<p>The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed two criminal revision petitions filed by Rijesh Ravindran, a suspect in the Sandalwood drug case. </p>.<p>Ravindran was arrested last August following a raid on his flat at Chokkanahalli near Yelahanka, North Bengaluru. The Narcotics Control Board (NCB) had raided his flat on the basis of information provided by another suspect Anoop Mohammed. The NCB says it seized 40 grams/tablets of MDMA and 180 blots of LSD from Ravindran. </p>.<p>Ravindran moved the high court against the February 20, 2021, order of a special court taking cognisance of the complaint filed against him by the intelligence officer of the NCB, Bengaluru zonal unit. He also appealed against the rejection of his bail application by the special court on March 5, 2021. </p>.<p>His counsel argued that the NCB should have filed a ‘report’, not a ‘complaint’ in the matter, and relied on the Supreme Court order in the Tofan Singh case. </p>.<p>The NCB’s counsel countered him, stating that the complaint against Ravindran was filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, not the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Furthermore, the counsel argued, the NDPS Act is a self-sufficient act and doesn't have to rely upon the CrPC in its entirety. Section 36A (1) (d) of the NDPS Act allows filing both the police report and the complaint without mandating only the former, the counsel stated. </p>.<p>Justice H B Prabhakara Sastry noted that the NCB had filed the complaint within the stipulated 180 days, which is nothing but a police report. Further, the NCB’s intelligence officers have been duly authorised by the central government to file a complaint under the NDPS Act, the judge held and rejected the petitions. </p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has dismissed two criminal revision petitions filed by Rijesh Ravindran, a suspect in the Sandalwood drug case. </p>.<p>Ravindran was arrested last August following a raid on his flat at Chokkanahalli near Yelahanka, North Bengaluru. The Narcotics Control Board (NCB) had raided his flat on the basis of information provided by another suspect Anoop Mohammed. The NCB says it seized 40 grams/tablets of MDMA and 180 blots of LSD from Ravindran. </p>.<p>Ravindran moved the high court against the February 20, 2021, order of a special court taking cognisance of the complaint filed against him by the intelligence officer of the NCB, Bengaluru zonal unit. He also appealed against the rejection of his bail application by the special court on March 5, 2021. </p>.<p>His counsel argued that the NCB should have filed a ‘report’, not a ‘complaint’ in the matter, and relied on the Supreme Court order in the Tofan Singh case. </p>.<p>The NCB’s counsel countered him, stating that the complaint against Ravindran was filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, not the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Furthermore, the counsel argued, the NDPS Act is a self-sufficient act and doesn't have to rely upon the CrPC in its entirety. Section 36A (1) (d) of the NDPS Act allows filing both the police report and the complaint without mandating only the former, the counsel stated. </p>.<p>Justice H B Prabhakara Sastry noted that the NCB had filed the complaint within the stipulated 180 days, which is nothing but a police report. Further, the NCB’s intelligence officers have been duly authorised by the central government to file a complaint under the NDPS Act, the judge held and rejected the petitions. </p>