A mere vague and nebulous statement in the charge-sheet about the alleged abetment of the petitioner without any supporting incrimina­ting materials on record cannot be sustained at all. It seems that the implication of the petitioner in this case as an abettor as found by the Anti-Corruption Commission during the investigation of the case is predicated upon conjectures, surmises and speculations. Her involvement in the case as an abettor entails a journey into the minds of the Investigating Officers concerned, an exercise fraught with uncalledfor and unwarranted consequence. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it transpires that the implication of the petitioner in the case as an abettor has been made in a vacuum………………….(25)

The offences prescribed under the Narcotics Control Act, 1990 are cognizable offence and therefore, the Police has the wide power to investigate the offences under the Act in view of the provisions laid down in Chapter XIV of Part-V of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Sections 42 and 44 of the Act provides the manner of investigation of the offences punishable under this Act by the Police. On careful scrutiny of the provisions of sections 38, 39 and 44 of the Act, it appears that the same are applicable only, when any authority or any individual of the Narcotics Control Directorate, arrest any person for the purpose of trial under this Act, but the power to investigate by the police of the offences punishable under this Act will not override by any provisions under this Act. for this reason, an application for quashing the proceedings are not the cor­rect exposition of law.