JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam. 2. The instant criminal petition is preferred seeking to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 read with Section 401 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ and/or ‘Code’] for setting aside and quashing of the proceedings of Special [NDPS] Case no. 05/2015, presently pending before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj including an Order dated 02.07.2022 whereby cognizance has been taken for the offences under Section 22 [c]/29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances [NDPS] Act, 1985. By the Order dated 02.07.2022, the learned Special Court after taking cognizance of the afore-stated offences, issued processes against three accused persons, [1] Massadar Ali; [2] Basir Ahmed and [3] Ikbal Bahar Hussain [the petitioner] to appear in the proceedings of Special [NDPS] Case No. 05/2015. 3. It is stated at the Bar that in the meantime, two accused persons, namely, Massadar Ali and Basir Ahmed have expired. By an Order dated 02.08.2022, the learned Special Court receiving that since Basir Ahmed had expired on 14.07.2020, has observed that the case against him stood abated. The learned Special Court by another Order dated 29.04.2023 observing that Massadar Ali had expired on 09.09.2022, had held that the case against him stood abated. As a result of abatement of proceedings of the case against the said two accused persons, it is the petitioner who is the sole remaining accused to face the proceedings of Special [NDPS] Case no. 05/2015. 3.1 The case, Special [NDPS] Case No. 05/2015 arose out of Karimganj Police Station Case no. 285/2015. The FIR in connection with Karimganj Police Station Case no. 285/2015 was lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police, who was the then In-Charge, Girishganj Out Post. In the FIR, which was in reference to Girishganj Out Post General Diary Entry no. 134 dated 11.04.2015, the informant had inter-alia stated that on receipt of an information regarding keeping of suspected articles in a Garage at Tillabazar area, a team of Police personnel along with BSF personnel immediately rushed to the place to search the Garage. On opening the Garage, an Auto-Rickshaw bearing registration no. AS-10/C-4224 was found. When a search made inside the Auto Rickshaw, 397 nos. of Genosedyl bottles were found inside. On opening the Garage, an Auto-Rickshaw bearing registration no. AS-10/C-4224 was found. When a search made inside the Auto Rickshaw, 397 nos. of Genosedyl bottles were found inside. The bottles were accordingly, seized by preparing a Seizure List in presence of witnesses. 4. In the afore-stated FIR, no person was named as involved behind keeping 397 bottles of Genosedyl inside the Auto Rickshaw. The investigation was carried out after registration of the case. The I.O. of the case had, on 30.09.2019, submitted a Final Report stating inter-alia that there was no possibility of identification of the accused in the near future. The I.O. had observed that as per the Forensic Test Report, the test on the seized items was positive. In the Charge-Sheet, the I.O. had stated that the Auto-Rickshaw owner, Basir Uddin and the Garage owner, Massadar Ali were implicated on the basis of the statements of the witnesses. 5. When the Final Report was submitted before the learned Special Court, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that if the materials in the case diary were perused, considerable incriminating materials would be found. Notice was thereafter, sent to the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station for a hearing on the Final Report submitted by the I.O. The Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station despite being summoned, did not appear before the learned Special Court. The learned Public Prosecutor had moved a petition before the learned Special Court for taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 22 [c]/29 of the NDPS Act against the owners of the Auto Rickshaw and the owner of the Garages, Massadar Ali, Basir Ahmed and Ikbal Bahar Hussain stating inter-alia that Basir Ahmed was the owner of the Auto Rickshaw and the contraband articles were seized from the Garage of Massadar Ali which was allegedly owned by Ikbal Bahar Hussain. Upon perusal of the materials available in the case record and the Final Report, the learned Special Court took cognizance on the Final Report and against the three persons, Massadar Ali, Basir Ahmed and Ikbal Bahar Hussain. By Order dated 02.07.2022, processes were issued against the said three accused persons. 6. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Special Court could not have taken cognizance on the Final Report for the offences mentioned therein without appearance of and hearing the informant/the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station. By Order dated 02.07.2022, processes were issued against the said three accused persons. 6. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the learned Special Court could not have taken cognizance on the Final Report for the offences mentioned therein without appearance of and hearing the informant/the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station. He has further contended that during the course of investigation no incriminating materials were found against the petitioner and the petitioner is not the owner of the Garage. 