{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3909 OF 2009 Kantilal s/o Sattarsing Pawara Age-30 years, Occ-Agriculture R/o Dhabapada, Tq-Shirpur Dist-Dhule APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.C.R.Deshpande, Advocate for applicant Mr.B.J.Sonawane, APP for the State ....... [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 7 th December 2009 PER COURT: 1. By the present application, the applicant has approached this Court for his release on bail in connection with CR No.42/2009 registered with Shirpur police station for an offence punishable u/s 20 (b) (2) (c) & 22 of the NDPS Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant followed by the submissions of the learned APP. {2} 3. Learned counsel for the applicant, placed reliance on the judgment reported in 2002 (3) Mh.L.J. 689 in the matter of “Sunil Phulbande V/s State of Maharashtra”, wherein it is observed that if the charge sheet is filed in the cases of offences under NDPS Act, without the report of the C.A. then in the eye of law the same is incomplete and cannot be treated as charge sheet as contemplated u/s 173 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Which ratio is based on the previous judgment in the matter of “Matchumari China V/s State of A.P.” reported in 1994 Cri.L.J. 257 and also in the matter of “Sharadchandra Dongre V/s State of Maharashtra” reported in 1991 (1) Mh.L.J. 656. 4. In all the above referred judgments, a constant view is taken that in case charge sheet is filed in the offence under the NDPS Act, without the report of CA, then the court cannot take cognizance of the same. 5. It is urged that in the present offence the alleged incident took place on 13.06.2009 and the applicant came to be arrested on 15.08.2009, however charge sheet is filed in this case without accompanying the CA report. In the premise, the charge sheet is incomplete. In view of section 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the charge sheet is not filed within the stipulated period, then as of right, the applicant is entitled for bail. 6. In the alternative, it is contended that in the FIR and {3} seizure Panchanama, so far as the contrabands recovered from the motorbike of the applicant are vague that two gunny bags totally weighing 19 kg. So far as balance contrabands are found kept in a ditch and hence the same cannot be treated as found in possession of the applicant. In the premise, it is urged that the contrabands seized from the applicant, though are more than small quantity yet are less than commercial quantity. 7. During the course of submissions, though the application is opposed by the learned APP, yet accepted the position that when the charge sheet is filed and permission is sought to produce additional evidence, however fact remains that at the time of filing of the charge sheet, no CA report was annexed with the same. In view of this, as the charge sheet is filed without CA report, the same cannot be termed as complete charge sheet within the meaning of section 173 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the premise, the applicant is entitled for benefit u/s 167 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 8. It is made clear that this application is not decided on merits, however the same is decided only on technicalities. 9. In the result, the application is allowed. The applicant be released on bail on his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.20,000/- and on executing PR bond in the like amount. The application stands disposed of accordingly. The applicant, after {4} release on bail, to give attendance on every Saturday between 1.00 and 4.00 p.m. to the Shirpur police station, till the trial is over. The applicant shall not leave the local jurisdiction of the Shirpur police station without permission in writing from the Investigating Officer. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/criapln3909-09