ORDER : (Farjand Ali, J.) 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 1/2024. 2. Concerned Police Station CBN Chittorgarh 3. District Chittorgarh 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 8/15 (C) of NDPS Act. 2. The first and second bail applications being SBCRLMB No. 3317/2024 and SBCRLMB No. 8806/2024 of the petitioners have been dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide orders dated 24.04.2024 and 18.07.2024 respectively. While deciding the earlier bail application, liberty was granted to renew the prayer after filing of the charge-sheet. Now the charge-sheet has been filed, thus, the instant bail applications. 3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Special Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 5. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. The present is a case in which the officers of Central Bureau of Narcotics, District Chittorgarh, State of Rajasthan proceeded to make search and seizure of an offence committed at Village Dhakadi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that upon receiving a secret information on 06.01.2024, a joint preventive team from the CBN Office, Chittorgarh proceeded to the place of the petitioner and conducted a search of his house, where around 11 quintals of poppy husk came to be recovered and seized as per the usual course of investigation, as it is claimed by the officers. The petitioner came to be arrested for having in possession of poppy husk in commercial quantity. 8. The petitioner came to be arrested for having in possession of poppy husk in commercial quantity. 8. The glaring defect of the case as pointed out by the defence is that the offence was committed within the State of M.P. at Mandsore but the seizure was reported in the State of Rajasthan at District Chittorgarh and charge-sheet has also been submitted in the Court of Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh, which has no jurisdiction to try or inquire the case as it falls outside its territorial jurisdiction. 9. A further plea has also been raised that as per the Recovery Memo, though the contraband was taken from the house of the petitioner situated in the State of M.P., but the same was taken to the Office of CBN, District Chittorgarh in the State of Rajasthan, where the entire process of seizure was affected and which is not permissible in the law. 10. In this view of the matter, this Court has observed that the team of CBN, District Chittorgarh went to conduct a search at the petitioner’s house, which is around 80-90 kms away from Chittorgarh and falls within the territorial jurisdiction of District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Of course, the respondent is a Central Agency and it has an authority to make search and seizure at any place within its authorized areas but at the same time, this legal plea cannot be ignored that the alleged offence was committed somewhere in the State of M.P. and ordinarily, the place of inquiry and trial, as per Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would be the place where the crime was committed and search was affected. It is an admitted fact situation that the place of recovery is situated in District Mandsore of State of M.P. and ordinary place of trial of such case would be the Special Judge functioning at District Mandsore in the State of M.P. 11. For ready reference, Section 177 of Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein under:- “177.Ordinary place of inquiry and trial. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 11.1.A bare perusal of the above, making it abundantly clear that an inquiry or trial in relation to an offence shall only be conducted by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. 11.1.A bare perusal of the above, making it abundantly clear that an inquiry or trial in relation to an offence shall only be conducted by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed. Indisputably, the offence of having possession of contraband was committed somewhere in the State of M.P. and the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh will have no jurisdiction to try the accused. Section 178 Cr.P.C. deals with the place of inquiry or trial for an offence when it is not clear as to where the offence was committed or where the offence has been committed in multiple locations or where the offence is a continuing one and continuously to be committed at multiple locations and lastly this provision would be attracted when the offence consists of multiple acts done in different locations. In cases of such nature as mentioned above, a criminal Court having jurisdiction of the local areas where any part of offence is committed will have jurisdiction to inquire into or try the offence. Here in this case, it is manifesting as crystal clear that no criminal act was committed or done within the local jurisdiction of Chittorgarh area for which the Court of Special Judge was constituted. A bare perusal of the complaint submitted by the respondent Agency making it abundantly clear that the officers of the CBN simply received an information from their sources that a man in Mandsaur district has possession of contraband at his home. Simply receiving information through any technology by any officer regarding a crime committed at a