Judgment :- 1. The petitioner/first accused has filed this petition to quash the proceedings in C.P. No. 1 of 2003 in Spl.C.C.No.2 of 2003 on the file of the Special Judge (III Additional Sessions Judge), Pondicherry for the offence under Section 25-A r/w. Sections 29 and 9-A of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 5.6.2003, the petitioner (A-1) along with 2nd accused had to come to Navata Road Transport Office at Pondicherry to take delivery of Ephedrine HCL I.P. and that the same is a controlled drug under the N.D.P.S. Act. Hence, there is reasonable belief that the drug is likely to be utilized for illegal manufacturing of narcotic drugs/psychotropic substances. The said drug Ephedrine HCL I.P. is notified as controlled substance under Government of India, Ministry of Finance Notification in S.O. No. 1296 (E) dated 28.12.1999. 3. In view of the fact that the said drug Ephedrine HCL I.P. does not find a place in the list of controlled drug under the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 or in the amended Act, 2001 or in any other Act, such complaint against the petitioner is illegal and therefore is liable to be quashed as far as the petitioner is concerned. Hence, the petition. 4. Heard Mr. P. Theogarai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.N. Prakash, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended at the outset in his argument that every notification or order issued under Clause (vii-a), Clause (xi), Clause (xxiii-a) of Section 2, Section 3, Section 7-A, Section 9-A and Clause (a) of Section 27 shall be laid as soon as may be, after it is made or issued, placed before each house of Parliament while it is in session and therefore since the notification under question in this petition was not placed before both the houses of parliament before ever the same was issued, the prosecution laid as against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 6. 6. Per contra, leaned Special Public Prosecutor for N.D.P.S. Cases has drawn the attention of this Court that as on the date of notification (i.e) 28.12.1999, the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (as amended by N.D.P.S. Amendment Act, 1988) was in force and that therefore the notification issued under Section 2(vii-a) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 need not be laid before the parliament under Section 77 of the N.D.P.S. Act, because there is no reference to Section 2(vii-a) in the provision under Section 77 of the Act and therefore he has submitted that the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. It is not in controversy that the petitioner and other accused were charged for the said offences as they contravened the provision under the said notification under S.O.1296 (E) F.No.V/105/98-NC-II dated 28.12.1999 issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance. Similarly, it is not disputed that on the date of the said notification, only the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (as amended by the N.D.P.S. Amendment Act, 1988) was in force. In view of such circumstances, it is essential to extract the provision under Section 77 of the said Act hereunder to appreciate the facts and circumstances of this case: "77. Rules and notifications to be laid before Parliament.- Every rule made under this Act by the Central Government and every notification issued under Clause (xi) of Section 2, Section 3, and Clause (a) of and Explanation (1) to Section 27 shall be laid, as soon as may be, after it is made or issued before each House of Parliament while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or notification or both Houses agree that the rule or notification should not be made or issued, the rule or the notification shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect as the case may be, so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done tinder that rule or notification". 8. 8. As has been pointed out above, the Notification under question was issued under Section 2(vii-a) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (as amended by N.D.P.S. Amendment Act, 1988). On the contrary, the provision under Section 77 referred supra does not contemplate similar notification made under Section 2(vii-a) of the said Act to be placed before each House of Parliament before ever it is issued and therefore this Court is of the considered view that the contention put forth by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner does not deserve acceptance for the simple reason that on the date of the notification (i.e.) 28.12.1999, only the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 (as amended by N.D.P.S. Act 1988) was in force and that the said notification issued under Section 2(vii-a) of the N.D.P.S. Act need not be laid before the Parliament as per the provisions under Section 77 of the said Act. It is relevant to mention that Clause (vii-a) was inserted by Act 2 of 1989, (vide) Section 3 (w.e.f. 29.5.1989) and relettered as Clause (vii-d) and inserted by Act 9 of 2001 (vide) Section 3 (w.e.f. 2.10.2001). Therefore, it is no longer open to the petitioner to urge that the said notification ought to have been placed before both the houses of Parliament as per Section 77 of the said Act. In view of such aspects of the matter, since Ephedrine HCL I.P. is a controlled substance as notified under the said notification, the petitioner and other accused are liable to be prosecuted under the said provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court finds that there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P. Nos.3653 and 3654 of 2005 are closed.