Bangalore District Court
State By Ncb vs A1: Waseem Akram on 24 February, 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 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020
SPL.C.C. NO.561/2017
COMPLAINANT : State by NCB, Bengaluru
(By Spl.Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : A1: Waseem Akram,
S/o. Mahaboob Pasha,
R/o 65, Nandagokula Layout, 1st
Cross, Saraipalya, Nagawara
Main road,
Bengaluru560077.
A2: Mohammed Suhail Ahmed
S/o Noor Ahmed,
R/o Govindpur main road, 13th
Cross,
Umar Nagar, Bengaluru.
A3:Salim Pasha,
S/o Mahaboob Pasha,
r/o 65, Nandagokuala Layout,
1st Cross, Saraipalya, Nagawara
Main Road,
2
Bengaluru560077.
A4: Mohammed Khalid Pasha S/o
Liyaquath Ali, No.35, 1st Block,
Thanisandra Bangalore North.
Dr. Shivarama karanth nagar,
Bangalore.
Current Address:
No.1625, 2nd cross, Behind
government School, Thanisandra,
Bengaluru.
(A1 to A3 by Sri KSV.,
A4 by Sri HSI, Adv.)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 18.4.2017
2. Date of report of offence: 18.4.2017
3. Arrest of the accused : A1:13.8.2017
A2& A3 : 20.4.2017
A4:17.11.2017
4. Date of release of accused on A1: in JC
bail: A2: 20.9.2017
A3: 28.9.2017
A4: 12.12.2017
5. Period undergone in custody: A2: 5 months
A3: 5 months 8 days
A4: 25 days
6. Date of commencing of
17.6.2019
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 6.2.2020
8. Name of the complainant: Rathan K, IO
9. Offence complained of : U/s.8(c)R/w.Sec.22, 23,
CCH33
3 SPl.C.C.561/17
28, 29 & 30 of NDPS Act
10. Opinion of the Judge : Offence not proved
11. Order of sentence : As per final order
JUDGMENT
The Intelligence Office, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore has lodged the above complaint before Court against the accused U/s.8(c) R/w.Sec.22, 23, 28, 29 & 30 of NDPS Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
The case of the prosecution is that, 8. on 18.4.2017 at about 10.00 pm., complainant had received secret information that one Waseem Akram is illicitly running an internet pharmacy business along with his brother and one Mohammed Suhail Ahmed in the name of a call centre which starts operating only after 10.30 pm., in the night at No.65, 3 rd floor, I cross, Nanda Gokula Layout, Thanisandra, Bengaluru through which they are smuggling some controlled substances to foreign countries and making profit. So, with all the necessary equipment reached Nandagokula Layout, Saraipalya, along 4 with his team, a Gazetted officer and two panchas. They went to the said house and knocked the door. A person came and opened the door. They introduced themselves and searched the accused persons. No drugs were found. Then they proceeded to search the house. In a room they found some carton boxes. On search of the said box they found sildigra, zenegra 100, Aurogra 100, Ceniforce 150, Tadafil 20, Vidalista 20, Carisoprodal tables, Sibutril 15, Viletra 20 and Tramazae.
Like wise on search of second box they found 635.25 grams of Alfrazolam tablet strips, 24.07 grams of Zolpidem, 129 grams of Amphetamine, 25.27 grams of cionazepam, 13.50 grams of Lorazepam, 16 grams of Phentermine, Floricet, 2.75 grams of oxycodone, 147 grams of butalbital and 10.2 grams of diazepam tablets strips. The owner of the house i.e., accused No.1 was not present. They told to call. He did not answer the call and after short period his mobiles was switched off and not reachable. Further accused Nos.3 and 3 informed that the name of the call center is AM Pharmacy. Further stated that they did not have any valid licence for pharmaceutical business. They drew panchanama, arrested accused Nos.2 CCH33 5 SPl.C.C.561/17 and 3 and produced before Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. Later accused Nos.2 to 4 enlarged on bail.
A1 is in JC.
3. After taking cognizance registered the case. Copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to accused persons U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge framed U/Sec.22, 23(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, read over and explained to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to P.W.15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.116 and M.Os.1 to 20. After closure, accused are examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against them and not chosen to adduce evidence for their defence.
5. Heard the arguments on both sides.
6. The points for consideration are as under: 6
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 18.4.2017 at about 10.00 pm., accused No.1 Waseem Akram was illicitly running an internet pharmacy business along with accused Nos.2 to 4 in the name of a call centre which starts operating only after 10.30 pm., in the night at No.65, 3 rd floor, I cross, Nanda Gokula Layout, Thanisandra, Bengaluru and were in illegal possession of sildigra, zenegra 100, Aurogra 100, Ceniforce 150, Tadafil 20, Vidalista 20, Carisoprodal tables, Sibutril 15, Viletra 20 and Tramazae. Like wise on search of second box they found 635.25 grams of Alfrazolam tablet strips, 24.07 grams of Zolpidem, 129 grams of Amphetamine, 25.27 grams of cionazepam, 13.50 grams of Lorazepam, 16 grams of Phentermine, Floricet, 2.75 grams of oxycodone, 147 grams of butalbital and 10.2 grams of diazepam tablets strips which are narcotic drug/substance without license or permit, there by accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the offence u/S.22, 23(C) 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:
CCH33 7 SPl.C.C.561/17 REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 : The learned P.P. vehemently argued that as per evidence of PWs.1 to P.W.15 and Exs.P.1 to P.116 and M.Os.1 to 20, 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, 3 to 10, 12 & 13.
