{"id":172969,"date":"2002-09-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-09-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002"},"modified":"2018-01-21T09:15:52","modified_gmt":"2018-01-21T03:45:52","slug":"e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002","title":{"rendered":"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002<\/div>\n
Author: M A Khan<\/div>\n
Bench: M A Khan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 Mahmood Ali Khan, J. <\/p>\n
 1. This order will dispose of two bail applications
\none filed by E. Narayanan and the other by Mahesh
\nMajumdar. Wife of E.Narayanan is the proprietress of
\nM\/s Sarafine Chemcials, vadodara but the business is
\nbeing run by E.Narayanan. Mahesh Majumdar is working as
\nas accountant in that concern. A criminal complaint has
\nbeen filed by the respondent Central Bureau of Narcotics
\n(NCB) against them for their prosecution for offences
\nunder Section 9A read with 25A of the Narcotic Drugs and
\nPsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter NDPS Act).
\nThey were arrested on 28.12.2001 and since then are in
\njudicial custody. Both have submitted applications
\nunder Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for their release on
\nbail.\n<\/p>\n
 2. The allegation against these accused, briefly,
\nstated, is that intelligence report was received by the
\nofficers of the respondent that four cartons containing
\nAcetic Anhydride has been dispatched from Vadodara to
\nDelhi through Jaipur Golden Truck under a builty dated
\n29.10.2001. Acetic Anhydride is to be utilised for
\nmanufacturing of heroine. One Attar Singh of Bhawani
\nMandi was suspected. The intelligence report was
\ndeveloped further and it was found that the said Attar
\nSingh was in constant contact on telephone at Vadodara.
\nA surveillance was put on the office of Jaipur Golden
\nTransport Company but nobody came to collect the
\nconsignment till 7.11.2001. The officers of the
\nrespondent thereupon with the approval of the transport
\ncompany opened the cartons on 12.12.2001. They were
\nfound  containing 16 bottles containing Acetic Anhydride
\nweighing in total 65.600 kgs. They were taken into
\npossession. Sample was taken out, other paper work and
\nformalities were completed and the consignment was
\nseized. As per the bill dated 29.10.2001 of Shree Laxmi
\nFine Chem, Vadodara the cartons were supposed to contain
\n16 x 2.5 lts. Paraffin Liquid Light. Acetic Anhydride
\nis a controlled substance and is covered under Section
\n9A of the NDPS Act, 1985 for which legal documents were
\nmandatory and they were not found with the consignment.
\nSummons for inquiry under Section 67 of NDPS Act dated
\n14.12.2001 was sent to the consignee M\/s Aggarwal
\nAgencies at the address given in the delivery note\/bill
\nof Shree Laxmi Fine Chem, Vadodara dated 29.10.2001 but
\nthe same was received back with the report that the
\naddress did not exist at Ghanta Ghar, Delhi. They
\ninquiries disclosed that there was telephonic  contact
\nbetween E. Narayanan, M\/s Sarafine Chemicals, Vadodara
\nand the said Attar Singh of Bhawani Mandi. Searches of
\nthe house of E.Narayanan accused wee conducted on
\n24.12.2001. The search of the business premises of
\nSarafine Chem. was also conducted in the presence of
\nthe witnesses and both these accused petitioners.
