Mumbai Court Releases Customs Broker And Exporter In Psychotropic Drug Case

A Mumbai court has granted legal relief and released a customs broker and an exporter who were arrested in connection with an alleged attempt to illegally export psychotropic substances. The court accepted the defence's arguments regarding the failure of investigators to specify the individual roles of the accused and non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions.

The case originates from an export consignment dated May 13, which was filed by customs broker M/s Atharva Logistics on behalf of the exporter, M/s Medigen Pharma. The cargo was bound for Somalia.

According to Customs officials, the shipment was examined on June 2 under a detailed panchnama in the presence of independent witnesses, the customs broker, and the exporter. During the scrutiny, officials discovered that one of the declared pharmaceutical items contained Chlordiazepoxide, a psychotropic substance regulated under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985. Exporting this substance requires prior mandatory permission from the Narcotics Commissioner.

Officials stated that the consignment contained 10,000 tablets of the drug, with the total molecular weight calculated at 1,400 grams. This amount exceeded the notified commercial quantity limit of 500 grams under the NDPS Act. The goods were subsequently seized, and authorities arrested the proprietor and IEC holder of Medigen Pharma, alongside Milind Arjun Naik, a G-Card holder for Atharva Logistics.

During the investigation, Naik's statement was recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, where he admitted to handling the customs clearance formalities and filing the shipping bill without verifying if the exporter possessed the mandatory No Objection Certificate. The prosecution alleged that the proprietor of Medigen Pharma had arranged to export the psychotropic substance by concealing it within the pharmaceutical cargo.

Both men were produced before the Customs court for remand. Advocate Aditya Talpade, representing Naik, opposed the remand. Talpade argued that the grounds and reasons for the arrest were identical to those cited against other accused individuals, and that the investigating agency had failed to determine Naik's specific role. The defence also argued that there was non-compliance with mandatory legal provisions under Section 48.

Accepting the defence submissions, the court released the accused.