P.W.1 has stated that on 18.4.2017 at 6.00 pm., he received information that three persons through call centre are running Internet Pharmacy illegally at No.65, 3 rd floor, I cross, Nanda Gokula Layout, Thanisandra, Bengaluru was supplying narcotic drugs to the customers. He reduced the information in writing and sent the same to his superior C.W.2 as per Ex.P1 and obtained permission. C.W.2 issued search warrant. Their team surrounded the area at 10.00 pm. He secured 8 panchas informed the information and they reached the call centre at about 10.45 pm. They went to 3 rd floor and saw through window two persons were working. On knocking the door one person came and opened the door and they showed the search warrant Ex.P2 and conducted raid. They issued notice to the accused and explained the legal right of the accused to be searched before Gazetted officer or Magistrate. The accused agreed to be searched before Gazetted Officer. C.W.2 had accompanied them. He issued questionnaires Ex.P3 and P4. On search of the accused persons they did not found any thing. On enquiry the accused told that accused No.1 is the owner of the said call center. When they called accused No.1 the phone was switch off. The accused told the name of the pharmacy as AM pharmacy. They told that they do not possess licence or ID card. On search of the accused they found tablets in carton boxes. In first box there were normal tablets. In the second carton box they were tablets which are controlled substances and come under NDPS Act. They found 635.25 grams of Alprazolam, 129 grams of amphetamine, 10.2 grams of diazepam, 25.27 grams of CCH33 9 SPl.C.C.561/17 clonazepam, 13.5 grams of lorazepam, 16 grams of phentermine, 24.7 grams of zolpidem, 2.75 grams of oxycodone and 147 grams of Butalbital. They seized the same and when enquired to the accused they gave the list of the customers to whom the said tablets have been sent. They further seized some documents, laptop and CPU. They prepared test memo Ex.P9. Finally sealed the said house and drew mahazar Ex.P5 till next day 19.4.2017 morning. They explained the mahazar in Kannada to the accused persons, the Annexure are at Ex.P6 to P8. Issued summons to accused persons as per Ex.P10 and P11. The accused accompanied them to the office, they subjected the property to godown and obtained receipt. He recorded the voluntary statements of the accused persons as per Ex.P12 and P13, arrest memo as per Ex.P14 and P15. On 20.4.2017 remanded the accused to JC. They prepared seizure report and arrest report as per Ex.P16 and P17. The seizure mahazar is at Ex.P18 to P20. The Aadhaar card of the accused persons are at Ex.P21 and P22. Pen drives Ex.P23 and P24, DL of accused Ex.P25 and P26, RC books at Ex.P27 and P28, ID card is at Ex.P29, 16 ATM cards 10 is at Ex.P30, 8 passbooks at Ex.P31, Passports of accused Nos.2 and 3 are at Ex.P32 and P33. On 21.4.2017 he sent sample articles to FSL and handed over the records to C.W.11 for further investigation.
10. In the cross examination of P.W.1 has stated that in their NCB office they do not maintain daily dairy, but they sign in the attendance register. He has stated that they do not maintain any dairy to reduce the information received by them. It is true that except the information written in writing they have no other document. On 18.4.2017 they received the information through phone to the office. When the phone came to his office, first the Receptionist will receive the then connect to me. He do not know at 6.00 pm., who has received the information first. Ex.P1 is typed immediately after receipt of the phone call. He denied that he did not receive the information from the person who first received the phone call and that it is not possible to type the entire information received as per Ex.P1. He denied that Ex.p1 is prepared later for the purpose of this case. It is true that along with Ex.P1 CCH33 11 SPl.C.C.561/17 they have not filled NCB form No.1. It is true that he do not remember at what time they produced Ex.P1 before the higher officer and at what time he got permission and the same is not endorsed on Ex.p1. He d3enied that he has not given the copy of the Ex.P1 to his higher officer. It is true that he is not a Gazetted Officer. After receipt of the information till 9.00 to 9.15 pm., he was in his office only but he has not tried to get the search warrant from magistrate and that he has not prepared the record of reasons. He do not know after sun set till sun rise they should prepare record of reasons. He denied that their superintendent do not have powers to issue search warrant. He denied that since they had time they would have obtained search warrant from the magistrate. After completion of the raid he has not returned Ex.P2 to the superintendent. Before they left the office they have not maintained a list of the members present in the raid. It is true that superintendent had accompanied them to the spot. They reached the spot at 10.15 pm. CWs.12 and 13 are not local people. He denied that the panchas had not accompanied to the spot. They have not issued notice to the panchas. At 10.45 pm., they went to 12 the house of the accused. It is true that accused Nos.2 and 3 have signed on mahazar Ex.P5 but the same is not endorsed on mahazar. He denied that Ex.P5 mahazar is prepared in their office. While drawing Ex.P5 mahazar after raiding the house of the accused they have not mentioned about the call center. He dined that they have obtained the signatures of accused Nos.2 and 3 forcibly. He denied that they have not secured any independent Gazetted Officer to the spot since C.W.2 is their higher officer took his signature on all the documents. It is true that MO20 is not a prohibited tablet. He denied that that all the M.Os., are not prohibited tablets and does not come under NDPS Act. He has admitted that some content of the M.Os., comes under NDPS Act. He denied that the prepared chits and affixed the same on M.Os., at spot and further denied that they prepared the test memo at the office. He denied that he has not secured the panchas to the spot and raided the house of the accused and have not seized the M.Os. He denied that he has forcibly brought the items mentioned in AnnexureC from the house of the accused. He denied that Ex.P18 to P31 are not seized from the spot but they have CCH33 13 SPl.C.C.561/17 forcibly secured the same from the houses of the accused persons. He has not given the metal seal to the panchas and told them to produce before court. It is true that they have not taken the signatures of the parents of the accused persons and has given the mahazar copy. It is true that the time of recording of the voluntary statement of the accused is not mentioned. He denied that the contents as stated in the voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P12 and 13 are similar to mahazar Ex.P5 as such the same is not given by the accused persons who do not have much English knowledge. He denied that after raid there is no document to show that he has produced the accused persons, property and documents before his superior officer. He denied that though the seized M.Os., are not prohibited drugs, they have falsely filed this case against the accused persons. He has further stated that it is true that according to accused Nos.2 and 3 they have no information regarding accused No.4 and that they had no information from the informant also.
