembark the same and other seven containers under same Bill of Lading. It is stated that Vessel SL VOYAGER was docked at Berth No.1 of Gateway Terminal India at Nhava Sheva, and that the officials of NCB, along with the officials of Customs and police, started the process of search and seizure only thereafter. In the wake of such assertion in the complaint - relevant portion whereof has already been reproduced in the earlier part of this judgment - the argument of the petitioner that the complaint should be quashed, as the entire action of the officials of NCB is vitiated, cannot be countenanced.31. As a matter of fact, the question as to whether the action initiated by the officials of NCB was within or outside the area of operation or jurisdiction is a mixed question of fact and law. Even for this reason, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner to quash the complaint. Moreover, the argument of the petitioner proceeds on some misconception that with regard to action under the provisions of the NDPS Act, that cannot be resorted to by the officials of NCB in the area of operation of the officials of Customs Authority. No doubt, the action required to be taken in relation to the acts of commission and omission, inviting action under the provisions of the "Customs Act", can be taken only by the officials of the Customs Authority. However, we find force in the argument of the respondents that, having regard to the setting in which the provisions of the NDPS Act operate, the action to be taken in furtherance of the provisions of the NDPS Act is, essentially, that of the Central Government. It is the Central Government, by virtue of Section 4(3) of the NDPS Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette, constitutes an authority or "hierarchy of authorities" by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose of exercising such of the powers and functions of the Central Government under that Act and for taking measures with respect to such matters referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 4 and subject to the provisions and control of the Central Government. By virtue of Section 4(1) of the NDPS Act, it is the bounden duty of the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary for the purpose of preventing obtaining and combating abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the illicit traffic therein.To effectuate the said obligation, Section 42 of the NDPS Act bestows authority on officers above specified designations of the Departments of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence or any other Department of the Central Government, etc., to enter, search, seize and arrest without warrant or authorisation if he/they has/have reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under the Act of 1985 has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish offence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property, etc. The provision is so worded that the officers of any of the specified departments can take action in exercise of powers under the Act of 1985. Thus, the offence under the Act of 1985 may take place either within the area of operation of the officials of the concerned departments, i.e., Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence, etc. In a given case, if the offence takes place in area within the control of the Customs Authority, but, if the officials of NCB acquire personal knowledge or information about commission of offence under the NDPS Act in that area, are equally competent to proceed in the matter. That is the sweep of Section 42 of the Act of 1985.32. Section 43 provides for power of seizure and arrest in public place. The other relevant provision is Section 49 of the Act of 1985, which provides for power to stop and search animal or conveyance. Section 53 of the Act will be of some significance to examine this contention. It enables the Central Government, after consultation with the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette, to invest powers of officer in-charge of a police station for investigation of the offence under the Act of 1985 in any officer of the Department of Central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence or any other department of the Government, including para-military forces, armed forces, etc.33. Lastly, Section 79 would also throw light on this question. It provides that all prohibitions and restrictions imposed by or under the Act of 1985 on the import into India, the export from India and transhipment of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances shall be deemed to be prohibitions and restrictions imposed by or under the Customs Act, and the provisions of that Act shall apply accordingly. The proviso, however, stipulates that, where the doing of anything is an offence punishable under the Customs Act and under the NDPS Act, nothing in the Customs Act or in Section 79 of the NDPS Act of 1985 shall prevent the offender from being punished under the Act of 1985.34. On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, there is no manner of doubt that the officials of NCB are competent to enter upon in the area which is primarily under the control of the Customs Authority, but which area would also fall within the area of operation of the officials of NCB within the meaning of NDPS Act, so as to conduct search and seizure at such place. If so, the argument of the petitioner that the action of the officials of NCB is vitiated, being without authority of law, is devoid of merits.35. Our attention is invited to Notification issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) dated 14th November, 1985, which reads thus:-"(62). Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), Noti. No.S.O. 822(E), dated November 14, 1985, published in the Gazette of India, Extra., Part II, Section 3(ii), dated 14th November, 1985, p.1 (No.6/85/F.No.664/51/85-OPIUM) In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 42 and Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), the Central Government hereby empowers the officers of and above the rank of Sub-Inspector in the department of Narcotics and of and above the rank of Inspector in the departments of Central Excise, Customs and Revenue Intelligence and in Central Economic Intelligence Bureau to exercise the powers and perform the duties specified in Section 42 within the area of their respective jurisdiction and also authorises the said officers to exercise the powers conferred upon them under Section 67."36. We have also considered the Notification issued by the Department of Revenue under Section 4(3) of the Act of 1985 and Sections 42(1) and 67 and 53(1) and 41(2) of the same Act.37. Considering those Notifications and the provisions of the NDPS Act of 1985, coupled with the fact that, going by the material presently on record, prima facie, it is not possible to take the view that the power exercised by the officials of NCB, on the basis of which, the complaint has been filed, can be said to have been taken by them outside their territorial jurisdiction, as is sought to contended before us. As aforesaid, the question as to whether the officials of NCB could proceed in the manner in which they have done, being a mixed question of fact and law, cannot be examined at this stage.38. The petitioner has filed Compilation of Judgments. However, none of those decisions are of any avail to the petitioner. Inasmuch as, we have answered those questions essentially on the basis of factual matrix of the present case. Besides, the view taken by us in no way run counter to the legal position in any of the decisions forming part of the Compilation of Judgments. Indeed, our attention was invited to the decision of the learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in the case of Kulwant Singh v. State, reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 1021. The question of law raised in that case was whether the complaint filed by NCB was without authority of law. That plea was taken on the ground that NCB had no power to effect search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation, and, therefore, search, seizure or recovery by NCB, which forms the basis of the conviction, was bad in law. With reference to Notification No.S.O. 96(E) dated 17th March, 1986, the Court held that a letter cannot make NCB, ipso facto, a Department of the Government; secondly, NCB cannot be termed as a Department of the Central Government, for it is an authority created under Section 4(3) of the Act for the purposes mentioned in the stated Notification. In that, NCB is expected to take measures in respect of such matters referred to in sub-section (2), as has been mentioned in the Notification specifically excluding functions under Section 4(2)(e) of the Act. The Court held that NCB is a creature of a statute and cannot be, in the absence of material, termed as a "Department of the Government".The other submission considered by Delhi High Court was that Section 75 of the Act empowers the Central Government to delegate its functions under the Act. The Court held that no such power was delegated under Section 75 of the Act upon NCB. On that finding, the Court held that the argument of NCB that the delegation of those powers under Sections 41, 42, 53 and 67 of the Act was misplaced, inasmuch as the powers under Section 75, which were conferred by the above-mentioned Notification, were totally different from the powers under Sections 41, 42, 53 and 67 of the Act, which were not specifically delegated by the Central Government. On that basis, the Court proceeded to hold that NCB was not the authority, which was empowered to perform functions under Section 41, 42, 53 or 67 of the Act.39. In the present case, the argument, however, is limited to the fact that the detention of the goods was done on high seas by NCB for which reason the entire action is vitiated being without authority of law. We have already adverted to the contents of the complaint as well as the relevant documents, and have held that, as at present, it is not possible to hold, even prima facie, that the search and seizure of the goods in question was done on high seas. Whereas, it appears that the case for the prosecution is that the search and seizure was conducted after the goods had arrived in the dock. If so, NCB was competent to proceed in accordance with law.40. Besides the Delhi High Court judgment, no other judgment in the compilation directly deals with the aspects examined by us hitherto. Hence, we do not wish to burden the judgment by referring to those decisions included in the Compilation of Judgments. We may clarify that the view expressed by us in this decision is only to answer the two questions raised before us, which have been pressed into service for quashing of the complaint qua the petitioner herein. The view expressed in this judgment is, therefore, not an expression of opinion either way of the merits of the