different area does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon the court at that place to get authority to try the case. For instance, the officer of NCB, CBN, DRI, ED, CBI, NIA may get information at their Delhi office regarding commission of crime by any accused at Mumbai, Ahemdabad, Calcutta, Jodhpur etc. and they may proceed to act upon that information and in pursuance thereof culprit can be arrested and contraband can be recovered, however, doing so would not mean that Delhi Court has acquired jurisdiction to try the cases committed at Mumbai and Calcutta etc. for the simple reason of having received information. and they may proceed to act upon that information and in pursuance thereof culprit can be arrested and contraband can be recovered, however, doing so would not mean that Delhi Court has acquired jurisdiction to try the cases committed at Mumbai and Calcutta etc. for the simple reason of having received information. Section 178 to Section 184 of the Cr.P.C. are exception to the general rule contained under Section 177 Cr.P.C. however, even the exception provision demand commission of part of crime to have committed at the first place. The act done at the first place should have a relation or consequence/result at other place. Suffice it would be to say that the law does not confer jurisdiction upon the Special Judge, Chittorgarh to inquire into or try the case of the petitioner, the crime of which was committed at a place of different jurisdiction because no part of crime was committed here. The jurisdiction strikes the very authority of the Court to proceed and to act upon as well as any order passed against statutory force would be a nullity. 11.2. The view taken by this Court is based upon the dicta passed in the case of Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod v. State of Maharashtra passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2014 (4) SC 3519 and in Y. Abraham Ajith and Ors. v. Inspector of Police, Chennai and Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 4286 . 12. Another glaring aspect of the case is that the alleged poppy husk was found in petitioner’s house situated at Village Dhakadi, Tehsil Malhargarh, District Mandsore in the State of Madhya Pradesh, however, no Seizure Memo was prepared at the place from where it was recovered; rather, weird process had been adopted by taking the contraband to the Office of CBN, District Chittorgarh in the State of Rajasthan, which is around 80-90 kms far away from the place of recovery. 13. This Court is of the firm view that unless availability of special circumstances, the things are required to be seized at the same place where from it is recovered because taking away the contraband from a place and then affecting procedure of seizure at a suitable place of the Officer makes the recovery doubtful and so also the same loses its sanctity and sacrosanct character. 14. 14. Dealing with the aforesaid aspect, this Court has passed an order dated 08.05.2024 in SBCRLMB No.5457/2024 (Major Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) while observing as under :- “13. The admission made by the above witnesses has put a serious dent on the story of the prosecution to the effect that a vehicle was intercepted by the police at a particular place and time and certain quantity of contraband got recovered from it. In order to sanctify the search and seizure of contraband, it was expected from the Seizure Officer to prepare the memos at the crime place that too in the presence of the independent witnesses if available nearby the place. Present is a case where several persons were available at or nearby the crime place but not a single independent witness has corroborated the factum of recovery memo. Taking of the vehicle and the accused from the crime scene to the police station and then preparation of memos within the close precinct of the police station, as per their convenience has lost the sanctity of the search and seizure. Law requires that if certain thing is recovered at a particular place on the given time then the memos should be prepared at the same place in the presence of witnesses and accused. Although, it is a prima face and tentative opinion of this Court only for the purpose of justifiable disposal of the bail application. 14. Discussing the above circumstance, this Court has taken a view in SBCRLMB No.11544/2023 titled as Kamlesh Kumar Vs. Union of India decided on 30.10.2023. The relevant part is reproduced as under: - 5. Have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. The circumstances created by the Police team in this matter brings the recovery into doubt. The statement of the seizing officer recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reveals that the process of seizure was conducted at the Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach instead of the place where the recovery took place and the same is corroborated by the Panchnama Japti. