Bangalore District Court
State By Union Of India vs Moureen Nisha Namara on 2 November, 2020
THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE. CCH.33.
PRESENT:
Sri. G.M.SHEENAPPA, B.A., LL.B.,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 2nd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020
SPL.C.C. NO.841/2018
COMPLAINANT : State by Union of India, Trhough IO.,
NCB, BZU, No.7/12, Priyank Villas,
Baglur main road, Kattigenahalli,
Yelahanka, Bangalore - 63.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : Moureen Nisha Namara,
D/o.Rugasira Johnage, 29 years,
R/at.Kasubi Nabulagala,
Kampala, Uganda.
(By Sri KSV., Adv.)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 1.5.2018
2. Date of report of offence: 1.5.2018
3. Arrest of the accused : 2.5.2018
4. Date of release of accused on In JC
bail:
5. Period undergone in custody: Still in JC
2
6. Date of commencing of
24.7.2019
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 7.9.2020
8. Name of the complainant: Sri Sameeran Paul, IO
9. Offence complained of : U/s.8(c), r/w.Sec.21, 23
& 28 of NDPS Act
10. Opinion of the Judge : Offence not proved
11. Order of sentence : As per final order
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, NCB., Bangalore has filed complaint against accused in NCB.F.No.48/1/07/2018/BZU for the offence punishable U/Sec.8(C) R/w.Sec.21, 23 & 28 of N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The case of the prosecution is that, 29.4.2018 he received information that a lady from Uganda is coming to Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru in EY 216 flight on the early morning of 1.5.2018 at 3.15 am., by carrying huge amount of cocaine/narcotic drugs. He reduced the information in writing and sent to his Superintendent and took permission 3 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 to conduct raid. He along with his staff went to Bangalore International airport and secured P.W.4 and 5 and requested them to be panchas and issued notice to them. Then he went to emigration center. At 3.30 am., the accused came to the spot. They secured the accused and took her to Customs Air Intelligence Room and informed the staff to bring the luggage of the accused. On search of the luggage bag they found lux creamy perfection soap packets. The accused told that it contained cocaine. They further found moisturizing body milk bottle, Pert Control Caida Shampoo. On search of LUX soap they found 900 grams of cocaine, out of which they took two samples of 5 grams each and on opening the shampoo bottle they found brown colour drug and when test it was cocaine weighing 490 grams. They took 5 grams as sample and packed separately. In another pouch they found 400 grams of cocaine and they took 5 grams of sample. They further seized Uganda currency & coins, US dolor and further seized documents belonging to her. They drew mahazar. They arrested the accused and produced before Court and remanded to judicial custody.4
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.8(C) R/w.Sec.21, 23 & 28 of N.D.P.S. Act, read over and explained to her. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.36 and M.Os.1 to
12. After closure, accused are examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., she denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against her and not chosen to adduce evidence for her defence.
5. Heard the arguments on both sides.
6. The points for consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 1.5.2018 at about 3.30 hours at Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru accused was carrying huge quantity of cocaine in her check in bag by flight No.216 and thereby illegally possessed 1 Kg., 79 grams of Heroin which is narcotic drug without license or permit, there 5 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 by accused has committed the offences U/s.8(C) R/w.Sec.21, 23 and 28 of NDPS Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: 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 P.W.7 and Exs.P.1 to P.36 and M.Os.1 to 12, 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 to 3, 5 to 7.