allegations. The same will have to be answered on the basis of evidence which will be brought on record during the trial.41. Suffice it to observe that this is not a fit case for quashing of complaint, more so on the ground that the complaint is founded on the action of officials of NCB, which was palpably without authority of law.42. While parting, we may place on record that this Writ Petition was filed as back as in April, 2009, and was being adjourned from time to time since then for reasons recorded in the concerned orders. When the matter appeared before our Bench on 15th September, 2010, for the first time, notice was issued to the opposite party, as the Court felt that formidable point was raised. Thereafter, the matter was ordered to be placed under caption "Final Disposal". Since then, the matter appeared on different dates. On the question, whether the action can proceed against the petitioner, who was only a Professional Director of the Company, was considered on 11th January, 2011 by this Bench. Tentative opinion was indicated during the course of hearing after going through the record. On that day, another question (Point No.2 dealt with in this judgment) was raised. Thereafter, when the matter appeared on 21st February, 2011, it was adjourned to 22nd February, 2011, with direction that the matter be taken up first on Board, as we wanted to conclude the hearing. We had clearly indicated that no request for adjournment on the ground of non-availability of senior counsel will be entertained. After rejecting argument for adjournment, we called upon the instructing advocate to proceed with the argument, as the hearing of the matter was substantially over on the earlier occasion. He did commence the argument, and since the same remained inconclusive, we kept the matter on 22nd February, 2011. When the matter was taken up on that day, the petitioner informed us that as his advocate, who had commenced the argument, had to suddenly go to Delhi, even the said advocate was not available. We found this development to be somewhat unusual. Even then, we accommodated the petitioner, and made it clear that the matter would now proceed on 23rd February, 2011, when he should make necessary arrangement.On 23rd February, 2011, the advocate-on-record himself appeared, and stated that he may be given time till Monday, the 28th February, 2011, to prepare the matter himself. By way of indulgence, we adjourned the matter to 28th February, 2011, on which date, however, to our surprise, the petitioner appeared in person, and told us that he would like to discharge his advocate-on-record, and would proceed with the argument himself. Accordingly, we recorded that statement and called upon the petitioner to address us. He, instead, requested the Court to give him time to file Written Submissions and Compilation of Judgments, on the basis of which, the Court may proceed to decide this matter. At his request, therefore, we deferred the hearing to 7th March, 2011. The matter, however, was eventually taken up on 11th March, 2011, when the petitioner unambiguously stated that arguments on behalf of the petitioner has already been completed, and the Court may decide the matter on the basis of his Written Submissions. Thereafter the arguments of the respondents were concluded. We, however, gave time to the respondents to file brief Written Submissions, if any, and also permitted the petitioner to file reply thereto. Accordingly, the respondents as well as the petitioner have filed Written Submissions and Additional Written Submissions respectively. After perusing the same, and as no further oral argument was required or insisted by any party, we have proceeded to pronounce the reserved verdict. We are informed that the petitioner has objected to taking the written submissions of respondent on record as it is not filed within time. However, we reject that objection.

Decision:
0[ds]5. It is alleged that, on the basis of information, officers of Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai Zonal Unit, Mumbai, Customs, Nhava Sheva and Police, along with two independent panch witnesses and Omprakash Nogaja (accused No.1), Umesh B. Bangur (petitioneraccused No.2) and Vijay O. Nogaja, Directors of OPM International Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, and Vijay Anant Thorve (accused No.3) Managing Director of Mayur Clearing Agency (Custom House Agent) presented themselves at Berth No.1, Gateway Terminal India, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai. The search of the container of Maersk Line bearing No.MSKU 636761, which was shipped on board vessel "Maersk Rotterdam" on 18th April, 2006 at Port Guayaquil, Ecuador, South America, and was bound for JNPT, India, was suspected to contain 200 Kgs. of Cocaine, a narcotic drug, in the name of consignee OPM International Pvt. Ltd. The said container was searched by the panchas, and it was revealed that it contained bags weighing about 2.870 Kgs., 6.662 Kgs., 6.554 Kgs., 6.396 Kgs. and 6.420 Kgs., respectively. The total gross weight of the bags marked 1(a) to 1(e) was 28.902 Kgs. On emptying contents of scotch taped packets recovered from packets marked 1(a) to 1(e) into a larger polythene bag, the same was weighed on a weighing machine and it was found to be about 24.800 Kgs. of Cocaine, which was placed into a carton and tied. The entire search and seizure process was done in the presence of accused Nos.1 and 2, who were the Directors of OPM International