14
11. P.W.3 has stated that on 4.8.2017 C.W.1 requested the call details of mobile No.9845833880 from 1.12.2016 to 30.4.2017 along with the application along with the ID proof produced by the accused. On 7.8.2017 he gave the entire details and issued certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act as per Ex.P36. The said details produced are at Ex.P37. Further on 16.8.2017 C.W.1 requested the call details of mobile No.9000274834 from 1.4.2017 to 14.8.2017 along with the application along with the ID proof produced by the accused. On 16.8.2017 he gave the entire details and issued certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act as per Ex.P38. The said details produced are at Ex.P39.
12. In his cross examination he has stated that the call details of the mobiles will be recorded automatically through computers. The two mobiles are pertaining to different persons.
CCH33 15 SPl.C.C.561/17
13. P.W.4 has stated that on 14.7.2016 he received requisition from NCB for furnishing call details of two SIMS along with customer application and ID proof given by the accused from 1.3.2017 to 30.4.2017. On 20.7.2017 he furnished the information of the SIM Nos., along with its mobile No. Mobile No.8867010804 standing in the name of Saleem Pasha and another mobile No.9036494641 is in the name Tamkin Tabasu and he also produced the respective Aadhaar cards of the persons as per Ex.P41. In his cross examination he has stated that the mobile Nos. obtained are personal Numbers and they can make calls as per their wish.
14. P.W.5 has stated that NCB had requested him to provide 6 bank details and he gave the details of A/c.No.5020375007 wherein in there are transactions of SBI, Canara Bank, Syndicate Indus Ind, HDFC, ICICI bank. NCB had given in all 45 letters and he has provided all the information as per Ex.P42 to P44. In his cross examination he has stated that the account is not opened in their bank but it 16 is opened in City Bank, Mumbai. The City Bank, Mumbai has not transacted with the 6 bank details as mentioned above.
15. P.W.6 has stated that NCB had secured him during November 2017 through phone and requested him to come to the office. He went to the office of NCB and identified Waseem Akram who had got registered his Call Centre through him. He admitted the registration and the handwriting on the document as per Ex.P45. He has further stated that what the Manager told he has written in Ex.P45. But he do not know what is written in Ex.P45. The accused had just come to him for registration and he has submitted the documents pertaining to it to NCB. Nothing is elicited in his cross examination.
16. P.W.7 has stated that C.W.11 took further investigation and on 30.8.2017 C.W.11 requested him to conduct raid of house of accused Nos.1 and 2. He gave permission as per Ex.P46 & 47 and C.W.11 conducted raid of CCH33 17 SPl.C.C.561/17 the house of the accused persons. In his cross examination he has denied that C.W.11 has not taken permission as per Ex.P46 and P47 to conduct raid of the house of accused Nos.1 and 2.