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure made in the premises of Police Station is highly doubtful and no explanation furnished by the team members as to why the search and seizure was not made at the place where the vehicle was intercepted. He submits that the sanctity of the seizure made in the premises of Police Station is highly doubtful and no explanation furnished by the team members as to why the search and seizure was not made at the place where the vehicle was intercepted. It is not comprehensible as to what was the need to conduct the seizure at a place located 20-25 kms away from the place where the vehicle was intercepted; that too, at the premises of Office of Superintendent CBN, Neemach and no reasonable explanation has been furnished for the same. When the actual recovery had already been made and search and seizure had already been conducted at the shop and warehouse of the petitioner beforehand, then why was the memo regarding the same prepared after a significant period of time had passed at another place (CBN, Neemach) making it seem as if seizure/recovery memo can be prepared as a paper formality whenever it is convenient when the actual, physical recovery had been made at a different place, thus, watering down the sanctity of seizure/recovery memo. 15. The credibility of the seizure memo looses significance if the thing is recovered at a distant place and it is taken by the police from the crime scene to the police station and then memos got prepared in the police station. If it is allowed then why not in every case the things may be taken from the crime scene and wherefter, the entire proceeding be undertaken in the premises of police station and then why not in every case the accused can be detained from any place and whereafter his/her/their memo of arrest be prepared in the police station. This Court is of the view that if anything or any incriminating material is collected or recovered from a particular place and at a particular time then the seizure memo/recovery memo should have been prepared at the same place and that too in the presence of the witnesses of the same locality. A slight departure or deviation can be permitted in case when no other person is available to verify the fact of recovery at the crime scene then the members of the police party can be made witness of the fact of recovery. A slight departure or deviation can be permitted in case when no other person is available to verify the fact of recovery at the crime scene then the members of the police party can be made witness of the fact of recovery. In certain circumstances, when there is heavy rain or there is heavy traffic on the highway or other like situation, in that cases also, the seizure memo can be prepared at a nearby place so that the proceedings can be undertaken calmly or safely. However, it is not permissible for a police officer to pick the contraband from a particular place then carry with him to the police station which is situated at a far place and whereafter prepare the seizure memo in the police station premises. The moment this kind of practice is permitted; the day is not far when there would be a trait that the police officers will claim that though the memos were prepared in the police station but the things were recovered from a different place. In that situation, the purity, originality, genuineness and virtuousness would be lost and at the same time, there would be serious aspersions regarding fairness and genuineness of factum of seizure. 15. From the observations made above, this Court is of the opinion that the preparation of seizure memo at a far place from the actual place was not in accordance to the spirit of law. This Court is of the view that indeed the complaint has been submitted by the respondent-Department before a wrong forum so also that the learned Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, pass an order of remand and continuation of it or to take cognizance of the offence and to try the case. It is also deemed appropriate to warn and caution the officers of the respondent-Department to take care of the above things in future so that due to their flaws and technical errors, the culprits involved in smuggling of Narcotics drugs may not get advantage of it. It is also deemed appropriate to warn and caution the officers of the respondent-Department to take care of the above things in future so that due to their flaws and technical errors, the culprits involved in smuggling of Narcotics drugs may not get advantage of it. It is also made clear that as on date prima facie this Court validate the action of the respondent-Department to proceed to the house of the accused to make a search of his house, to affect seizure of the contraband in accordance with the statutory provisions of rules and to arrest the accused and, therefore, the initial proceedings conducted by the officers is not against the provisions of law and the statutory authority possessed by them however, the complaint was supposed to be submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction for the purpose of further judicial action. At this juncture, it is also deemed apt to clarify the jurisdictional authority of the learned Judge, who allowed to entertain the proceedings against the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. 16. Upon a query made by the Court; the Registrar Judicial supplied copies of notifications issued by the Law and Legal Affairs Department, Rajasthan showing the territorial jurisdiction and the institution of Special Judge Court for NDPS cases. The authenticity and genuineness of notifications is not under dispute. The notifications dated 21.01.1997 (Annexure 1), 18.07.2013 (Annexure 2), 26.05.2021 (Annexure 3) and 16.05.2022 (Annexure 4) have been taken on record. 