Bangalore District Court
State By Ncb vs Kapil Parsaniya on 2 December, 2017
THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE. CCH.33.
PRESENT:
Sri. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 2nd DAY OF DECEMBER 2017
SPL.C.C. NO.486/2015
COMPLAINANT : State by NCB, BZU, Bangalore.
(By Spl.Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : Kapil Parsaniya, S/o.Chandulal
Parsania, 38 years, r/a.Morbiz,
Patidhar town Ship, Kandla National
Highway, Nera tibdi Patia,
Pin-363641.
(By Sri KSV., Advocate)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 13.08.2015
2. Date of report of offence: 13.08.2015
3. Arrest of the accused : 14.08.2015
4. Date of release of accused on 29.10.2015
bail:
5. Period undergone in custody: 2 months 15 days
6. Date of commencing of 5.10.2016
2
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 10.4.2017
8. Name of the complainant: Smt. Kumadavalli, PI
9. Offence complained of : U/s.8(C) R/w.18, 23, 27
& 28 of NDPS Act
10. Opinion of the Judge : Offence not proved
11. Order of sentence : As per final order
---
JUDGMENT
The Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore has lodged the above complaint before Court against the accused U/s.8(c) R/w.Sec.18, 23, 27 and 28 of NDPS Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
That on 13.8.2015 at 7.00 pm., complainant has got information received from CISF Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru at 6.00 pm., that a person by name Kapil Parsania, is carrying suspected to be narcotics to the Ahmedabad through Air Coast Flight No.LB 613 on 13.8.2015.
He went along with Panch witnesses, a person was seating and CCH-33
3 SPl.C.C486/2015.
on enquiry he found 190 grams thick liquid opium and solid substance believed to be opium was found to be 60 grams, who possess without permission and licence. Therefore complainant in the presence of panchanama witnesses has recovered Opium. Then panchanama is drawn on the spot. Accused was arrested and produced before Magistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody. Later on accused is enlarged on bail.
3. After taking cognizance registered the case. Copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to accused U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge framed U/Sec.18(B) & 28 of N.D.P.S. Act, read over and explained to him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.22 and M.Os.1 to 6. After closure, accused is examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., he 4 denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against him and not chosen to adduce evidence for his defence.
5. Heard the arguments on both sides.
6. The points for consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 13/8/2015 at about 6.00 pm., at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru accused was in illegal possession of 190 grams of thick liquid opium and solid substance opium of 60 grams which is narcotic drug/substance without license or permit there by accused has committed the offence u/S.18(B) of NDPS Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that on the above said date time and place accused was in illegal possession of 190 grams of thick liquid opium and solid substance opium of 60 grams which is narcotic drug/substance without license or permit and attempted to import into India there by accused has committed the offence u/S.28 of NDPS Act?
3. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
CCH-33 5 SPl.C.C486/2015.
Point No.1: In the negative.
Point No.2: In the negative Point No.2: See the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 :- The learned P.P. vehemently argued that as per evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P.1 to P.22 and M.Os.1 to 6, the prosecution proved the guilt. Learned counsel for accused argued that no mandatory provision complied and so many contradictions and discrepancies found in the prosecution witnesses.
9. On careful perusal of the materials placed on record, the prosecution mainly relied on the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and 7.
P.W.6 has stated that on 13.8.2015 at 6.00 pm., she received information that at International Airport, Bangalore a person is induced in transporting drugs through Air Coast from Bangalore to Ahmedabad. She submitted Ex.p13 6 information to P.W.5 and obtained permission who handed over NCB Seal No.1 and permitted. She went to the spot along with the team members at 7.00 pm., and contacted C.W.6 at Security Area Control room. She has secured CWs.1 and 2 panchas and informed the information received by her. She had informed the existing legal right to the accused for his personal search to be conducted before Magistrate or Gazetted officer who agreed to be searched by any raiding member and issued notice Ex.P1 to him. On personal search of accused a brown colour liquid found in polythene packet, they conducted test with test kit and confirmed as opium. It was weighed 190 grams liquid and 60 grams solid. Out of which 20 grams was taken as sample and packed separately. They seized Rs.32,660/- cash, 3 rings, 1 chain and packed the same. She prepared test memo Ex.P19 and drew mahazar Ex.P2. She issued summons Ex.P22 to accused to appear in the office. She returned to the office and produced the property to P.W.5 with letter Ex.P14 and returned sample seal who issued Ex.P15 godown receipt. On 14.8.2015 accused appeared in CCH-33 7 SPl.C.C486/2015.