17. P.W.8 has stated that on 21.4.2017 he took further investigation from C.W.1 and issued notice to C.W.12 as per Ex.P48. On 25.4.2017 he recorded the statement of C.W.12 as per Ex.p49 and gave notice to C.W.13 as per Ex.P50 and recorded his statement as per Ex.P51. He explained the statements to the languages known to them. 12.8.2017 he issued notice to accused No.1 as per Ex.P52 and recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P53. Accused agreed that he used to run call centre illegally and exporting the drugs to USA. He further given Email IDs., and bank details as per Ex.P54. On 12.8.2017 he gave arrest memo to the accused No.1 as per Ex.P55. On the next day he produced the accused No.1 before court and he has produced a CD at Ex.P56. P.W.8 has further stated that on 4.8.2017 he sent letter to C.W.6 and received information as per Ex.P36 and 37 18 and then sent letter to C.W.7 and received information as per Ex.P38 and 39. He received report from NCB Ahmedabad as per Ex.P58. On 2.5.2017 he received information regarding production of Alprazolam as per Ex.P59. Information regarding other drugs are at Ex.P60, P61, 62 from different zonal directors. On 19.6.2017 he received information regarding SIM as per Ex.P64, P65. He received the two wheeler details as per Ex.P67, P68 and received information from Sub Registrar regarding the sale deeds as per Ex.P69. He received details from Western Union Service as per Ex.P70, he received bank details as per Ex.P72, P73, P74, P75, P76, P77, P78, P79, P80, and P81. Summons issued to mother of the accused as per Ex.P82 and her statement at Ex.P83, received information income tax department as per Ex.P84 and P85, P86, P87. Internet information regarding accused No.1 received as per Ex.P88. On 30.8.2017 he drew mahazar as per Ex.P89 and P90. He sent arrest report as per Ex.P1 to superintendent, cash of Rs.830/ is deposited to bank as per Ex.P92. VISA card details as per Ex.P93, issued summons to one Bharath Raj as per Ex.P94 and recorded the voluntary statement as per CCH33 19 SPl.C.C.561/17 Ex.P45. The letter regarding transactions at Bank of America, Bengaluru is at Ex.P95. After completion of investigation submitted complaint as per Ex.P96 to court. On 6.9.2017 he secured the bank details as per Ex.P97. On 16.10.2017 he issued summons to one D Rasool as per Ex.P99 and recorded the voluntary statement as per Ex.P100. Bank details of Karnataka bank as per Ex.P101 and P102. On 16.10.2017 issued summons to Kaza Hussain and his voluntary statement is at Ex.P103 and P104. Bank details of Canara Bank at Ex.p105 and P106. The voluntary statement of A4 is at Ex.P107 and issued arrest memo at Ex.P108. On 18.11.2017 he issued report to C.W.3 as per Ex.P109 and submitted complaint to court on 24.1.2018.
18. In the cross examination P.W.8 has stated that on 21.4.2017 he received records from C.W.1 for further investigation and verified all the documents. Zonal director has instructed him to take charge and the same is mentioned in the note sheet. The note sheet is not the entire charge sheet. It is true that CWs.12 and 13 are not alive. Ex.P48 and 20 P50 notices were sent through Sepoy to serve on CWs.12 and 13, but he do not remember the name of that sepoy. He denied that on Ex.P48 and P50 there is no endorsement for having served the same on CWs.12 & 13. He denied that the signatures found on Ex.P48 and P50 are not of CWs.12 and
13. He denied that the date mentioned as 21 on Ex.P48 and P50 are changed to 25. He has admitted that in Ex.P49 the statement of C.W.12Nagappa at page5 the date is mentioned as 21.4.2017. He denied that except at page5 the date in Ex.P49 is changed to 25 from 21. He denied that likewise in Ex.P51 the statement of C.W.13 also the date is altered from 21 to 25. He has admitted that he has not mentioned the time at which CWs.12 and 13 gave statement before him. He denied that they have not explained what is written in the statement they have just taken their signatures. He has denied that he has stated that they translated to Hindi and explained to C.W.12 and 13 but whereas in the mahazar it is mentioned that they have explained in Kannada. He denied that on 12.8.2017 he has not issued any notice to the accused No.1. He denied that he has secured the signature of accused CCH33 21 SPl.C.C.561/17 No.1 on Ex.P52 forcibly. He denied that accused No.1 has not given any statement before him they forcibly given the draft the accused No.1 has written the same. He denied that accused No.1 has not given any statement regarding running of pharmacy illegally and exporting narcotic drugs to other countries. He denied that accused No.1 has not given his bank details and email ID. He denied that the accused No.1 has registered a company in the name of Smart Shop and Guidance InfoTech Ltd., Legally during 2012. He admitted that the documents relating to the said shops are the part of the charge sheet. He admitted that the said company was started for providing data service but denied that the accused was providing only data service. He denied that though accused No.1 has not committed any illegal activities they have falsely implicated him to this case. He admitted that for Ex.P56 CD he has not filed certificate U/s.65B of Indian Evidence Act. It is true that as per Ex.P36, P37, Ex.P40 & P41 there are not international call details. Ex.P38 and P39 are in the name of one Rama devi. There are no international call details in Ex.p38 and P39. he has admitted that they have not 22 recorded the statement of one Ramadevi nor issued any notice to her. there is no proof to show that how the SIM card of Ramadevi was with accused No.1. he has admitted that as per the letter dated 30.8.2017 Ex.P58 of Ahmedabad NCB the incident took place during Nov. 2016. He has further admitted that as per the said records/documents in Ex.P58 it is not shown that the said companies have supplied drugs to accused No.1. he has admitted that after registering the case he has not recorded any statements. He has denied that Ex.P58 documents are not related to this case. He has admitted that as per Ex.P59 , Ex.P60 and P61 the controlled drug like Alprazolam, Diazepam & Lorazepam is manufactured in the said companies. Regarding this, the said companies have provided all the invoices and documents. Further it is true that the accused No.1 has not purchased any drugs