Pvt. Ltd. They put their signatures on the label affixed on carton marked I. Be that as it may, accused No.1, on being enquired, disclosed that five more containers were to arrive, besides eight containers. It is alleged that the officers then proceeded to carry out further search, and during the said search, recovered additional quantity of Cocaine, which also was seized in the presence of the accused, including the petitioner.6. Indeed, mere presence of the petitioner at the time of search and seizure or his putting his signature on the label affixed on carton in his capacity as Professional Director of the Company by itself may not be enough to proceed against him.7. Reverting to the allegations in the complaint specific to the role played by the concerned accused in the import or, especially, that each of them had knowledge about the import of contraband drugs, in paragraph 28 of the complaint, on the basis of the statement of accused No.1, it is stated that the consignor of the said eight containers, including Container No.MSKU 8636761, was Megha International Pte. Ltd.,giving details regarding the consignment, he has stated that earlier, the business of import was being done by Royal Global Pte. Ltd., but he wanted to maintain a distance with his brother, and, accordingly, as per the latters advice, he started importing through Megha International Pte. Ltd. He has stated that Madhu (wife of Manak Maheshwari, his brother) was having 25% shares in OPM International Pvt. Ltd., while Neelu (wife of S.P. Biyani) was having 49% shares in his company and the petitioner herein, Umesh Bangur, and Om Prakashs son, Vijay Nogaja, together held 1% shares in the said company. So far as the role played by the petitioner is concerned, it is alleged that accused No.1, in his statement, has mentioned that the petitioner (Umesh Bangur, accused No.2) handled the legal and company matters.Considering the allegations in the complaint and the contents of the statements of the accused, which are placed before us, we are afraid, it is not possible to accede to the argument of the petitioner so as to quash the complaint pending against the petitioner (accused No.2). In the first place, it is not a case where no allegation is made against the petitioner in the said complaint. Whereas, the prosecution case suggests that the petitioner herein was part of criminal conspiracy. As aforesaid, the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused is also under Section 29 of the NDPS Act for abatement and criminal conspiracy. In that view of the matter, the argument of the petitioner that the criminal action against the petitioner cannot be proceeded, as he has been roped in merely because he is a Professional Director of the company, who indulged in the offence of importing the contraband narcotic drug does not hold good. Going by the abovenoted allegations, it is the prosecution case that the role played by the petitioner (accused No.2) was not limited to that of Professional Director, but his involvement is something more than that and being party to criminal conspiracy. The correctness of these allegations will have to be examined during the trial keeping in mind the defences of the petitioner, if any. Suffice it to observe that the first argument of the petitioner to invite this Court to quash the criminal complaint against the petitioner is devoid of merits.23. Turning to the second contention, the same proceeds on the premise that the vessel was intercepted by the officials of NCB, on the high sea with the help of Coast Guard before it entered the Mumbai waters, it necessarily follows that the said action is without authority of law. As a result, the entire action initiated by the officials of NCB is vitiated. This argument proceeds on the basis that the area of operation of the officials of NCB is limited, and is not extended, to Mumbai waters, much less high sea. Once again this argument will have to be answered on the basis of the allegation made in the complaint.As regards Exhibit F, Panchnama dated 3rd June, 2006, that mentions that the panchas, along with others, were taken to Berth No.1 of Gateway Terminals India, Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai, at 14.00 hours on 3rd June, 2006, when the procedure of search and seizure was undertaken in the manner mentioned in the said panchnama.28. Taking the last document first, viz., panchnama, even on a fair reading of the said document. it does not, in any manner, even prima facie, substantiate the stand of the petitioner regarding the eight containers, in which the narcotic contraband was "seized" inor, for that matter, after entering the Indian waters. Even the document, Exhibit D, communication sent by A.P. Patil, Superintendent to Anirudha Lele of Maersk CFS, in our opinion, does not even prima facie, indicate that the search and seizure of narcotic contraband was done outside the area of operation of the officials of NCB. Indeed, it refers to the fact that the captain of Vessel S.L. VOYAGER was served with a Detention Order, detaining the eight containers, which were required to be examined under the NDPS Act, with instructions not to send those containers to Mulund CFS, but retain at Nhava Sheva CFS for detailed examination by the officials of NCB. The fact so stated does not take the matter any further for thedoubt, the action required to be taken in relation to the acts of commission and omission, inviting action under the provisions of the "Customs