the office of NCB and she recorded the voluntary statement Ex.P21. She arrested the accused as per arrest memo Ex.P22 and produced before the court. She submitted Ex.P16 arrest report and seizure report Ex.P17 to P.W.5. In the cross examination of P.W.6 has stated that she received the information to the land phone by P.W.7. She has not reduced the said information to any register. She submitted Ex.P13 information to P.W.5 and obtained permission. P.W.5 did not issue separate permission letter to conduct raid and endorsed on Ex.P13. She carried Ex.P13 to spot. Again stated that she has not taken Ex.P13 from P.W.5. Once information submitted to superior officer it shall be in his custody. However, P.W.6 stated that she carried Ex.P13 to spot which is should be in the custody of superior officer. P.W.6 further stated that they did not open the case file and prepare memorandum before going to the spot. P.W.6 stated that she has not issued notice to panch witnesses P.W.1 and 2. She has not received any written information from CISF officers. Whereas in the cross examination of P.W.7 he stated that he 8 submitted written complaint to his superior officer. The said written complaint submitted by P.W.7 is not handed over to P.W.6. P.W.6 stated that she met P.W.7 at CISF office, but P.W.7 had not kept open the drugs in tray. Whereas P.W.7 in his cross examination stated that he took the opium from the sock of the accused and kept in the tray and he took the accused along with opium before superior officer Sri Raj Kumar Mehta. Accused and property was in their custody till arrival of NCB officers.
10. P.W.6 further stated that she informed the existing legal right of the accused for his personal search to be conducted before Gazetted officer or Magistrate. Accused agreed to be searched by any team members. Admittedly, P.W.6 is not a Gazetted Officer. So personal search conducted by P.W.6 is not in accordance with the mandatory provisions of Sec.50 of NDPS Act. P.W.6 and 7 admits that there were other Gazetted Officers available in the Airport other than NCB officers. However, P.W.6 did not produced the accused before CCH-33 9 SPl.C.C486/2015.
independent Gazetted Officer. P.W.6 admits that she did not took the opium from the sock of the accused on his personal search. When P.W.7 himself seized the opium from the socks of the accused without informing the existing legal right of his personal search before seizure, the question of again conducting personal search by P.W.6 does not arise. P.W.6 further stated that she has not prepared search inventory at spot. She has written the case No., on chits affixed to M.Os.1 to 6 after returning to her office. But P.W.1 and 2 stated that chits affixed at spot on M.Os.1 to 6. Admittedly, no case file was opened at the time of seizure. The mentioning of file No., on chits in the absence of P.Ws.1 and 2 creates doubt to believe that said contraband seized at spot. P.W.6 further stated that she has not produced the accused and documents before P.W.5 when she produced the articles. It is the duty of P.W.6 to produce the accused along with property and documents. So, P.W.6 has also not complied the mandatory provisions U/s.52(2) of NDPS Act.
10
11. P.W.7 has stated that on 13.8.2015 at 6.00 pm., he was on duty at Domestic Security Holding area, a passenger found in a suspicious manner. On enquiry he had kept suspicious articles in his sock. On conducting test exclusive detection it was not an explosive article. Then he informed to Superior officer Sri R K Mehta who informed to NCB officials. At about 7.00 pm., P.Ws.1 and 2 and NCB officials came to his room and on personal search of the accused they seized M.Os.1 to 6 and drew mahazar. In his cross examination P.W.7 admits that when he searched the seized opium from the sock of the accused, the question of conducting personal search by NCB officers does not arise. P.W.7 further stated that he do not know what test conducted by NCB officers and its result. He put his signature on chits affixed to the articles but no case No., mentioned at spot.
12. P.W.5 has stated that on 13.8.2015, P.W.6 submitted Ex.P13 regarding information received by her. He permitted to conduct raid and handed over the NCB seal No.1.
CCH-33 11 SPl.C.C486/2015.
Again at 11.00 am., P.W.6 produced the articles seized from the accused and issued godown receipt Ex.P15. on 14.8.2015 he received arrest report and seizure report Ex.P16 and 17. on 15.8.2015 he sent sample articles to CSFL, Hyderabad as per Ex.P18. In his cross examination stated that no seal put on Ex.P13. he admits that Ex.P15 is partly written by hand and partly taken printout through the computer. He denied that Ex.P13 to 15 created subsequently and taken his signature. He admits that accused was not produced before him.
13. P.W.3 stated that on 14.8.2015 he took further investigation from P.W.7 and issued notice to C.W.4 to 6 and recorded their statements Ex.P5 to 7. Further recorded statements of CWs.7 and 8 and lodged complaint. In his cross examination denied that he has not recorded the statements of CWs.4 to 8 and lodged complaint.