from the said companies and the said bills are not pertaining to accused No.1 or AM Pharmacy. Thus, it is true that the accused No.1 has not at all purchased any drugs from Zannet Pharma, M/s.Jpee Drugs & DD Pharmaceuticals. Further he has admitted that as per Ex.P62 letter of NCB, Mumbai zonal CCH33 23 SPl.C.C.561/17 Unit it is clearly mentioned that there is no company by name M/s.AOne Pharma existing in the given address. He denied that accused No.1 is not connected with accused Nos.2 to 4. As per Ex.P67 and P68 2 two wheelers and a car belongs to accused Nos.1 and 3 but he has showed his ignorance that the said vehicles were purchased through loan. He denied that as per Ex.P69 the properties mentioned are purchased through loan. He has showed his ignorance regarding the complaint filed against accused No.1 by the loan lenders. He has admitted that he has not enquired about the amount deposited and who has received the same as per Ex.P70. He admitted that there is no mentioned regarding the amount deposited for selling the drugs or tablets. But he has showed his ignorance regarding the said amount has been deposited for the services rendered. As per Ex.P72 two persons have sent money to accused No.1 but he has not issued any notice to them. As per Ex.p73 to P77 the records pertaining to the bank account show that there are no heavy transactions. Further Ex.P78 and P79 the bank account pertaining to accused No.3 there is no heavy transactions. Ex.P80 there is no transaction of 24 accused Nos.1 to 4. he has denied that as per Ex.P42 to P44 there are no heavy transactions and that there are no transactions relating to Bengaluru, Chennai and Mumbai. He denied that Ex.P3 the statement of accused No.1 mother is not recorded by him. he denied that the mother of accused No.1 has not stated that accused No.1 is operating her bank account at Syndicate Bank. He further denied that mother of accused No.1 has not stated that accused No.1 is doing business at 3rd floor by operations computer and accused Nos.2 to 4 are working under him and that forcible they have taken signatures from her. he pleaded his ignorance that the accused No.1 has challenged the order as per Ex.P87 before the Competent Authority, Delhi and obtained stay. As per Ex.P88 the ACT company will provide internet connection on their request. On 13.12.2016 the Act company has provided internet facility to the accused. he has admitted that the accused has not made any international calls but he volunteers and states that it is mentioned as IP call. He denied that accused No.1 has not made any international calls. He denied that as per Ex.P89 and P90 they have not conducted CCH33 25 SPl.C.C.561/17 any raid of the houses of accused Nos.2 and 3 and that they have drawn the mahazar in their office. he has stated that as per Ex.P95 the VISA card is not issued in the name of the accused No.1. he denied that they have not seized any tablets from the house of accused No.1 and that accused was not running any international AM Pharmacy. It is true that they have not taken any information from the postal authorities regarding the transactions of the accused No.1. he denied that as per Ex.P97 there are no heavy transactions and that as per Ex.P100 the accused has not given his voluntary statement. He has admitted that one Raja Hussein has stated that he has no contact with accused No.1. he denied that they have forcibly went to the house of the accused No.4 and issued notice and took his signature. He denied that as per Ex.P105 and P106 there is no heavy transitions of accused Nos.3 and 4. he denied that the accused No.4 has not given his voluntary statement as per Ex.P107. he denied that accused No.4 has not stated in his voluntary statement that accused No.1 is exporting drugs to different countries. He has denied hat Ex.P109 is prepared for the purpose of this case. he denied 26 that accused No.1 is doing data providing service and that accused No.3 is running an ice cream shop. he denied that accused No.4 was a student during 201516. he denied that he has filed false charge sheet against accused No.1 to 4.
19. P.W.9 has stated that on 23.6.2017 NCB officials issued requisition as per Ex.P28 to furnish internet connection of the accused. He issued the details as per Ex.p111 and gave his statement before NCB as per Ex.P110. in his cross examination he has admitted that on 13.12.2016 they have not provided any internet connect to accused No.1. he further admitted that Ex.P110 his statement is given by the NCB officials. He has stated that accused No.1 had used the ACT Cable connection for 4 months and that as per CDR for what purpose he had taken internet connection is not mentioned. He denied that to help the NCB officials he has given his statement as per Ex.P110.
CCH33 27 SPl.C.C.561/17
20. P.W.10 has stated that on 6.7.2017 NCB officials requested the details of accused Waseem Akram confirmation and control No., Payee details. He gave details as per Ex.P112. in his cross examination he has stated that he has not produced the information regarding Western Union. He denied that Western Union will not directly deal with money matters. He had admitted that Paul Merchants have not directly transacted with accused No.1. he denied that he has no power to give the documents and information as requested by NCB.
21. P.W.12 has stated that on 18.4.2017 when he was in his officer at about 6.00 pm., he received information from C.W.1 after call centre of illegal pharmacy run by the accused persons. He gave permission to C.W.1 to conduct raid as per Ex.P1. Since C.W.3 was not in Bengaluru he had taken charge of the office. He gave search warrant as per Ex.P2, gave NCB seal and mentioned the same in movement register. He being the Gazetted Officer participated in raid. He reached the spot at 10.30 pm. On his instructions C.W.1 conducted raid and other staff supported him. He has signed on Ex.P5 at spot. 28 C.W.1 issued notice to accused Nos.2 and 3 as per Ex.P3 and P4. Panchanama was drawn till next day 3.00 am. Then they all came to office, C.W.1 produced the seized articles before him as per forwarding memo Ex.P113, he issued godown receipt as per Ex.P114. C.W.1 returned the NCB seal to him. He mentioned the same in movement register. On 21.4.2017 sent the seized articles to CFSL, Hyderabad and on 24.4.2017 received acknowledgement as per Ex.P115.