Act", can be taken only by the officials of the Customs Authority. However, we find force in the argument of the respondents that, having regard to the setting in which the provisions of the NDPS Act operate, the action to be taken in furtherance of the provisions of the NDPS Act is, essentially, that of the Central Government. It is the Central Government, by virtue of Section 4(3) of the NDPS Act, by order, published in the Official Gazette, constitutes an authority or "hierarchy of authorities" by such name or names as may be specified in the order for the purpose of exercising such of the powers and functions of the Central Government under that Act and for taking measures with respect to such matters referred to in(2) of Section 4 and subject to the provisions and control of the Central Government. By virtue of Section 4(1) of the NDPS Act, it is the bounden duty of the Central Government to take all such measures as it deems necessary for the purpose of preventing obtaining and combating abuse of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and the illicit traffic therein.On conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, there is no manner of doubt that the officials of NCB are competent to enter upon in the area which is primarily under the control of the Customs Authority, but which area would also fall within the area of operation of the officials of NCB within the meaning of NDPS Act, so as to conduct search and seizure at such place. If so, the argument of the petitioner that the action of the officials of NCB is vitiated, being without authority of law, is devoid of merits.Considering those Notifications and the provisions of the NDPS Act of 1985, coupled with the fact that, going by the material presently on record, prima facie, it is not possible to take the view that the power exercised by the officials of NCB, on the basis of which, the complaint has been filed, can be said to have been taken by them outside their territorial jurisdiction, as is sought to contended before us.In the present case, the argument, however, is limited to the fact that the detention of the goods was done on high seas by NCB for which reason the entire action is vitiated being without authority of law. We have already adverted to the contents of the complaint as well as the relevant documents, and have held that, as at present, it is not possible to hold, even prima facie, that the search and seizure of the goods in question was done on high seas. Whereas, it appears that the case for the prosecution is that the search and seizure was conducted after the goods had arrived in the dock. If so, NCB was competent to proceed in accordance withopinion was indicated during the course of hearing after going through the record. On that day, another question (Point No.2 dealt with in this judgment) was raised. Thereafter, when the matter appeared on 21st February, 2011, it was adjourned to 22nd February, 2011, with direction that the matter be taken up first on Board, as we wanted to conclude the hearing. We had clearly indicated that no request for adjournment on the ground ofof senior counsel will be entertained. After rejecting argument for adjournment, we called upon the instructing advocate to proceed with the argument, as the hearing of the matter was substantially over on the earlier occasion. He did commence the argument, and since the same remained inconclusive, we kept the matter on 22nd February, 2011. When the matter was taken up on that day, the petitioner informed us that as his advocate, who had commenced the argument, had to suddenly go to Delhi, even the said advocate was not available. We found this development to be somewhat unusual. Even then, we accommodated the petitioner, and made it clear that the matter would now proceed on 23rd February, 2011, when he should make necessary arrangement.On 23rd February, 2011, thehimself appeared, and stated that he may be given time till Monday, the 28th February, 2011, to prepare the matter himself. By way of indulgence, we adjourned the matter to 28th February, 2011, on which date, however, to our surprise, the petitioner appeared in person, and told us that he would like to discharge hisand would proceed with the argument himself. Accordingly, we recorded that statement and called upon the petitioner to address us. He, instead, requested the Court to give him time to file Written Submissions and Compilation of Judgments, on the basis of which, the Court may proceed to decide this matter. At his request, therefore, we deferred the hearing to 7th March, 2011. The matter, however, was eventually taken up on 11th March, 2011, when the petitioner unambiguously stated that arguments on behalf of the petitioner has already been completed, and the Court may decide the matter on the basis of his Written Submissions. Thereafter the arguments of the respondents were concluded. We, however, gave time to the respondents to file brief Written Submissions, if any, and also permitted the petitioner to file reply thereto. Accordingly, the respondents as well as the petitioner have filed Written Submissions and Additional Written Submissions respectively. After perusing the same, and as no further oral argument was required or insisted by any party, we have proceeded to pronounce the reserved verdict. We are informed that the petitioner has objected to taking the written submissions of respondent on record as it is not filed within time. However, we reject that objection.