17. As per the notification dated 21.01.1997 (Annexure 1), Special Court No. 1 for NDPS cases has been instituted for the districts mentioned in the notification, including a Special Court (NDPS cases) in Chittorgarh. The notifications dated 21.01.1997 (Annexure 1), 18.07.2013 (Annexure 2), 26.05.2021 (Annexure 3) and 16.05.2022 (Annexure 4) have been taken on record. 17. As per the notification dated 21.01.1997 (Annexure 1), Special Court No. 1 for NDPS cases has been instituted for the districts mentioned in the notification, including a Special Court (NDPS cases) in Chittorgarh. For ready reference notification dated 21.01.1997 (Annexure 1) is being reproduced as under:- jktLFkku ljkdj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx Øekad% 2@10@U;k;@66 t;iqj] fnukad %21&1&97 %%vf/klwpuk%% ukjdksfVd MªXl ,.M lkbdksVªksfid lCLVsUlst ,DV] 1985 dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk ds vUrxZr iznRr ‘kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke’kZ ls] 50 izfr'kr dsUnzh; lgk;rk ls fuEufyf[kr ftyk eq[;ky;ksa ij dkWye la[;k esa mYysf[kr ftyk U;k;k/kh’k Lrj ds vf/kdkfjrk okys fo’ks”k U;k;ky; l`ftr ,oa LFkkfir djrh gSA budk vf/kdkfjrk {kS= dkWye la[;k 4 ds vuqlkj gksxkA mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds varxZr mDr U;k;ky;ksa ds U;k;k/kh'kksa dks fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k fu;qDr djrh gS%& Ø- la- U;k;ky; dk uke cSBd dk LFkku vf/kdkfjrk {kS= 1 fo’ks”k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½ HkhyokM+k HkhyokM+k lEiw.kZ ftyk 2 fo'ks"k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½ guqekuxढ+ ]] 3- fo'ks"k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½ Jhxaxkuxj Jhxaxkuxj ]] 4- fo’ks”k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½ t;iqj 'kgj t;iqj 'kgj ]] 5- fo'ks"k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½ >kykokM+ >kykokM+ ]] 6- fo’ks"k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½ fpRrkSM+xढ+ fpRrkSM+xढ+ ]] jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] ,lMh 'kklu lfpo 18. Vide notification dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure 2), the State Government in consultation with Rajasthan High Court establishes Special Courts with jurisdiction of the level of District Judge as mentioned in the notification at the following district headquarters whereby Special Court (NDPS cases) No. 2 Chittorgarh has been established and Special Judge was appointed. For ready reference notification dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure 2) is being reproduced as under:- **jktLFkku ljkdj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx Øekad% i-1¼2½U;k; @2013 t;iqj] fnukad % 18 JuL. For ready reference notification dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure 2) is being reproduced as under:- **jktLFkku ljkdj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx Øekad% i-1¼2½U;k; @2013 t;iqj] fnukad % 18 JuL. 2013 %%vf/klwpuk %% ukjdksfVd MªXl ,.M lkbdksVªksfid lCLVsUlst ,DV] 1985 dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls] fuEufyf[kr ftyk eq[;ky;ksa ij dkWye la[;k 2 esa mYysf[kr ftyk U;k;k/kh'k Lrj d vf/kdkfjrk okys fo'ks"k U;k;ky; l`ftr ,oa LFkkfir djrh gSA budk vf/kdkfjrk {kS= dkWye la[;k 4 ds vuqlkj gksxkA mDr vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk ¼2½ ds varxZr mDr U;k;ky;ksa ds U;k;k/kh'kksa dks fo'ks’k U;k;k/kh'k fu;qDr djrh gS%& Ø- la- U;k;ky; dk uke cSBd dk LFkku vf/kdkfjrk {kS= 1 fo'ks"k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½ la[;k 2] fpRrkSM+xढ+ fpRrkSM+xढ+ jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk;sxk 2 fo'ks"k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½ dksVk dksVk lEiw.kZ ftyk lkFk gh iwoZ esa dk;Zjr fo'ks"k U;k;ky; ¼,u-Mh-ih-,l- izdj.k½] fpRrkSM+xढ+ jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] lgh@& izdk'k xqIrk izeq[k 'kklu lfpo** 19. By notification dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure 3), State Government established Additional District Courts for speedy disposal of the pending cases of the District Courts and fixed the place of their sitting and for District and Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh; Additional District Judge, Begu was given charge. By notification dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure 3), State Government established Additional District Courts for speedy disposal of the pending cases of the District Courts and fixed the place of their sitting and for District and Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh; Additional District Judge, Begu was given charge. For ready reference notification dated 26.05.2021 (Annexure 3) is being reproduced as under:- **jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx Øekad%&i-1¼1½U;k;@2021 t;iqj] fnukad 26-05-2021 vf/klwpuk jktLFkku flfoy U;k;ky; v/;kns'k] 1950 ¼lu~ 1950 dk v/;kns'k la[;k 7½ dh /kkjk 7 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½] /kkjk 10 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ ,oa /kkjk 16 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½ n~okjk iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls] jkT; ljdkj] ,rn~n~okjk] rqjUr izHkko ls dkWye la[;k 2 esa mYysf[kr