22. In his cross examination he has stated that he has not mentioned in any of the document that he was incharge of Bengaluru NCB. He has not signed in attendance register as incharge Superintendent. He had admitted that C.W.1 has not given the copy of Ex.P1 to him. it is true that in Ex.P1 only there is a copy but he has not mentioned the time. He has not mentioned the information in Ex.P1 in his office registers or document. he denied that he has not given the NCB seal to the C.W.1 and he has not mentioned about the same in any register. He denied that he has no power to issue Ex.P2. he CCH33 29 SPl.C.C.561/17 denied that he has no power to issue search warrant. He denied that he has not received any information or Ex.P1 from C.W.1 and that he has not issued Ex.P2 to conduct raid. He denied that Ex.P3 and 4 are not signed by accused Nos.2 and
3. he denied that he did not received Ex.P113 and he has not given Ex.P114 godown receipt. He denied that on 20.4.2017 they have not prepared Ex.P16 and P17 but the same were prepared after filing charge sheet. He admitted that he has not put the specimen seal on M.Os., at the time of drawing mahazar. he denied that they secured accused Nos.2 and 3 to their office and filed false case against accused Nos.1 to 3.
23. P.W.13 has stated that on 18.4.2017 when he along with C.W.12 the police came and informed about the information received by them and requested him to act as panch witness and they took him to the 3 rd floor of a building and entered into a house. There were two persons in the said house and it was like an office having computer, cartoon boxes. In spite the said boxes there were powder like 30 substance and tablets. They verified the same and drew mahazar Ex.P5. He long with C.W.12 signed the same. He has stated that the said mahazar was in English and one of them translated the same to Kannada Language. They tested the two boxes and confirmed that it was drugs. They packed the boxes and obtained his signature. He do not remember how many boxes were packed. After three days of the incident police called and recorded his statement as per Ex.P51.
24. In the cross examination he has stated that he do not know Hindi reading and writing. He know C.W.12. he do not remember the phone No., during 2017. on the date of incident he was standing at Nagawara bus stand to go to Bagalur. He do not know in whose site he was working on that day. He do not know the police he took him to the spot. He do not know what was in first and second floor of the said building. He do not know the quantity of powder and tablets. The same were not weighed before him. after three days of the incident he went to the office and signed on M.Os. he do not CCH33 31 SPl.C.C.561/17 know whether the NCB officials typed 20 pages at spot. He has stated that by the time he went to NCB office the officials had typed entire document he signed on them. It is true that on Ex.P51 the date is altered from 21 to 25. he denied that he has not at all seen accused Nos.2 and 3 and that the police have not seized any thing. He denied that he is doing sweeping work at NCB office.
25. P.W.11, 14 and 15 independent panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Nothing is elicited in their cross examination by learned Spl. PP except denial. Further nothing is elicited in the evidence of P.W.13 - Ravi independent witness. He has stated that the said drugs were not weighed before him and that he has signed the M.Os., and mahazar at NCB office. thus, In the absence of corroborated independent witnesses, the testimony of official witnesses is not reliable and credit worthy.
26. P.W.2 C.F.S.L officer stated that on 24.4.2017 he received M.Os., from Bengaluru NCB, Intelligence office. He 32 conducted in all 9 tests on the sample articles and issued report Ex.P34 and opined that the sample articles responded positive for Alprazolam, diazepam, clonazepam, lorazepam, phentermine and zolipidem. In his cross examination he has stated he has not directed received the samples. He has stated that it is true that in all the 9 samples one percent will come under NDPS Act. he has further deposed in 5 samples there are traces of drugs and substance but in other 4 samples nothing is found. he denied that the samples will not come under NDPS Act and on the say of his superior he has issued false report. Of course as per the evidence of P.W.2, the sample article may respond positive for controlled substance, but the said sample articles are seized from the possession of the accused No.1 is not proved as P.Ws.11, 14 and 15 independent panch witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.
27. Ex.P1 is the information report U/s.42 of NDPS Act. Ex.P1 reveals that C.W.1 has reduced the information in CCH33 33 SPl.C.C.561/17 writing. But it is difficult to believe that whether it is reduced in writing immediately or created later as Ex.P1 is a single sheet wherein the entry pertaining to this case is only forthcoming. Ex.P2 search warrant issued by superintendent. Ex.p3 and 4 notices U/s.50 of NDPS Act issued to accused Nos.2 and 3. Ex.P5 panchanama is not proved as none of the independent panch witnesses have supported the same. Ex.P6 is Annexure - A pertaining the description of tablets, Ex.P7 is Annexure B document provided by Mohammed Suhail Ahmed. Ex.P8 Annexure - C document seized from call center of accused No.1. Ex.P10 and P11 summons ex.P12 and Ex.P13, P53 voluntary statements of accused Ns.2 and 3 & accused No.1 respectively. Voluntary statements 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 his statement. Ex.P14 and P15 arrest memos, Ex.P16 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. 