ORDER : (Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J.) The Senior Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence has filed a complaint in F.No. DRI/HZU/ VJRU/48/ENQ- 1[INT-1]/2017 against the accused to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 20, 28, and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act, 1985). The said complaint was registered as S.C. No.109 of 2017. The said officer has filed Crl.M.P.No.1069 of 2017 under Section 52A of NDPS Act praying the Court to allow the application and permit to forward the original sample drawn in the presence of Magistrate of CRCL, Chennai, along with the test memos in duplicate. The said application was allowed by an order dated 22.03.2017 permitting the complainant to follow the procedure contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 and permitting the complainant to dispose of the property as per Sub-Section (1) of Section 52A of NDPS Act, 1985, and the date fixed to follow the procedure under sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 2. Be that as it may after examining of two witnesses, the 2nd respondent who is the accused has filed an application in Criminal M.P. No.2086 of 2018 before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Vijayawada, under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to direct the prosecution to produce M1 to M111 drums before the Court for the purpose of trial, on the ground that the accused has expressed his doubt about manner in which the inventory was conducted and when the accused wanted to physically inspect the material objectives and not only physical inspection of material objects by the accused or his counsel, but the accused has an opportunity to summon the Magistrate, if there are serious lapses in conducting the inventory. 3. The said application was objected by the prosecution stating that under Section 52 of NDPS Act, an application was filed before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada as mandated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case law in Union of India v. Mohanlal and another, 2012(7) SCC 712 and the photographs of the seized stock have been taken and they have been submitted along with the charge sheet and the inventory conducted by the Magistrate can be taken as primary evidence during the course of trial and inventory conducted cannot be looked into by the trial court. The said report was filed on receiving report from the CRCL, Chennai and a notice was given to the accused before conducting the inventory by the Magistrate, but the accused not availed the opportunity to context the said application and did not participate in the proceedings and the report received from the CRCL, Chennai clearly discloses that the material seized from the accused is ganja and at no point of time, the prosecution has suppressed any fact. Since, the accused did not challenge the proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, now, he cannot seek direction to cause production of the drums before the Court. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the application filed by the 2nd respondent/accused. 4. Learned Sessions Judge has allowed the said application filed under Section 91 Cr.P.C. by an order dated 09.11.2018 and directed to cause production of the material objectives M1 to M111 drums before the Court for the purpose of trial on the ground that to have a transparent and fair trial. 5. Aggrieved by the order in Crl.M.P. 2086 of 2018 in Sessions Case 109 oof2017, the present Criminal petition is filed to quash the said order on the grounds that the said order is contrary to the very purport of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, 1985 and as per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab in Criminal Appeal No.2182 of 2010, wherein it was held that for proving the offence under the NDPS Act, it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the quantity of the contraband goods allegedly seized from the possession of the accused and the best evidence would be the Court records as to the production of the contraband before the Magistrate and deposit of the same before the Malkhana or the document showing the destruction of the contraband. And once the application is filed under Section 52A (4) of the NDPS Act, inventory proceedings, photographs of the seized drugs and conveyance and drawal of samples were conducted and thereafter the same was certified by the Judicial Magistrate that it becomes primary evidence and the order under Section 52A have pave the way for destruction of the seized material and filing of destruction report before the trial Court and allowing application filed by the accused to know the quantity and quality of the ganja seized amounts to negating the provisions of Section 52A (4) of the NDPS Act and also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohanlal case (supra 1). 6. Section 52 of the NDPS Act, reads as follows: [52A. 6. Section 52 of the NDPS Act, reads as follows: [52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.-- [(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.] (2) Where any [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such 3 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the 3 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances] or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the 3 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of— (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such magistrate, photographs of [such drugs, substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (3) Where an application is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1972) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the innventory, the photographs of 5 [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.] 7. As seen from the order, the Respondent/Accused has not participated in the application filed by the prosecution under Section 52A of NDPS Act. And sub-section (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act manifests that any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate amounts to a primary evidence in respect of such offence. 8. As the 2nd respondent/accused has not participated in the inventory conducted by the Magistrate, the 2nd respondent accused cannot maintain application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. to direct the prosecution to produce M1 to M111 drums before the Court for the purpose of trial on the ground to know the manner in which the inventory is conducted. The accused cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. 9. In the opinion of this Court, there is no need of production of MOs as requested by the 2nd respondent/accused as it is not desirable for the purpose of trial, as already an inventory was conducted by the learned Magistrate under Section 52 of the NDPS Act. Admittedly, the accused has not participated in the inventory conducted under Section 52 of the NDPS Act. And it is obvious the petitioner herein has filed this application to drag on the proceedings. Though the Court is being under obligation to impart justice is not debarred from exercising its power under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. with interest of justice so required. As the 2 nd respondent/accused has not participated in the inventory, this Court of the opinion that the present application is filed to drag on the proceedings. 10. Though the Court is being under obligation to impart justice is not debarred from exercising its power under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. with interest of justice so required. As the 2 nd respondent/accused has not participated in the inventory, this Court of the opinion that the present application is filed to drag on the proceedings. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.11.2018 in Crl.M.P. No. 2086 of 2018 in S.C.No.109 of 2017 on the file of the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Vijayawada is hereby set aside and the trial Court is hereby directed to proceed with the trial. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.