\nNothing incriminating was recovered from the house of
\nE. Narayanan petitioner but the search of the premises of
\nSarafine Chemical on 24.12.2001 resulted in the recovery
\nand seizure of some documents and other corroborative
\nevidences including letter head, bill books of a
\nnon-existing company M\/s Shree Laxmi Fine Chemical
\nIndustries, Rubber Stamps, packing material and
\ndocuments relating to 40 lts. Acetic Anhydride were
\nalso recovered in addition to that false labels of M\/s
\nRanbaxy and M\/s S.D. Fine Chemicals, Boisar. Physical
\nverification of the stock of Acetic Anhydride revealed
\nthat 511 kgs. Acetic Anhydride was deficient. 27
\ncopies of the Lorry Receipts of earlier transaction were
\nalso seized from the business premises of Sarafine
\nChemical which related to the illicit trading of this
\nChemical by M\/s Shree Laxmi Fine Chem Industries,
\nBaroda. Many of the delivery notes\/bills\/consignment
\nnotes sere addressed to self at Villages of Boliya,
\nBaroda, Pipliya Mandi Jaora, Shyamgarh etc. and they
\nwere also seized. In the voluntary statement tendered
\nunder Section 67 of NDPS Act dated 24.12.2001,
\n26.12.2001 and 27.12.2001 the petitioner E. Naraynan of
\nSara Fine Chemicals admitted the recovery and seizure of
\nincriminating articles and documents and also stated
\nthat (M\/s Sara Fine Chemicals was the sole proprietorship
\nconcern of this wife but he was managing its business and
\nhe also stated that he had sold Acetic Anhydride without
\nconsignment notes in the name of M\/s Shree Laxmi Fine
\nChem. Industries and he also deposed that he had
\nillegally sold Acetic Anhydride to one Rajinder Singh of
\nBhawani Mandi whose telephone number was also revealed
\nby him. He was confronted with the copy of G.R. dated
\n29.10.2001 at Jaipur Golden Transport Company Along with
\nbill he stated that Acetic Anhydride was a controlled
\nsubstance and could not be sold without consignment note
\nand he had declared the goods as Parraffin liquid Light
\nand had sent the copy of the same to Rajinder Singh
\nthrough Madhu Courier, Vadodara. It was also stated
\nthat the sale process was collected from Rajinder Singh
\nby Mahesh Majumdar at Ramganj Mandi, Rajasthan and that
\nall the labels were provided by Rajinder Singh and crown
\ncap were purchased by him from the local market. In the
\nvoluntary statement made by Mahesh Majumdar petitioner
\nrecorded on 24.12.2001, 26.12.2001 and 27.12.2001 under
\nSection 67 of the NDPS Act he also stated that he met
\nRajidner Singh of Bhawani Mandi and gave his telephone
\nnumber and that he used to visit Ramganj Mandi to
\nreceive payments from Rajender Singh and thus so far
\nthey had sold about 750 lts. of Acetic Anhydride
\nillegally to Rajinder Singh. He also stated that he had
\nmostly prepared the documents declaring the goods as
\ndetergent power instead  of Acetic Anhydride and that
\nboth the accused had deposed about he details of
\nconsignment in which Acetic Anhydride was illegibly
\ndispatched by them to Rajinder Singh of Bhawani Mandi.\n<\/p>\n
 3. Vijay Bhai, Brach Manager, M\/s Madhur Courier
\nServices, Vadodara in his statement recorded under
\nSection 67 of NDPS Act also deposed that Sarafine
\nChemical, Baroda used to send letters through their
\ncourier specially to one Rajinder Singh of Bhawani Mandi
\nin the name of Lovendra Singh as sender. He stated that
\nsince January 2001 Sarafine had sent about 23 letters to
\nRajinder Singh in the name of Lovendra Singh through
\ntheir courier and that both these petitioners used to
\nvisit their office for sending their documents.\n<\/p>\n
 4. Abhay V. Shetty of Beena Chemicals, Baroda
\nalso made statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act in
\nwhich it was stated that Sarafine Chemicals was one of
\ntheir client for Acetic Anhydride EPTA and Acetic Acid
\nand that he use to supply Acetic Anhydride to Sarafine
\nChem. He submitted 17 declaration form of Sarafine
\nchemcials for suing Acetic Anhydride, declaration of