34 Compliance with provisions of Sec.57 does not dispense compliance with requirement of Ss.42 and 50. Ex.P17 arrest report, Ex.P18 & P19 price list, Ex.P20 covers, Ex.p21 Aadhaar card of A3, Ex.P22 Aadhaar card of A1, Ex.P23 & 24 PAN cards, Ex.P25 to P27 DL, Ex.P28 RC, Ex.P29 voter ID, Ex.P30 ATM cards, Ex.P31 bank pass book, Ex.P32 & P33 passport of accused No.3 & accused No.1, Ex.P34 CFSL report, Ex.P35 letter of CFSL, Ex.P36 certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act, Ex.P37 application form of accused No.1 and the call details of Airtel SIM, Ex.P38 certificate U/s.65B of Evidence Act given by Airtel. Ex.P39 application of one Ramadevi and call details given by Airtel office. Ex.P40 request letter sent to Nodal Officer, TATA to provide information regarding the SIMs, Ex.P41 is the information provided by TATA. Ex.P42, P43 and P44 information furnished by Citi Bank. Ex.P45 is the statement of Bharatraj, Ex.p46 & 47 search warrants, Ex.p48 summons, Ex.P49 is the statement of panch witness P.W.11 Nagappa the same is contrary to his evidence. Ex.P50 summons, Ex.P51 statement of P.W.13 Ravi. Ex.P52 summons, Ex.P54 gmail details, Ex.P55 arrest memo, Ex.P56 CCH33 35 SPl.C.C.561/17 CD, Ex.P57 certificate of TATA, Ex.P58 letter dated 30.8.2017, Ex.P59 information given by NCB Zonal Unit, Chandigarh. Ex.P60 information given by JPEE drugs, Ex.P61 letter dated 29.6.2017 information regarding the drugs sent by NCB, Zonal Unit, Jodhpur. Ex.P62 information regarding Aone Pharma sent by NCB Zonal Unit, Mumbai. Ex.P63 envelop covers, Ex.P64 letter of Aircel, ExP65 letter of Vodafone providing call details, Ex.P66 summons, Ex.P67 & P68 information regarding the vehicles standing in the names of the accused persons. Ex.P69 request letter sent to the SubRegistrar for providing information regarding the immovable assets of the accused persons. Ex.P70 request letter to Manager, Western Union service Pvt., Ltd., regarding the transactions of the accused persons. Ex.P71 the information given by Western Union. Ex.P72 request letter to Wall Street finance Ltd., providing the details of the accused. Ex.P73 to P80 request letters sent to different bank regarding the details of the account of accused. Ex.P81 letter to Muthoot finance ltd. Ex.P82 summons, Ex.P83 statement of Ahamedi, Ex.P84 request letter sent to Income tax department regarding the 36 PAN details of accused persons, Ex.P85 details provided by the Income tax department. Ex.P86 letter sent to Competent authority and Administrator, Tamil Nadu. Ex.p87 order of confirmation, Ex.P88 request letter to ACT Internet Manager, Bengaluru. Ex.P89 panchanama, Ex.P90 panchanama, Ex.P91 arrest report, Ex.P92 receipt for having deposited the seized amount at Corporation Bank. Ex.p93 request letter to Bank of America to provide the account details. Ex.P94 summons, Ex.P95 reply given by Bank of America. Ex.P96 summons, Ex.P97 request letter to Canara Bank. Ex.P98 reply given by Canara Bank. Ex.P99 summons, Ex.P100 statement of Rasool, Ex.P101 letter to Karnataka Bank, Ex.P102 reply from Karnataka bank. Ex.P103 summons, Ex.P104 statement of Khaza Hussein, Ex.P105 request letter to Canara Bank, Ex.P106 reply given by the Canara Bank, Ex.P107 statement of Mohammed Khalid Pasha, Ex.P108 arrest memo, Ex.P109 arrest report, Ex.P110 statement of Anand, Ex.P111 letter from ACT Internet. Ex.P112 MTCN details of accused No.1 given by Paul Merchant, Ex.P113 forwarding memo, Ex.P114 CCH33 37 SPl.C.C.561/17 godown receipt, Ex.P115 letter to CFSL and Ex.P116 statement of P.W.15 which is contrary to her evidence.
28. Though complainant has investigated the matter in detail and produced hundreds of documents, but on perusal of the same it is not proved that accused No.1 was having huge financial transactions in various banks and he was making international calls and exporting the controlled substance or tablets. Further failed to prove the mandatory provisions U/s.42, 50 of NDPS Act. Thus, I hold that complainant has failed to prove that accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 to 4 has committed the offences U/s.22, 23(C) of NDPS Act.
29. The learned SPP has relied on the decision reported in: (2018) 9 SCC 708 in SK Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga Vs., State of West Bengal wherein it is held that: .......an empowered officer under S.42(1) is obligated to reduce to writing information received by him, only 38 when an offence punishable under NDPS Act has been committed in any building, conveyance or an enclosed place or when a document or an articles is concealed in a building conveyance or an enclosed place - compliance with S.42, including recording of information received by empowered officer is not mandatory, when an offence punishable under the Act is not committed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place - S.43 is attracted in situations, where seizure and arrest are conducted in a public place, which includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.
The facts and circumstances of the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand as the accused No.1 was running call center at the 3rd floor of his house which is not a public place.
2003 Crl.L.J. 3372 in Ram Bilas Baba Vs., State & (2011) 1 SCC 609 in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja Vs., State of Gujarat wherein it is held that: (B) illegal possession of contraband - search and seizure - accused persons were given option to be CCH33 39 SPl.C.C.561/17 searched by I.O or by Magistrate or Gazetted Officer - accused exercised the option of being searched by I.O - there was substantial compliance with S.50.
With due respect, I have gone through the above decision. But this is pertaining to the year 2003. In view of the recent decision reported in 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."
Thus, I hold the decision relied by the learned SPP is not helpful to the case on hand.
40
Further SPP relied on the decision reported in 2003 Crl.L.J. 356 in Gulam Nurmamad theim Vs., State of Gujarat wherein it is held that report of FSL - admissibility - xerox copy of report sent by FSL after certifying it to be true copy/officer of FSL had no interest in concocting report against accused - said report is admissible.