6
P.W.3 has stated that on 29.4.2018 he received information that a lady from Uganda is coming to Kempegowda International Airport, Bengaluru in EY 216 flight on the early morning of 1.5.2018 at 3.15 am., by carrying huge amount of cocaine/narcotic drugs. He reduced the information in writing Ex.P17 and sent to his Superintendent and took permission to conduct raid . He along with his staff went to Bangalore International airport and secured P.W.4 and 5 and requested them to be panchas and issued notice Ex.p22 and 23 to them. Then he went to emigration center. At 3.30 am., the accused came to the spot. They secured the accused and took her to Customs Air Intelligence Room and informed the staff to bring the luggage of the accused. On search of the luggage bag they found lux creamy perfection soap packets. The accused told that it contained cocaine. They further found moisturizing body milk bottle, Pert Control Caida Shampoo. on search of LUX soap they found 900 grams of cocaine, out of which they took two samples of 5 grams each and on opening the shampoo bottle they found brown colour drug and when test it was cocaine weighing 490 grams. They took 5 grams as 7 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 sample and packed separately. In another pouch they found 400 grams of cocaine and they took 5 grams of sample. They further seized Uganda currency & coins, US dolor and further seized documents belonging to her. They drew mahazar ExP1. They prepared inventory Ex.p24, test memo Ex.P2. They issued summons to accused Ex.P3. They recorded the voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P4. At that time lady officer CW.3 was present. They issued arrest memo Ex.P5. He further informed to the Uganda Embassy. They further seized two mobiles Ex.p25 and passport, Air ticket and other documents as per Ex.p6. He issued summons to Cws.4 and 5 as per Ex.P26 and P27 and recorded the statements of CWs.4 and 5 panchas Ex.P28 and P29. He sent forwarding memo and deposited the seized articles as per Ex.P16 and godown receipt is at Ex.P18. He sent seizure report to CW.2 as per Ex.P19. Arrest report as per Ex.P20. Further on 2.5.2018 subjected the M.Os., to CFSL, Hyderabad.
[
10. In the cross examination, PW.3 has deposed that on 29.4.2018 he was near his office. The informant personally 8 came and informed the information. He know the informant. He was at Bagalur Main road. When the informant gave the information he did not have paper and pen. He did not ask the informant to write and give. It is true that except in Ex.P17 he has not wrote down the information elsewhere. He has not sent the same to CW.2. it is true that in their office security will be there for 24 hours and if any one come to their office it will be noted in the security register. When the informant came along with him the same was not mentioned in the register. He has stated that on 29.4.2018 since they had no biometric facility he had not put the same. When he comes to the office he do not sign any register. It is false that one V.V.Singh was incharge of Superintendent on that day. It is true that along with Form1 email copy is not produced. He has not mentioned the at what time he sent email. There is no correspondence between himself and CW.2 regarding forming of team and conduct raid. On 2.5.2018 when CW.2 came to his office he has not submitted the NCB seal. He denied that he has created Ex.P17 for the sake of this case and on 29.4.2018 no documents were written they were created later 9 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 for the case of this case. He do not know that on 29/30.4.2018 the Zonal Director was in his office. Before going to Airport he had informed the same to his team members. He has not issued any summons to Cws.4 and 5. he denied that Cws.4 and 5 have not given their statement as per Ex.P22 and P23. It is true that he has not mentioned about the information he received in Ex.P17. It is true that they have not shown any documents to Cws.4 and 5 and that he has not informed to the Immigration office. Immediately after arrival of the accused they have not seized the passport, ticket and other documents. He do not remember to whom he had told to bring the luggage of the accused. It is true that it is not mentioned in mahazar that all the lux soap was powdered and put together. He denied that he has not found any LUX soap, shampoo and moisturizer and that he has not seized the same. It is true that to search the hand bag he has not issued notice U/s.50 of NDPS Act to the accused. He denied that all the M Os., were prepared in his office and affixed the chit bearing case No. it is true that NCB seal No.3 is used in other cases also. He has not endorsed regarding 10 copy of the mahazar is supplied to the accused. He denied that they themselves created Ex.P4 and forcibly took signature of the accused. He has not mentioned the timing when Ex.p4 was prepared. It is false that on Ex.P5 they have forcibly endorsed by accused. It is true that immediately after he came from airport he has not produced the accused and MOs., before this superior. He denied that he has not created the statements as per Ex.P28 and P29 from Cws.4 and 5. he denied that accused is not knowing who was the offence charged against her. He denied that they created Ex.P14 & P18 and filed a false case. He denied that Ex.P19 and P20 were created. He denied that he has not received any information and went to the airport and arrested and accused and seized MOs.