\ntheir firm, endorsement by Central Excise authority for
\npurchase of Acetic Anhydride and supply to actual
\nconsumers, copy of Central Excise Registration issued to
\nM\/s Been a Chemicals, Schedule to Registration
\nCertificate, accounts statement of Sarafine Chemicals
\nform 1.4.1999 to 31.3.2001, account statement of
\nSarafine Chemcials from 14.2.2001 to 11.12.2001, SSI
\nCertificate of Govt. of Gujrat for Sarafine Chemicals
\nand undertook to produce the remaining documents like
\nconsignment record and RG -23G, quarterly return records
\netc. All these documents disclosed that the petitioner
\nE. Narayanan was procuring Acetic Anhydride from Abhay
\nV. Shetty of Beena Chemicals. Scrutiny of the register
\nfor Acetic Anhydride maintained by Sarafine Chemicals
\nform the period form 1.1.2000 revealed that the stock of
\nAcetic Anhydride should be 521.5 kgs. On 24.12.2001 but
\nit was found to be only 10 kgs. As such there was
\nshortage of 511 Kgs. of Acetic Anhydride. The
\nstatutory record was also not properly maintained. 10
\nkgs. of Acetic Anhydride which was found was also taken
\ninto possession by the officers of the respondent for
\nfurther investigation. On 24.12.2001 search of the
\nresidential premises of Attar Singh of Bhawani Mandi was
\nalso conducted and three Lorry Receipts of M\/s Lucky
\nTransport Corporation showed the consignor and M\/s Shree
\nLaxmi Fine Chemical, Baroda and self as consignee were
\nrecovered but the search of the shop of Attar Singh did
\nnot yield any incriminating material. It seems that
\nAttar Singh has represented himself to be Rajender Singh
\nto the petitioners and was the same who was indulging in
\nillegal trading of Acetic Anhydride.\n<\/p>\n
 5. Dheeraj Jain, agent of M\/s Madhu Courier in
\nBhawani Mandi was joined in investigation and he
\ntendered his voluntary statement whereby he deposed that
\nthe letters meant for Rajender Singh had to be delivered
\nto Chhabra Tyres, Gurudwara Nehru Park, Bhawani Mandi.
\nHe explained the identification of Rajender Singh as the
\nsame disclosed by the accused persons. These accused
\npersons as such were arrested on 28.12.2001. Other
\nformalities and requirement of law were completed
\nagainst them.\n<\/p>\n
 6. Narender Kumar Dixit, Clerk, M\/s Jaipur Golden
\nTransport Co., Roshnara Road, Delhi also tendered his
\nvoluntary statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act on
\n24.1.2001 in which it was stated that his company has
\nreceived two other consignments vide two bills dated
\n17.10.2001 containing three boxes and on 27.10.2001
\ncontaining four boxes were delivered on 26.11.2001 to
\none Umesh the basis of consigner’s copy who was not
\nknown to them. The consignor of those goods was also
\nShree Laxmi Fine Chemical, Baroda and the consignee was
\nself but as per delivery note the consignee note, the
\nconsignee was Shiv Enterprises, 20\/A, Jawahar Nagar, New
\nDelhi and M\/s Manoj Enterprises, 163 Ropa Nagar,
\nOpp. Ghantaghar, Delhi. Both these addresses were found
\nfictitious and it seems that those consignments were
\ncleared on behalf of Rajender Singh @ Attar Singh of
\nBhawani Mandi. In his voluntary statement under Section
\n67 of NDPS Act, Jagdish Nagindas Doshi, General Manager,
\nM\/s S.D. Fine Chemicals, Boisar stated that they have no
\nbusiness relations with M\/s Sarafine Chemicals and have
\nnever delivered any Chemicals to them. When he was
\nconfronted with the labels, caps and other packing
\nmaterials, relating to the seized goods recovered from
\nSarafine Chemcials he stated that the same were forged
\none and during his statement he surrendered
\noriginal\/genuine copy of the label as well as their
\noriginal packing material as piece of evidence.
\nB.M. Madan Rao, Production Manager of Ranbaxy Fine
\nChemcials Limited, New Delhi in his voluntary statement
\ndated 22.2.2002 tendered under Section 67 of NDPS Act
\nalso stated that the seized label of Ranbaxy is a forged
\none and explained the reasons in his statement.