14. P.W.1 and 2 panch witnesses who are Asst. Manager and Manager of Air coast Airlines have stated that on 12 13.8.2015 at 6.30 pm., NCB officers came to CISF office and requested to act as panchas. NCB officers seized M.Os.1 to 6 from the possession of the accused in their presence and conducted personal search of accused and drew mahazar Ex.P2. in the cross examination of P.W.1 stated that accused already obtained boarding pass and after searching the bag of the accused he went to flight at 6.40 pm. He has stated that when he went to boarding area, CISF officers caught hold of the accused and two police constables conducted personal search of the accused and seized suspicious articles from the pant pocket of the accused. Then NCB officers came to the spot. The testimony of P.W.1 is contrary to P.W.7. according to P.W.7 he seized opium from the sock of the accused. Whereas P.W.1 stated that CISF officers seized articles from the pant of the accused. P.W.1 admits that during first two inspections by CISF officials, accused was not caught. He was apprehended by P.W.7 at 3rd inspection. He denied that M.Os.1 to 6 are not seized in his presence.
CCH-33 13 SPl.C.C486/2015.
15. P.W.2 has stated in his cross examination that when passengers obtain boarding pass and do not come to the flight, then they return the check in bags to the passenger. When he was searching the accused he came to know that accused was in the custody of CISF officers. P.W.2 further stated that two persons had obtained boarding pass. Another person traveled in the flight after clearance. Same fact is stated before NCB officers. But P.W.7 has not whispered any thing about another person with the accused. P.W.2 further stated that accused had kept small packets inside the pant. So, the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 are quite contrary to each other regarding seizure of opium. P.W.1 and 2 are not independent panch witnesses. They are working in Air coast Airlines. The testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 are also not reliable and credit worthy. So many considerable contradictions and discrepancies found in the testimonies of P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and 7.
16. P.W.4 F.S.L officer stated that he conducted various tests on the sample articles and issued report Ex.P11 and 14 opined that the sample articles responded positive for codejne in Ex.S1 and codeine and acetyl morphine detected in Ex.S3. In his cross examination denied the suggestion that he has not personally conducted tests on the sample articles and issued false report. Of course, as per the evidence of P.W.4, the sample articles may respond positive for codejne, codeine and acetyl morphine, but the said sample articles are seized from the possession of the accused is not proved.
17. Learned counsel for the accused argued that even CISF officers are also competent empowered officers U/s.42 of NDPS Act as they are part of armed forces and filed the Notification issued by Central government wherein the Central Industrial Security force are also empowered officer and specifically mentioned the duties including opium and alkaloids extractions, nuclear power plants, VIP security, Airports etc. CCH-33 15 SPl.C.C486/2015.
18. P.W.7 seized and apprehended the accused and informed to superior officer in writing, but superior officer has not reduced the information in writing and registered the case and conducted investigation. Even though P.W.7 submitted written complaint to superior officer who did not register the case suo-motu or submitted the said complaint to NCB officers. It is true that CISF officials are also semi security force and are empowered officers as per the definition of NDPS Act. Though P.W.7 caught hold of accused along with drugs they did not conduct investigation they shifted their burden on NCB officers.
19. Learned SPP argued that as Airport is a public place the compliance U/s.41, 42, 50 does not arise. No doubt, U/s.43, if I.O seized contraband in a public place, reducing the information in writing and seeking permission from superior officer is not required. However, once I.O found the drugs and seized in a public place, then he should comply the mandatory provisions under NDPS Act.
16
20. Counsel for accused relied on a decision reported in AIR 1994 SCC 1872 between State of Punjab Vs., Balbir Singh wherein it is held that:
"(A) Criminal P.C., Ss.4, 100, 165 - search and seizure - carried out by Police Officer in normal course of investigation into offence or suspected offence as provided under Cr.P.C. -
if there is chance of recovery of narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, the empowered officer from such stage onwards carry out investigation as per provisions of NDPS Act. S.50 of NDPS Act not applicable to such search."
The facts and circumstances of the above decision is applicable to the case on hand.
21. Ex.P1 notice issued to accused reveals that existing legal right of accused is not specifically mentioned. The endorsement of accused obtained stating that he do not want the presence of any Gazetted officer or Magistrate, any person in NCB office can take search. the consent given by accused is CCH-33 17 SPl.C.C486/2015.
not a ground not to produce the accused before Gazetted officer or Magistrate. It is the duty of I.O to conduct personal search before Gazetted officer or Magistrate. Once I.O proceed to conduct personal search, then mandatory provision should be complied. Admittedly, P.W.6 is not a Gazetted Officer. So, the mandatory provisions U/s.50 of NDPS Act is not duly complied.
22. Learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision AIR 2009 SCC 2441 between State of UP Vs., Subhash Kumar Singh Tomar, 1999 SCC 2378 between State of Punjab Vs., Baldev Singh, AIR 1995 SCC 244 between Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman Moosa Vs., State of Kerala.
"NDPS Act (61 of 1985) Ss.20(b), 50 - Seizure of contraband from accused - evidence of public witnesses showing that requirement of S.50 was not complied with - Acquittal of accused - No interference."
Facts and circumstances of the above decisions are applicable to the case on hand.
18
23. Ex.P2 panchanama is also not proved as so many contradictions found in the testimony of P.Ws.1, 2, 6 and 7. Ex.P3 and 5 report submitted U/s.67, Ex.P4 statement of P.W.1, Ex.P6 statement of P.W.2, Ex.P7 summons issued to P.W.3, ex.P8 statement of P.W.3 and Ex.P9 complaint, Ex.P12 letter to FSL, Ex.P15 godown receipt, Ex.P14 letter submitted to superior officer, Ex.P16 and 17 arrest report and seizure report and other documents. they are not disputed by accused. When I.O failed to comply the mandatory provisions U/s.41, 42, 50, 52, compliance U/s.57 is not a valid compliance. Compliance with provisions of Sec.57 does not dispense compliance with requirement of Ss.41, 42, 50 and 52.
24. Learned SPP argued that confession statement of the accused is admissible and court can draw adverse inference. Learned counsel for accused relied on a decision 2007 AIR SCW 497 between Fancis Stanly @ Stalin Vs., I.O, NCB & 2006 (13) SCC 210 between Vs., Intelligence officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram CCH-33 19 SPl.C.C486/2015.
(C) Evidence Act (1 to 1872) S.25 - confession made before officer under NDPS Act -
Appreciation - Closure scrutiny necessary. Facts and circumstances of the above decisions are applicable to the case on hand.
25. In view of the decisions reported in 2009 Crl.L.J. 4299 in Karnal Singh Vs., State of Haryana, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 744 in Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs., State of MP, (1999) 7 SCC 280 in State of HP Vs., Jailal and others and in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 357 in the case of Krishan Chand Vs., State of Haryana wherein it is held that:-
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), Ss 42, 50, 57 - Search - Pre search requirement of recording information received and sending it to superior officer-
Demands exact and definite compliance as opposed to substantial compliance - So is requirement of S.50 - Compliance with provisions 20 of S.57 does not dispense compliance with requirements of Ss.42 and 50.
2014 Crl.L.J. 1756 in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs., Parmanan and another wherein it is held that:-
(c) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S 50 - Search and seizure - Option to be searched before Gazetted officer or Magistrate -
third option given to accused persons viz., to be searched before Superintendent who was part of raiding party-Would frustrate provisions of S.50 (1) Search conducted therefore, is vitiated." 2002 Crl.L.J. 4502 in the case of Koyappakalathil Ahamed Koya Vs., A.S.Menon and another, wherein it is held that:-
(c) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S 50 - Search an seizure-procedure-
Right given to accused to get searched in presence of Gazetted officer or Magistrate -fact that members of raiding party informed accused that Gazetted Officer is present in raiding party-It is allurement given to accused prompting him for expressing no objection for being searched in presence of said Gazetted officer - An not for CCH-33 21 SPl.C.C486/2015.
asking to be searched in presence pf any other Gazetted officer or Magistrate -Sai procedure is against safeguard provided by S.50 to accused. AIR 2013 Supreme court 953 in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs., State of Haryana wherein it is held that:-
(B) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S 42 - Search an seizure - On receipt of secret information-Requirement to reduce information in writing and sent it forthwith to superior officer- Is mandatory-Needs strict compliance-Some delay in compliance is permissible only for special reasons but compliance should be prior to recovery.
(c) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S 42, 15 - Search conducted hours after receipt of information-no effort was made by I.O to reduce information in writing and inform his higher authorities instantaneously or even after or reasonable delay-No evidence produced to show as to what prevented I.O from recording information and sending it to superior total non compliance with provisions of S.42 - Such defect is incurable -
Accused liable to be acquitted.
222009 Crl.L.J. 2407 in the case of UOI Vs., Bal Mukund and others wherein it is held that:-
(B) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), Ss.8, 18, 67 - Recovery of narcotics-
confessional statements by accused-Admissibility purported raid conducted early in morning-Large number of police officers including high ranking officers were present-accused were found to be in possession of 10 Kgs., of narcotics-Documents categorically show that accused were interrogated- Therefore, confessional statements cannot be said, in the back drop of aforementioned events, to be made by them although they had not been put under arrest-court while weighing evidentiary value of such statements cannot lose sight of ground realities-circumstances attendant to making of such statements should be taken into consideration.