7. In so far as the first contention raised by Mr. Choudhury is concerned, it is pertinent to mention that the FIR was lodged by a Sub-Inspector of Police who was the then In-Charge, Girishganj Out Post within the territorial jurisdiction of Karimganj Police Station. The FIR was not submitted by the informant in his personal capacity. The FIR was submitted by the informant in his official capacity. The offence alleged in the FIR was in respect of contraband substances possession of which is illegal under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. Notice to the informant was sent by the learned Special Court when it considered the Final Report submitted by him. But notice sent to the informant Sub-Inspector returned unserved with a report that the informant Sub-Inspector had already retired from service. 8. Having receipt of such information, the learned Special Court issued notice to the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station for a hearing on the Final Report and as regards the submission made by the learned Public Prosecutor for taking cognizance on the basis of incriminating materials available in the Final Report by not accepting the Final Report. But the Officer In-Charge, Karimganj Police Station who was summoned to appear for hearing, did not appear before the Special Court nor did he submit any report. It was in such situation, the learned Special Court had proceeded not to accept the Final Report in view of availability of sufficient incriminating materials, according to the Special Court, in the Final Report. 9. In a case instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by a Police Officer in his official capacity, it cannot be said that the Special Court does not have the power, authority and jurisdiction not to accept the Final Report when the informant. 9. In a case instituted on the basis of an FIR lodged by a Police Officer in his official capacity, it cannot be said that the Special Court does not have the power, authority and jurisdiction not to accept the Final Report when the informant. In other words, the Special Court was well within its power, authority and jurisdiction to take notice of the incriminating materials available with the Final Report and having being satisfied that the Final Report is not to be accepted, it can very well take cognizance of the offences made out from the incriminating materials available and thereafter, to issue process against the accused person. 10. The provisions of Section 207 , CrPC has provided for supply to the accused a copy of the Police report and other documents. In a case where the proceedings have been instituted on a Police report, a Magistrate shall have to furnish copies of the following :- [I] the police report; [ii] the first information report recorded under Section 154; [iii] the statements recorded under sub-section [3] of Section 161 of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses, excluding therefrom any part in regard to which a request for such exclusion has been made by the police officer under sub-section [6] of Section 173; [iv] the confessions and statements, if any, recorded under section 164; [v] any other document or relevant extract thereof forwarded to the Magistrate with the police report under sub-section [5] of Section 173. 11. With the instant criminal petition, the Orders passed by the Special Court during the period from 28.01.2022 to 22.12.2023 are found annexed. It is noticed that summons have been issued to the petitioner pursuant to the Order dated 02.07.2022 and the petitioner is yet to enter appearance in person before the learned Special Court till date. 12. The petitioner to whom summons were issued as far back as on 02.07.2022, has not yet appeared before the learned Special Court so as to get the copies in terms of the provisions of Section 207 , CrPC. 12. The petitioner to whom summons were issued as far back as on 02.07.2022, has not yet appeared before the learned Special Court so as to get the copies in terms of the provisions of Section 207 , CrPC. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no incriminating materials against the petitioner cannot be said to have any force for the reason that an accused person cannot be privy to the materials collected during the course of investigation until the stage contemplated in Section 207 , CrPC. 13. Having gone through the materials of the case records and the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 , CrPC, it is noticed that few witnesses had stated that it was the petitioner who was the owner of the Garage, where the Auto Rickshaw bearing registration no. AS-10/C-4224 was found. The materials are suggestive of the fact that the said Auto Rickshaw was kept in the Garage of the petitioner for a substantial period of time by the owner of the Auto Rickshaw, who was well known to him. It was inside the Auto- Rickshaw, 397 Genosedyl bottles of 100 ml. were found. On examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory, the bottles were found to have contained codeine. From the quantity recovered and seized, it has clearly emerged that the quantity is a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. 14. In a petition under Section 482 , CrPC, the veracity and acceptability of the materials cannot be gone into as it is matter of appreciation during the course of the trial. For the afore-stated reasons, this Court finds no reason to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 , CrPC in the case in hand, as such power is to be exercised only in exceptional cases when there are no incriminating materials available against the accused. 15. The criminal petition having been found unmerited, is dismissed. No cost.