11. P.W.1 has stated that on 29.4.2018 C.W.1 informed about the raid at night and informed her to come to the office. She went to the office at 12.00 midnight. At about 1.30 am., on 1.5.2018 they formed the team and went to KIA, Bangalore. A lady from Abudabi came to Bangalore at 3.30 am., and she 11 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 verified the passport and identify of that lady at Immigration. They confirmed the name of the accused by verifying the passport and CW.1 informed the staff to bring the accused luggage. They took to Customs air Intelligence room. The accused agreed that she was carrying cocaine in the lux soap cover, shampoo bottle. On search of LUX soap they found 900 grams of cocaine, out of which they took two samples of 5 grams each and on opening the shampoo bottle they found brown colour drug and when test it was cocaine weighing 490 grams. They took 5 grams as sample and packed separately. In another pouch they found 400 grams of cocaine and they took 5 grams of sample. They further seized Uganda currency & coins, US dolor and further seized documents belonging to her. They drew mahazar ExP1 at 7.15 am. They prepared test memo Ex.p2. CW.1 issued summons to accused as per Ex.P3. CW.1 recorded the voluntary statement of accused Ex.p4 in her presence. CW.1 arrested accused and issued arrest Memo Ex.p5. CW.1 sent information to Uganda Embassy. The accused had two mobile phones. The documents relating to accused are at Ex.p6 to Ex.P15.
12
12. PW.1 in her cross examination has stated that in their office there is biometric. When they go to office in an urgency they wont sign in the attendance register. Cw.1 informed about the information to her on 30.4.2018 at about 4.30 pm., and told her to come at 12.00 mid night. CW.1 had not informed her about the raid and that she do not know who were all in the team. She came to know about raid at mid night 12.00 when she went to Airport. Cw.1 had secured the witnesses to spot. CW.1 had showed the passport and information to immigration officer, but she has not signed on any document to show that it was shown in her presence. When the African lady got down from the flight CW.1 enquired about her documents. At that time immigration officers were there. It is not true that when immigration officers are present they cannot conduct search. After confirming about the accused they bought her to AIU office. They secured luggage of accused. But she do not know who bought the luggage to AIU. First they searched check in bag but they have not prepared inventory. It is false to say that by looking with bear eyes they cannot detect that the soap and shampoo contain drugs. 13
CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 When the said soap and shampoos were opened she was not present but she has stated that she was with the accused. With the help of DD kit they tested cocaine weighing 900 grams and 490 grams. It is true that in mahazar her name is not mentioned. It is true that they have not given separate seizure list. It is true that they have not explained the legal right of the accused to be seized before gazetted officer or Magistrate. It is true that the hand bag of the accused comes under personal search. When they seized soap and shampoos they took the passport and boarding pass and the currencies of various countries. She has denied that she has not issued Ex.P3 notice to accused after signing it at the airport. She denied that Ex.P1 is not prepared at Airport on 1.5.2018 at about 7.15 am. She denied that Ex.P1 to P3 are prepared in their office, that Mos were also prepared in their office and took signature. They came to their office at 8.00 am. She produced the accused before Superintendent but she has no document to show that she has produced before Superintendent. She denied that accused has not given her voluntary statement before CW.1. she denied that the 14 contents in Ex.P4 is not know to accused at all. She denied that they have not informed the accused on what grounds she has been arrested. She denied that she has not given her statement before CW.1. she denied that she is deposing falsely.