On careful reading of the above said decisions, the fact, circumstances and ratio is similar with case on hand.
2014(4) Crimes 304 (P&H) - Ram Lubhaya vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (3) Crimes 210 (SC) - Rajendra Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (1) Crimes 51 (SC) - Suresh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 (4) Crimes 26 CCH-33 23 SPl.C.C486/2015.
(SC) - State of Delhi vs. Ram Avtar @ Rama, 2011(1) Crimes 508 (Karnataka) - K.K. Rejji and others vs. State by Murdeshwar Police Station, Karwar.
2014(2) Crimes 234 (Kar) in Ravi and others Vs., State by Manna-E-Khelli Police, Bidar district wherein it is held that:-
"Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
- Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 42 - Recovery of 5 bags of ganja weighing 45 kilograms from possession of appellants - Conviction by Trial Court - Appeal against conviction - Failure to comply with procedure under section 42 of Act - absence to record in writing the information received in first instance - No emergent situation which warranted postponement of said Act of recording the information received in writing-Nor any such record in writing at a later point of time - Held entire proceedings Vitiated by virtue of failure to record circumstances in writing - Quantity of ganja indicated as having been in possession of appellants was also inaccurate as the weighment was of stalks, leaves seeds and possibly the flowering and fruiting tops - inaccurate weighment would have a telling effect on the degree of punishment that could be imposed-this was because NDPS Act provides for a schedule which 24 prescribes the degree of punishment dependent on the weight of substance involved -m hence, held that there was a failure in the charges being framed accurately against accused - impugned judgment of court below set aside - Appeal allowed."
2014 (1) Crime 324 (SC) State of Rajasthan Vs., Parmanand and another wherein it is held thus:
(a) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Provision is mandatory -
but it applies to search of the person of the accused only - does not apply to search of a bag carried by him - However, if the bag carried by him is searched and his person is also searched, Section 50 applies.
"(b) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Two accused persons - not informed of their rights individually - Joint notice communicated - one of the accused signing for both
- conviction vitiated."
On careful reading of above decisions, facts, circumstances and ratio is applicable to case on hand, as prosecution has not followed mandatory provisions.
CCH-33 25 SPl.C.C486/2015.
26. For the above, in the absence of corroborated evidence the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be reliable to prove the guilt of the accused. So many considerable contradictions and discrepancies found in the prosecution witnesses. There is no link of chain found in the circumstantial evidence. Serious doubt arise in the mind of the Court to believe that accused has committed the offence. So accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the 'Negative'.
27. Point No.2: In the result, following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 18(B) and 28 of N.D.P.S. Act.
Bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.26
M.Os.1 to 6 sample and bulk are ordered to be returned to the I.O/complainant with a direction to produce before Drug Disposal Committee for disposal in accordance with law.
Accused is released U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/- with a surety for likesum, for the purpose of his appearance before Appellate Court, in the event of filing of any appeal by the State.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of December 2017) (D.Y. BASAPUR) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Robert Benedict
P.W.2 : B Srinivasa
P.W.3 : Sabir Ali
P.W.4 : Satish Naik
P.W.5 : Pankaj kumar
P.w.6 : Kumudavalli
CCH-33
27 SPl.C.C486/2015.
P.W.7 : Yatendar
(b) Defence :
NIL
2. List of documents exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Notice
Ex.P.2 : Panchanama
Ex.P.3 : Summons
Ex.P.4 : Statement
Ex.P.5 : Summons
Ex.P.6 : Statement
Ex.P.7 : Summons
Ex.P.8 : Statement
Ex.P.9 : Complaint
Ex.P.10 : Cover
Ex.P.11 : FSL report
Ex.P.12 : Letter
Ex.P.13 : Information
Ex.P.14 : Forwarding memo
Ex.P.15 : Godown receipt
Ex.P.16 : Arrest receipt
Ex.P.17 : Seizure report
Ex.P.18 : Forwarding letter
Ex.P.19 : Test memo
Ex.P.20 : Summons
Ex.P.21 : Voluntary statement
Ex.P.22 : Arrest memo
(b) Defence:
NIL
28
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : Sample
M.O.2 : Sample
M.O.3 : Sample
M.O.4 : Sample
M.O.5 : Bulk
M.O.6 : Bulk
(D.Y. BASAPUR)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.
CN/*