ftyk U;k;k/kh'kksa ds le{k fopkjk/khu oknksa dks 'kh?kz fuiVkus gsrq dkWye la[;k 3 esa mYysf[kr vij ftyk U;k;ky; l`ftr ,oa LFkkfir djrh gS rFkk budh cSBd dk LFkku dkWye la[;k 4 ds vuqlkj fu;r djrh gS%& Ø-l ftyk U;k;k/kh'kksa ds U;k;ky; dk uke vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'kksa ds U;k;ky; dk uke cSBd dk LFkku 1 2 3 4 1- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] vtesj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] ulhjkckn ulhjkckn 2- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] vyoj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] dBwej dBwej 3- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Hkjriqj ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Hkjriqj oSj 4- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] chdkusj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] Mwaxjxढ+ Mwaxjxढ+ 5- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] cwUnh vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] uSuok uSuok 6- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] fpRrkSM+xढ+ vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] cSaxw cSaxw 7- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] pw: vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] ljnkj'kgj ljnkj'kgj 8- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh’k] Jhxaxkuxj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] lknqy'kgj Lkknqy'kgj 9- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] Jhxaxkuxj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] vuwixढ+ vuwixढ+ 10- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] tkyksj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] tkyksj tkyksj 11- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] lokbZek/kksiqj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] la[;k 2] xaxkiqjflVh xaxkiqjflVh 12- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] lhdj vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] la[;k 2] uhedkFkkuk uhedkFkkuk 13- ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k] fljksgh vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] fljksgh fljksgh uksV& mijksDr U;k;ky;ksa dk LFkkuh; {ks=kf/kdkj jktLFkku flfoy U;k;ky; v/;kns'k 1950 dh /kkjk 10¼3½ ,oa 7¼2½ rFkk n.M izfØ;k lafgrk ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr~ lacaf/kr ftyk ,oa ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k n~okjk fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk;sxk ,oa n.M izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 9¼3½ ds vUrxZr~ jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; n~okjk vij ls'ku U;k;k/kh'k dh 'kfDr;ka iznku dh tk;sxhA lkFk gh orZeku esa dk;Zjr~ vij ftyk U;k;ky;] vuwixढ+ xaxkiqjflVh o uhedkFkkuk dk uke ifjofrZr djrs gq, vij ftyk U;k;ky;] la[;k 1] vuwixढ+ xaxkiqjflVh o uhedkFkkuk fd;k tkrk gSA jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls] ¼fouksn dqekj Hkkjokuh½ izeq[k 'kklu lfpo** 20. Vide notification dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure 4), the State Government in consultation with Rajasthan High Court in continuation of the earlier notifications dated 04.02.1994 and 16.05.2016, hereby specifies the Additional Districts and Sessions Courts established at all places except the Additional District and Sessions Courts established at the district headquarters created after 17.04.2018 and Additional District and Sessions Court, Nagar (Bharatpur) as Special Courts having jurisdiction within their territorial limits in respect of cases arising under the said Act and hereby appoints the Presiding Officers of the said Courts as Special Judges to try cases arising under the said Act. For ready reference notification dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure 4) is being reproduced as under:- **jktLFkku ljdkj fof/k ,oa fof/kd dk;Z foHkkx Øekad i-2¼1½ U;k;@2022 t;iqj] fnukad 16-05-2022 %%vf/klwpuk%% ukjdksfVd MªXl ,.M lkbdksVªksfid lCLVsUlst ,DV] 1985 dh /kkjk 36 dh mi/kkjk ¼1½,oa ¼2½ ds vUrxZr iznRr 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] jkT; ljdkj] jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; ds ijke'kZ ls] iwoZ esa tkjh vf/klwpukvksa fnukad 04-02-1994 ,oa 16-05-2016 dh fujUrjrk esa fnukad 17-04-2018 ds i'pkr~ l`ftr ftyk eq[;ky;ksa ij LFkkfir vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;ky;ksa dk NksM+dj 'ks"k vU; LFkkuksa ij LFkkfir vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;ky;ksa dks rFkk vij ftyk ,oa l= U;k;ky;] uxj ¼Hkjriqj½ dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mRiUu ekeyksa ds ckjs esa viuh {ks=h; lhekvksa esa vf/kdkfjrk okys fo’ks”k U;k;ky; fofufnZ”V djrh gS] ,oa mDr U;k;ky;ksa ds ihBklhu vf/kdkfj;ksa dks mDr vf/kfu;e ds v/khu mRiUu ekeyksa esa fopkj.k djus gsrq fo'ks"k U;k;k/kh'k fu;qDr djrh gSA jkT;iky ds vkns'k ls ¼izohj HkVukxj½ izeq[k 'kklu lfpo** 21. This Court is of the view that simply because the team of Central Agency received an information at Chittorgarh regarding possession of the contraband from the accused-petitioner at Mandsore does not automatically confer jurisdiction to the Court at Chittorgarh to conduct trial. Receiving information by the officer is not the part of crime. Learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh committed an error while allowing reception of the FIR/complaint pertaining to an offence