13. P.W.2 has stated that he was incharge superintendent of NCB, Bangalore. On 29.4.2018 CW.1 sent Ex.P1 informing about the information received by him that a lady from Uganda is carrying huge amount of cocaine from Abudabi to KIA, Bangalore. Cw.1 sent Email to Hyderabad office. He received the copy of the same on 20.4.2018. he sent Email to CW.1 to form the team and conduct raid. He came to Bangalore on 2.5.2018. he received forwarding memo from Cw.1 Ex.P16, information report Ex.P17 and godown receipt Ex.P18, seizure report and arrest report Ex.P19 and P20. He sent the samples to CFSL, Hyderabad and obtained acknowledgement as per Ex.P21. In his cross examination he has stated that he do not know that on 29.4.2018 their Zonal Director was present in the office. He do not know that one VV 15 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 Singh was incharge of their office. He has not produced any document to show that he was incharge of the Bangalore Zonal office on 29.4.2018. he received information by CW.1 at 9.30 pm., and Cw.1 had also called him and on the next day he received the copy. It is true that in Email the time is not mentioned. He denied that CW.1 has not informed about the information received by him. He denied that on 2.5.2018 when he visited the Bangalore office, Cw.1 did not produce the original document before him. He denied that he has not instructed through Email to conduct raid. He denied that to get prepared the documents the information has been sent to him. He do not remember at what time he came to Bangalore office on 2.5.2018. it is true that he has not signed on forwarding memo. He denied that CW.1 has not produced accused, property and documents before him and that he has not signed on any document. He denied that he has created Ex.P19 and P20 and produced the same for the sake of case. It is true that the documents sent on 2.5.2018 does not bear his signature.
16
14. P.W.5 has stated that on 18.5.2018 he received the records from CW.1 for further investigation. He sent the seized documents to NCB head office for verification. He wrote letter to Airlines Ex.P33. He sent reminder to CFSL, Hyderabad as per Ex.P34, the reply received from CFSL is at Ex.P30 & P31. The letter received by the Airlines at Ex.P35. He wrote letters to VISA company, IIT Passenger Cargo, Western Union service. But he received reply from Western Union that since it is a foreign document they did not get any information. In his cross examination he has admitted that the letter sent to HCB head office does not bear his signature. It is true that he has not received any reply from Eithad for the letters written on 14.9.2018 & 24.9.2018. he denied that even though he came to know that accused has not committed any offence, he has filed a false case.
15. PW.6 has stated that the flight from Abudabi reached KIA, Bangalore on 1.5.2018 at about 3.00 am. NCB officials approached him and informed about a lady carrying drugs in the said flight and asked him to act as panch. Along 17 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 with him CW.5 was also present. They took both of them to Immigration Arrival Area and searched the luggage of the lady. They found cocaine and took his signature on a letter Ex.p1. In his cross examination he has deposed that on 30.4.2018 he was on night duty till 6.00 am., of 1.5.2018. it is true that he should take permission from his superior to leave his work place. He volunteers and states that NCB officials had taken permission and took him. He do not remember whether NCB officials had issued any notice to him. When he was taken to Immigration room the accused lady and NCB officials were present. It is true that when NCB officials questioned the accused about carrying drugs, the accused refused the same. He do not remember whether NCB officials issued notice to accused and took her signature. He was at spot for half an hour. After some time NCB officials took his signature. He do not know how they tested Lux soap and two bottles. He do not remember at what time his signed on MO covers. Like wise he do not remember how many covers were seized. He do not know for what reason he has signed on Ex.p1. He denied that he was not taken to immigration center, accused was not 18 present, they have not seized any soaps or shampoos from accused and he has not signed on any document. He denied that in his office NCB officials had taken his signature. He denied that on the say of his officer he has put his signature and deposing falsely.