\nInvestigation revealed that Rajender Singh is none other
\nthan Attar Singh of Bhawani Mandi. Attar Singh has not
\njoined the investigation despite repeated summoning and
\na complaint has already been filed against him by the
\nrespondent for non-compliance of the summons which is
\npending. Prosecution against him will be field at
\nappropriate stage. The accused persons have committed
\noffence under Section 25A and 29 of the NDPS Act and,
\ntherefore, should be punished.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Notice of the bail application was served on the
\nrespondent-NCB but nobody has appeared at the
\nhearing. Therefore, arguments of the counsel for the
\npetitioners were heard.\n<\/p>\n
 9. Counsel for the petitioner E. Narayanan has argued
\nthat the only incriminating evidence against  his
\npetitioner is the recovery of 40 kgs. of Acetic
\nAnhydride at the godown of a transport company and some
\nirregularities in the papers accompanying the
\nconsignment. He submitted that the petitioner is a
\nlicensed dealer of this Chemical, therefore, small
\ninfraction with the rules of maintaining registers and
\ndocuments etc., should not disentitle him to the grant
\nof bail. He referred to Clause 5 of Narcotic Drugs &
\nPsychotropic Substances (Regulations of Controlled
\nSubstances) Order 1993 (hereinafter Order) which
\nrequires a person, who sells the controlled substances to
\na buyer in a transaction of 100 kgs. and above, shall
\nsell only after buyer establishes his identity by
\nproduction of a documents like industrial license or any
\nregistration certificate in order to establish his
\nidentity and upon declaration being made for the purpose
\nfor which the control substance was being purchased. He
\nstated that in the instant case only 40 kgs., of Acetic
\nAnhydride is involved. Therefore, it will not be a bulk
\nselling of controlled substance requiring compliance of
\nClause 5 aforesaid. He also placed reliance on the
\njudgment of the Rajasthan High Court in  Bheru Lal v.
\nState of Rajasthan,<\/a> 1996 CRl.L.J. 845 where one litre
\nbottle of Acetic Anhydride concealed in a field was
\nrecovered and it was held that the possession of 1 Ltr
\nof this Chemical by itself would not be offence
\npunishable under the NDPS Act. As a consequence, the
\nbail was granted to the accused.\n<\/p>\n
 10. On behalf of Mahesh Majumdar, counsel for the
\npetitioner argued that this petitioner was only an
\naccountant and he was at carrying on the orders of his
\nmaster and had not concern with the recovery of
\ncontrolled substance. Therefore, his case deserves to
\nbe dealt with leniency and he should be granted bail.\n<\/p>\n
 11. I have given careful consideration to the
\nsubmissions made at the bar. Acetic Anhydride is a
\ncontrolled substance on which the Order applies. This
\nregulation came into force on 15.4.1993. Clause 2 of
\nthe Order defines the various expressions used in the
\nOrder. Clause 3 of the Order provided that any person
\nwho manufactures or distributes or sells or imports or
\nexports or consumes any controlled substance shall
\nmaintain daily accounts of his activities in the
\nprescribed forms which shall be preserved for a  period
\nof two years and any such loss thereof would be promptly
\nnotified to the Director General, Narcotics Control
\nBureau of NCB. Clause 4 deals with the transport of
\ncontrolled substance and requires the consignment of
\nsuch substance to be moved from one place to another
\nonly when it is accompanied by Consignment Note in the
\nprescribed form which is to be prepared in triplicate
\netc Clause 5, as noticed earlier, relate to the bulk
\nselling of controlled substance and requires selling of
\nthe controlled substance weighing 100 kgs. to a person
\nwho has established his identity by documents which have
\nbeen mentioned therein Clause 6 deals with the
\nlabelling of consignments for export or import. Clause
\n7 requires filing of quarterly returns in the prescribed
\nform to the Deputy Director, NCB etc. <\/p>\n
 12. The NDPS Act was amended to add Section 25A for
\nproviding punishment for contravention of the orders
\nmade under Section 9A. The punishment provided is
\nrigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10
\nyears besides fine which may extend to 1 lac of rupees.
