IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.180 of 2010 DATE:09.09.2010 Between: Mankali Siva Prasad …… Petitioner And: The Senior Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence, rep. By its Special Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.180 of 2010 ORDER : The petitioner/A-1 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 22, 27-A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, the Act). It is a case where officers of the complainant of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seized 2.882 kgs. Of alprazolam which is a psychotropic substance. Main contention of the petitioner’s counsel before this Court is that since Central Revenue Laboratory, Customs House, Chennai failed to conduct quantitative analysis of the sample on the ground of the instruments not working, the complainant could not make out that quantity of Alprazolam seized in this case is commercial quantity under the Act. It is further contended that in the absence of quantification of the substance by the laboratory, the Court has to take the quantity as small quantity only and not as commercial quantity and in such event, the Court cannot impose more punishment than Six months imprisonment for possessing small quantity. It is contended that since the petitioner was in judicial custody during investigation and trial for about one year which is more than the sentence that can be imposed for possessing small quantity of psychotropic substance, proceedings before the lower Court would be unnecessary and it would be further harassing the petitioner. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that in all the substances, there is basic substance like Starch etc., and that in the absence of quantification of Alprazolam in the total quantity seized, it cannot be said that commercial quantity was seized in this case. From the material on record, equally there is no indication that 2.882 kgs of substance seized as Alprazolam contained any other basic substance like Starch etc., This Court cannot assume existence of basic substance like Starch in the quantity of 2.882 kgs of Alprazolam seized by the complainant in this case. Further, as pointed in Md.Malek Mondal V. Pranzal Bardalai[1] of the Supreme Court, though this Court has got wide extraordinary power of quashing proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the said power vested in this Court has to be exercised sparingly and with caution and not to stifle legitimate prosecution. The question of sentence arises for the trial Court only when the petitioner is found guilty of the offences. Till then, it may not be proper for this Court to go into disputed questions of fact whether the seized substance of 2.882 kgs. of Alprazolam contained any external material like Starch etc., apart from Alprazolam. Any assumption on this aspect would be baseless. 2) Citing State of Uttaranchal V. Rajendra Kumar Gupta[2] of the Supreme Court, it is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that first schedule appended to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985 (in short, the Rules) does not contain Alprazolam in the list. The Supreme Court was considering a case for bail under Section 37 of the Act and it was the argument addressed by the counsel appearing for the bail petitioner. At any rate, when Section 22 of the Act prescribes even possession of psychotropic substance as an offence and also prescribes sentence of imprisonment to be passed in such a case, the rules cannot override Section 22 of the Act. This Court finds that there are no valid or legal grounds in this petition to quash the pending proceedings in the lower Court against the petitioner. 3) Hence, the petition is dismissed. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J September 09, 2010 KSH [1] (2005)10 SCC 608 [2] 2007(6) CRIMES (SC)1