16. PW.7 has stated that the flight from Abudabi reached KIA, Bangalore on 1.5.2018 at about 3.15 am. NCB officials approached her and informed about a lady carrying drugs in the said flight and asked her to act as panch. Along with her CW.4 was also present. They took both of them to Immigration Arrival Area and searched the luggage of the lady. They found cocaine and took her signature. The weight of the cocaine was 900 grams. They were at spot from 3.30 am., to 7.00 am. NCB officials prepared mahazar Ex.P1, arrest memo Ex.P2. She has signed on Ex.P23 and P24. She has signed on Mos.1 to 6.
17. PW.7 in the cross examination he has stated that after completing all the formalities NCB officials took him along 19 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 with CW.4 to their office, typed the documents and got his signature. The accused was apprehended before him. He secured the bag of the accused but he do not remember whether notice was issued to the accused and taken signature. After seeing the Lux soap and shampoo bottles again NCB officials came to his office and took his signature. NCB officials prepared the packets in the office. He denied that as per the say of NCB officials he is deposing falsely.
18. P.W.4 C.F.S.L officer stated that he conducted various tests on the sample articles and issued report Ex.P32 and opined that the sample articles responded positive for Heroin. 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 Heroin, but the said sample articles are seized from the possession of the accused is not proved.
20
19. Ex.P1 is the mahazar, Ex.P2 test memo, Ex.P3 summons issued to the accused, Ex.P4 voluntary statement of accused has no presumptive value and it is not admissible in evidence as it is recorded after search, seizure and arrest. No further contraband seized on the basis of her statement. Ex.p5 arrest memo, Ex.P6 customer copy issued by Bank of Africa, Ex.p7 customer receipt, Ex.P8 eticket, Ex.p9 ID card Republic of Uganda, Ex.p10 resident card, Ex.P11 Debit card, Ex.P12 passport, Ex.P13 to P15 boarding passes, Ex.p16 forwarding memo, Ex.P17 information report U/s.42 of NDPS Act. Ex.P17 reveals that C.W.1 has reduced the information in writing. But as per the evidence of PW.3 he has clearly admitted that he has not sent the copy of the same to his superior. Ex.p18 godown receipt, Ex.P19 seizure report U/s.57 of NDPS Act submitted to superintendent for success of raid. In the absence of complying mandatory provisions U/s.42 and 50 of NDPS Act, compliance U/s.57 is not a valid compliance. Compliance with provisions of Sec.57 does not dispense compliance with requirement of Ss.42 and 50. Ex.P20 arrest report, Ex.P21 letter of CFSL, Ex.P22 & P23 notices issued to 21 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 PWs.6 and 7. Ex.p24 seizure inventory, Ex.P25 list of returned items to accused, Ex.p26 & 27 summons, Ex.P28 and 29 statements of PWs.6 and 7. Ex.P30 & 31 letters of CSFL, Ex.32 CFSL report, Ex.P33 letter to Etihad Airways, Ex.P234 letter to CFSL, Ex.P35 reply given by Etihad Airways and Ex.P36 letter.
20. The learned SPP relied on the decisions reported in: (2009) 8 SCC 539 Karnail Singh Vs., State of Harayana wherein it is held that in special circumstances when the officer is on the move and recording of information is not particle prior to search and seizure, the requirement of writing down and conveying information to superior officer, held, may be postponed by reasonable period which may even be after the search, entry and seizure.
The facts and circumstances of the above decision is not helpful to the complainant as PW.3 himself has admitted in his 22 evidence that he has not sent the information in writing to his superior later.
2010 SAR (Crl.)806 in Leela Gupta & others Vs. State of UP and others wherein it is held that option to chose is given U/s.50, it is communication of right either to accept or reject. By giving option the appellants were apprised of their right. Recovery has been made from the vehicle. Provision of Sec.50 was not required to be complied.
The facts and circumstances are not applicable to the case on hand as PW.1 has admitted that they have searched the hand bag of the accused.
2015 SAR (Crl.) 597 in Kulwinder Singh and another Vs., State of Punjab wherein it is held that evidence of the official witness are trust worthy and credible, there is no reason not to rest the conviction on the basis of their evidence.
