JUDGMENT : T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J. 1. This Criminal Petition under Section 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2, seeking regular bail in Cr. No. VIII/10/24/2023-Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada. 2. The above crime was registered against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. 3. The Prosecution’s case, in brief, is that the Superintendent of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada got advance information that the petitioners were coming to the lane adjacent to St. John’s High School, Gannavaram in a silver colour car from Visakhapatnam on 12.10.2023 afternoon. Basing on the information, the officers of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada along with independent witnesses way laid and stopped the Volkswagen Vento Car bearing registration No. AP 31 BT 9289 and questioned A1 and A2 and after that taken them into their custody at 3.00 pm on the same day. On search of the car, they found 99 bags containing ganja totaling to 203.306 kgs. On enquiry, A1 and A2 submitted that they purchased the same at Jaggampeta by Raju Ram Chowdary @ Raju Bhai, who escorted them on a motorcycle and directed them to head towards Hyderabad and by the time, the petitioners reached to Gannavaram, the Customs officials took them into their custody. After observing all formalities, they were remanded to judicial custody. 4. Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs at Vijayawada, representing the Respondent-State filed counter and submitted that on advance information by the Superintendent of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada that the petitioners were coming to Vijayawada in a silver colour car from Visakhapatnam on 12.10.2023 afternoon. Basing on the information, the officers of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada along with independent witnesses way laid at St. John’s School, Gannavaram and stopped the Volkswagen Vento Car bearing registration no. AP 31 BT 9289 and questioned A1 & A2 and after that taken them into their custody at 3.00pm on the same day. On search of the car, they found 99 bags containing ganja totaling to 203.306 kgs. On enquiry, A1 and A2 submitted that they purchased the same at Jaggampeta by Raju Ram Chowdary @ Raju Bhai, who escorted them on a motorcycle and directed them to head towards Hyderabad and by the time, the petitioners reached to Gannavaram, the Customs officials took them into their custody. On enquiry, A1 and A2 submitted that they purchased the same at Jaggampeta by Raju Ram Chowdary @ Raju Bhai, who escorted them on a motorcycle and directed them to head towards Hyderabad and by the time, the petitioners reached to Gannavaram, the Customs officials took them into their custody. After recording the statement of witnesses, A1 and A2 were arrested. Investigation is going on and no charge sheet was filed. There are clear ingredients in the report attracting the offence against the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Petitioners are innocent, they were falsely implicated in this crime and they eke out their livelihood by performing poojas; they never involved in any offences as alleged by the customs officials who arrested them on 13.10.2023; Petitioners are languishing in Sub-Jail, Gannavaram, since 13.10.2023; Petitioner did not involve in any ganja related cases in the past and plead not guilty of offence; so far, the Respondent have examined all the material witnesses and completed their investigation including the receipt of chemical analysis from Central Customs Laboratory, Chennai; previously, they filed a regular bail in Crl. M.P. No. 1557 of 2023 on the file of Metropolitan Sessions Judgecum- Special Judge for trial of NDPS Act Cases, Vijayawada and the same was dismissed on 08.01.2024; therefore, Petitioners prayed to release them on bail. 6. I have heard both sides. Learned counsel on both sides reiterated their submissions on par with the contentions presented in the petition and the report. Consequently, the contentions raised by learned counsel need not be reproduced. 7. It can be seen from the record that the Respondent registered a case in Cr. No. VIII/10/24/2023 on the file of Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Vijayawada, against the Petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act on 13.10.2023; the Petitioners were arrested and sent to Judicial remand on the same day and now, they are in Sub-Jail, Gannavaram; the officer of Customs Commissionerate (Preventive), Vijayawada, seized the total quantity of 203.306 kg of cannabis also known as Ganja contained in the 99 transparent polythene bags with handles marked ‘C1’ to ‘C99’ which are placed in 10 HDPE Woven sacks which are marked as ‘MC1’ to ‘MC10’ totally valued at Rs.40,66,120/- (@ Rs.20,000/- per kg in the grey market) under NDPS Act, 1985; the entire proceedings were recorded under a panchanama dated 12.10.2023. 8. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that expression ‘Ganja’ as defined in Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act, does not include seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Section 2(iii)b of the NDPS Act, defines ganja that the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops by whatever name they may be known or designated and further contends that as the material seized by the Respondent was dry brown leafy substance not accompanied by flowering or fruiting tops, it doesn’t come under the purview of NDPS Act. 9. To appreciate the said stand, I have carefully gone through the material placed on record, wherein, it is observed that the officers have opened 98 packets rapid with brown adhesive tape and found brown leafy material with flowery tops with slight moisture, emanating distinct odour in each packet. It is also stated that the inventory and sample proceedings were conducted before the learned Magistrate of Gannavaram and samples drawn were sent to the customs house laboratories, Chennai and the chemical analysis reports confirm that the sample is cannabis (Ganja) and is covered by NDSP Act, 1995. 10. In light of the above material placed on record, this court prima facie finds that contention raised by the Petitioners in this regard, is unsustainable. 11. The other contention raised by the Petitioners’ is that the Respondent did not follow the mandatory procedure laid down under section 42(ii) of NDPS Act; Respondent did not reduce the advance information into writing and forward it to its superior officers nor to the Hon’ble Court which vitiated the very case of prosecution. 12. Learned counsel for the Respondent relied on a decision in Union of India v. Mohd. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 31. Another submission that has been raised by the counsel for the respondent both before the High Court and this Court is that due to non-compliance of the procedural requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act: “42. Nawaz Khan, (2021) 10 SCC 100 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 31. Another submission that has been raised by the counsel for the respondent both before the High Court and this Court is that due to non-compliance of the procedural requirement under Section 42 of the NDPS Act: “42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization: (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including paramilitary forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act... (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior” the respondent should be granted bail. Section 42 provides that on the receipt of information of the commission of an offence under the statute, the officer will have to write down the information and send it to a superior officer within 72 hours. It has been submitted by the respondent that though the information was received by the Zonal Director, the information was put down in writing by an officer who was a part of the team constituted on the receipt of the information. The written information was then sent to the Zonal Director. This Court Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 held that though the writing down of information on the receipt of it should normally precede the search and seizure by the officer, in exceptional circumstances that warrant immediate and expedient action, the information shall be written down later along with the reason for the delay. 