\nCourt has also been given powers to impose fine
\nexceeding Rs. 1 lac after giving reasons. Section 9A
\nwhich has also been inserted in 1989 is important as its
\ncontravention is punishable by Section 25A. Sub-section
\n(1) of Section 9A authorise the Central Government to
\nprovide for regulating and prohibiting the production,
\nmanufacture, supply, distribution, trade or commerce of
\nany narcotic drug or psychotropic substance if it is
\nexpedient to do so in public interest. Sub-section (2)
\nproclaims that in exercise of the powers given by
\nSub-section(1) an order made may provide for regulating
\nby license permits or otherwise the production,
\nmanufacture, possession, transport, import inter-State,
\nexport inter-State, sale purchase, consumption, use,
\nstorage, distribution disposal or acquisition of any
\ncontrolled substance. Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
\nSubstances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order
\n1993 has been issued by the Central Government in
\nexercise of the powers conferred by Section 9A above.
\nAs noticed, its violation is punishable by Section 25A
\nof the act.\n<\/p>\n
 13. The allegations made against these two
\npetitioners in the complaint and which have not been
\ncontroverter and which at this stage cannot be ignored
\nmake out commission of grave and serious offence by the
\ntwo petitioners. Indeed the petitioner Mahesh Majumdar
\nis an employee of the petitioner E. Narayanan but from
\nthe allegations made in the complaint it appears that
\nthey were hand in glove and were involved in the sale
\nand supply of Acetic Anhydride, a controlled substance
\nin gross violation of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic
\nSubstances (Regulation of Controlled Substances) Order
\n1993 and the NDPS Act. The facts as disclosed in the
\ncomplaint show the involvement of these two petitioners
\nin the recovery of not only 40 kgs. of Acetic Anhydride
\nin the godown of a transport company but it disclose
\nrunning of the sale of the controlled substance in the
\nname of fictitious firm, fabrication of documents in
\nfictitious name in order to facilitate the supply of the
\ncontrolled substance for its clandestine use for
\nmanufacture of heroine. The documents which have been
\nseized from the premises of Sarafine Chemicals which is
\nmanaged by petitioner E. Narayanan with the help of
\npetitioner Mahesh Majumdar disclose the manner in which
\nviolation of the Order was being done by these
\npetitioners not in respect of one transaction but it was
\na long series of transactions. Therefore, prima-facie
\nthere is sufficient incriminating material to show that
\nthe petitioners are guilty of the offence punishable
\nunder Section 25A of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
 14. The facts of the case in Bheru Lal (supra) are
\nquite distinguishable on facts, so the judgment does
\nnot come to the rescue of the petitioners herein.\n<\/p>\n
 15. Having regard to the gravity of the offence, the
\npossibility of the tampering of evidence and the accused
\nfleeing from justice it would not be prudent at this
\nstage to release these petitioners on bail.\n<\/p>\n
 Both the petitions are accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002 Author: M A Khan Bench: M A Khan JUDGMENT Mahmood Ali Khan, J. 1. This order will dispose of two bail applications one filed by E. Narayanan and the other by Mahesh Majumdar. Wife of E.Narayanan is the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172969","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nE. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-21T03:45:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-21T03:45:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002\"},\"wordCount\":2816,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002\",\"name\":\"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-21T03:45:52+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-21T03:45:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002","datePublished":"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-21T03:45:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002"},"wordCount":2816,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002","name":"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-09-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-21T03:45:52+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/e-narayanan-and-mahesh-majumdar-vs-central-bureau-of-narcotics-on-6-september-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"E. Narayanan And Mahesh Majumdar vs Central Bureau Of Narcotics on 6 September, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172969","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=172969"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172969\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172969"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172969"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172969"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}