committed outside to his jurisdiction. Further, it has been noticed that remand was further extended by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh for which he was not empowered by any provision of law. 22. Learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh committed an error while allowing reception of the FIR/complaint pertaining to an offence committed outside to his jurisdiction. Further, it has been noticed that remand was further extended by the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh for which he was not empowered by any provision of law. 22. This Court has taken an overall view of this case and is of the opinion that till the Central agency or investigating agency has conducted or proceeded with the search, seizure and arrest in Mandsore, M.P., it was not bad in the eyes of law though arrest was a legal step but further when the report has been submitted to the Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh, who without having a territorial jurisdiction has taken cognizance of FIR/complaint, conferred the charges, extended remand and also commenced the trial, which in my view was bad in the eyes of law as it was performed outside the jurisdiction. The best available course open to the respondent department would be to withdraw the complaint and then to file the same before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 23. This Court is cautious of the fact that any direction by this Court to the judicial officer of M.P. under superintendence of High Court of M.P. would not be appropriate, so it is felt apt to make a request to the judge having jurisdiction to take cognizance and to try the case; to allow the Agency by entertaining the complaint and to proceed as per the procedure established by law; in case the agency submits a complaint before him. 24. Here, it would be apposite to make it clear that the matter came up for consideration before this Court for regular bail only but during the course of hearing, serious defects referred above were noticed and, therefore, it is felt appropriate in the interest of justice to pass certain directions by exercising extra ordinary powers vested in it. The inherent powers are always available with the Constitutional Court and it does not matter as to what is the nature of case and what the roaster assigned to it. The very day, when the Courts are established, the inherent powers were with it so that it can pass an order essential to dispense justice or necessary to prevent the abuse of process of law and expedient to secure the ends of justice. The very day, when the Courts are established, the inherent powers were with it so that it can pass an order essential to dispense justice or necessary to prevent the abuse of process of law and expedient to secure the ends of justice. 24.1.The express provision of Section 482 Cr.P.C. only preserves and recognizes the nature of power already inbuilt, innate and inherent with the Judge of the High Court. This Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that a serious defect has arisen in a case wherein both prosecuting agency as well as the Court below have failed to take notice of the express statutory provision with regards to place of trial and, therefore, it is felt expedient to pass an order in the interest of justice so that the culprit, who is having possession of Narcotic Drugs may not get advantage of procedural defect rather an accused of such serious crime should not go escort free. It is, therefore, the bail application is being decided alongwith exercise of inherent powers vested in it with regard to issuance of directions for appropriate place of trial as per the legal provisions. 24.2.The Courts are meant to impart justice and justice alone and for that purpose it has been established. Being a Constitutional Court, this Court owes a duty to save the interest of citizens to protect the infraction of law and so also to suitably pass an appropriate order for a lawful prosecution of an accused against whom sufficient material is available on record. 25. In this view of the matter, the following directions are passed:- (a) The respondent authority would be at liberty to make an application for withdrawal of the prosecution from Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh. (b) Upon moving such an application, learned Special Judge, NDPS Act Cases, Chittorgarh shall handover the entire case file to the prosecuting agency after taking on record entire set of certified copies of the same. (c) The respondent agency would be at liberty to submit the complaint along with entire case file before the Court having jurisdiction to try the case without unnecessary delay preferably within 1 months after receiving of the same. (d) The respondent agency would be able to prosecute the petitioner before the appropriate forum as per the procedure of law. 26. (c) The respondent agency would be at liberty to submit the complaint along with entire case file before the Court having jurisdiction to try the case without unnecessary delay preferably within 1 months after receiving of the same. (d) The respondent agency would be able to prosecute the petitioner before the appropriate forum as per the procedure of law. 26. Accordingly, the instant third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.