23
CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 The facts and circumstances are not applicable to the case on hand as testimony of official witnesses is inconsistent to each other and not trust worthy and reliable.
2020 SAR (Cri) 199 & 1990 Crl.L.J. 463 in Lallan Vs., State of UP wherein it is held that: (D): Evidence Act : Appreciation of evidence - discrepancies - when they do not go to root of the matter and do not shake the basic version of the witnesses, court should not attach undue importance to them.
The facts and circumstances of the above decision helpful to the SPP as the possession of contraband is not proved.
21. 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 24 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 officerDemands exact and definite compliance as opposed to substantial compliance - So is requirement of S.50 - Compliance with provisions 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 partyWould frustrate provisions of S.50 (1) Search conducted therefore, is vitiated."
25
CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 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 seizureprocedure 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 partyIt is allurement given to accused prompting him for expressing no objection for being searched in presence of said Gazetted officer - An not for 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 informationRequirement to reduce information in writing and sent it forthwith to superior officer Is mandatoryNeeds strict complianceSome delay in compliance is permissible 26 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 informationno effort was made by I.O to reduce information in writing and inform his higher authorities instantaneously or even after or reasonable delayNo 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.
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 27 CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 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.
22. 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 arises 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'.
23. Point No.2: In the result, following: 28
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 8(c) R/w.Sec.21, 23, & 28 of N.D.P.S. Act.
Accused is set at liberty if she is not required in any other case.
M.Os.1 to 9 sample & bulk are ordered to be returned to the complainant to produce before Drug Disposal Committee for disposal in accordance with law.
M.O.11 Uganda currency is ordered to be confiscated to State.
M.Os.8 to 12 packing material and bag are ordered to be destroyed.
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 her appearance before Appellate Court, in the event of filing of any appeal by the State.
[Dictated to the Stenographer directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of November 2020) (G.M.SHEENAPPA) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.29
CCH33 Spl.C.C.841/2018 ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Smt.Kumudvalli
P.W.2 : Sri Pankaj Kumar Dwivedi
P.W.3 : Sri Sameeran Paul
P.W.4 : Sri P sudhakar
P.W.5 : Sri Rathan K
P.W.6 : Sri Mardan Ali Nandihalli
P.W.7 : Smt.Akshita
(b) Defence :
NIL
2. List of documents exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Mahazar
Ex.P.2 : Test memo
Ex.P.3 : Summons
Ex.P.4 : Voluntary statement
Ex.P.5 : Arrest memo
Ex.P.6 : Customer copy issued by bank
Ex.P.7 : Customer receipt
Ex.P.8 : Eticket
Ex.P.9 : ID card of Republic of Uganda
Ex.P.10 : Resident card
Ex.P.11 : Debit card
Ex.P.12 : Passport
Ex.P.13 : Boarding pass
Ex.P.14 : Boarding pass
Ex.P.15 : Boarding pass
Ex.P.16 : Forwarding memo
Ex.P.17 : Information in Form1
30
Ex.P.18 : Godown receipt
Ex.P.19 Seizure report
Ex.P.20 Arrest report
Ex.P.21 Acknowledgement
Ex.P.22 Request letter
Ex.P.23 Request letter
Ex.P.24 Seizure inventory
Ex.P.25 List of returned items
Ex.P.26 Summons
Ex.P.27 Summons
Ex.P.28 Statement of PW.6
Ex.P.29 Statement of PW.7
Ex.P.30 Letter
Ex.P.31 Letter
Ex.P.32 CFSL report
Ex.P.33 Letter
Ex.P.34 Letter
Ex.P.35 Letter
Ex.P.36 letter
(b) Defence:
NIL
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 - 9 : Bulk
M.O.10 : Packing material
M.O.11 : Uganda currency
M.O.12 : Trolley bag
(G.M.SHEENAPPA)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.
CN/*