32. This Court Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 held that though the writing down of information on the receipt of it should normally precede the search and seizure by the officer, in exceptional circumstances that warrant immediate and expedient action, the information shall be written down later along with the reason for the delay. 32. Further, it was held that the issue of whether there was compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 42 of the NDPS Act is a question of fact. The decision in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana, (2009) 8 SCC 539 was recently followed by this Court in Boota Singh v. State of Haryana, (2021) 19 SCC 606 . By following the principles laid down in the said decision, this Court is of view that the contentions now raised by the Petitioners in this regard are to be raised and considered only at the time of trial. 13. Learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision in State of Kerala v. Rajesh, (2020) 12 SCC 122 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 17. The jurisdiction of the court to grant bail is circumscribed by the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It can be granted in case there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence, and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It is the mandate of the legislature which is required to be followed. At this juncture, a reference to Section 37 of the Act is apposite. That provision makes the offences under the Act cognizable and non-bailable. It reads thus: “37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974): (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable. (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless: (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under Section 19 or Section 24 or Section 27-A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless: (i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release. (ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. (2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail.” 19. The scheme of Section 37 reveals that the exercise of power to grant bail is not only subject to the limitations contained under Section 439 Cr.P.C. but is also subject to the limitation placed by Section 37 which commences with non-obstante clause. The operative part of the said section is in the negative form prescribing the enlargement of bail to any person accused of commission of an offence under the Act, unless twin conditions are satisfied. The first condition is that the prosecution must be given an opportunity to oppose the application and the second, is that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence. If either of these two conditions is not satisfied, the ban for granting bail operates. 20. The expression “reasonable grounds” means something more than prima facie grounds. It contemplates substantial probable causes for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. The reasonable belief contemplated in the provision requires existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient in themselves to justify satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence. 14. Learned counsel for the Respondent further relied on the decision in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 5..............Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). 14. Learned counsel for the Respondent further relied on the decision in State of M.P. v. Kajad, (2001) 7 SCC 673 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that: 5..............Negation of bail is the rule and its grant an exception under sub-clause (ii) of clause (b) of Section 37(1). For granting the bail the court must, on the basis of the record produced before it, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences with which he is charged and further that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. It has further to be noticed that the conditions for granting the bail, specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 37 are in addition to the limitations provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law for the time being in force regulating the grant of bail. Liberal approach in the matter of bail under the Act is uncalled for. 15. As per the Prosecution’s case, A.1 was driving the Vento Car bearing Registration No. AP31 BT 9289 and A.2 was also present in the car. The Officers of the Customs Commissonerate found certain damages in the car like broken right side rear door quarter and certain dents on the body and total packets recovered from the goods space and floor area of the rear seat of the car. The seized contraband is 203.306 kgs. The knowledge of the possession of contraband can be gleaned from the facts and circumstances of the case. The standard of conscious possession would be different in case of a public transport vehicle with several persons as opposed to a private vehicle with a few persons known to one another. 16. It is prima facie established from the record that the Petitioners were travelling in the vehicle all the way from Visakhapatnam to Vijayawada; the quantity of contraband found in the vehicle is of commercial quantity; the contraband was concealed in the vehicle. In the said facts of the case, this Court prima facie finds difficult to accept the Petitioners’ contention that they have been falsely implicated in the case. This Court finds that at this stage of the case, all that could be seen is, whether the statements made on behalf of the Prosecution witnesses, if believable would result in conviction of the petitioners’ or not. This Court finds that at this stage of the case, all that could be seen is, whether the statements made on behalf of the Prosecution witnesses, if believable would result in conviction of the petitioners’ or not. At this juncture, this Court cannot say that accused is not guilty of the offence, if the allegations made are established. 17. It is settled law that where narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are involved, the Accused would indulge in activities which are lethal to the society. Therefore, it would certainly be in the interest of the society to keep such behind bars during the pending investigation. 18. As more than commercial quantity is involved and the involvement of A.1 and A.2 is visible and in view of the foregoing reasons and principles laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra, this court finds no grounds to enlarge the Petitioners on bail, at this stage, consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. Needless to say, any observations made herein above are only to decide these applications. The main case will be decided on merits by the learned trial Court without getting influenced by any such observations made in the present order. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. 21. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.