The facts and circumstances of the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand as the FSL report produced is original.
In (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 668 in Kanhaiyalal Vs., Union of India The facts and circumstances of the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand as the complainant has failed to prove that the voluntary statement of the accused is recorded without threat or coercion.
Crl.Appeal No.423/2015 in Devraj Vs., State of Chhattisgarh CCH33 41 SPl.C.C.561/17 The facts and circumstances of the above said appeal is not applicable to NDPS Act.
2018 SAR (Crl.) 555 in Shafhi Mohammed Vs., State of Himachal Pradesh wherein it is held that:
12. Accordingly we clarify the legal position on the subject on the admissibility of the electronic evidence, especially by a party who is not in possession of device from which the document is produced. Such party cannot be required to produce certificate under Sec.65B(4) of Evidence Act.
The facts and circumstances of the above decision is aptly applicable to the case on hand.
Crl.Appeal No.1512/2018 in State of Punjab Vs., Rakesh Kumar wherein it is held that the accused must be tried under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 instead of NDPS Act as they were found in possession of manufactured drugs.
42The facts and circumstances of the above appeals are not applicable to the case on hand as per Ex.P34 FSL report it is clearly opined that the seized drugs are controlled substance as per NDPS Act.
In 2019 SAR (Crl.) 245 in Varinder Kumar Vs., State of Himachal Pradesh The facts and circumstances of the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand. In the present case P.W.14 and 15 who have turned hostile are close relatives of accused No.1 as such adverse inference can be drawn that due to threat and coercion they have given their statements.
30. Further 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 CCH33 43 SPl.C.C.561/17 357 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 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."
442002 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 CCH33 45 SPl.C.C.561/17 complianceSome 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 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.
2009 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 accusedAdmissibility purported raid conducted early in morningLarge number of police officers including high ranking officers were presentaccused were found to be in possession of 10 Kgs., of narcoticsDocuments categorically show that accused were interrogated 46 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 arrestcourt 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 (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 (1) Crime 324 (SC) State of Rajasthan Vs., Parmanand and another wherein it is held thus:
CCH33 47 SPl.C.C.561/17
(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.
31. For the above, in the absence of corroborated evidence the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be reliable to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4. 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 48 the Court to believe that accused have committed the offence. So accused are 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'.
32. Point No.2: In the result, following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 22, 23(C) of N.D.P.S. Act.
Bail bond of the accused Nos.2 to 4 shall stands cancelled.
Accused No.1 is set at liberty if he is not required in any other case.
M.Os.1 to 19 samples is ordered to be returned to the complainant to produce before Drug Disposal Committee for disposal in accordance with law.
CCH33
49 SPl.C.C.561/17
M.O.20 cartoon box is ordered to be
destroyed.
Accused Nos.1 to 4 are released
U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/ each with a surety for likesum, for the purpose of his/their 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 24th day of February 2020) (G.M.SHEENAPPA) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sri Rathan K
P.W.2 : Satish Raja Ram Nnilakar
P.W.3 : Stanley
P.W.4 : Ravi Marona
P.W.5 : Promod Antony
50
P.W.6 : Bharat Raju J
P.W.7 : Vishwa vijaya Singh
P.W.8 : Sabeeran Paul
P.W.9 : Anand G S
P.W.10 : Rajkumar Gohal
P.W.11 : Nagappa
P.W.12 : Pankaj Kumar Dwivadi
P.W.13 : Ravi
P.W.14 : Rasool
P.W.15 : Tamkin Tabasu
(b) Defence :
NIL
2. List of documents exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution: Ex.P.1 : Information U/s.42 of NDPS Act Ex.P.2 : Search warrant Ex.P.3 : Notice Ex.P.4 : Notice Ex.P.5 : Mahazar Ex.P.6 : Annexure A Ex.P.7 : Annexure B Ex.P.8 : Annexure C Ex.P.9 : Test memo Ex.P.10 : Summons Ex.P.11 : Summons Ex.P.12 : Voluntary statement Ex.P.13 : Voluntary statement Ex.P.14 : Arrest memo Ex.P.15 : Arrest memo Ex.P.16 : Seizure report Ex.P.17 : Arrest report Ex.P.18 : Price list Ex.P.19 : Price list Ex.P.20 : Covers CCH33 51 SPl.C.C.561/17 Ex.P.21 : Aadhaar card of A3 Ex.P.22 : Aadhaar card of A1 Ex.P.23 : PAN card Ex.P.24 : PAN Card Ex.P.25 : DL Ex.P.26 : DL Ex.P.27 : DL Ex.P.28 : RC Ex.P.29 : Voter ID Ex.P.30 : ATM card Ex.P.31 : Bank pass book Ex.P.32 : Passport Ex.P.33 : Passport Ex.P.34 : FSL report Ex.P.35 : Letter of CFSL Ex.P.36 : Certificate U/s.65B
Ex.P.37 : Application form with call details Ex.P.38 : Certificate U/s.65B Ex.P.39 : Application of ramadevi Ex.P.40 : Request letter to TATA Ex.P.41 : Information given by TATA Ex.P.42 : Information given by Citi bank Ex.P.43 : Information given by Citi bank Ex.P.44 : Information given by Citi bank Ex.P.45 : Statement of Bharatraju Ex.P.46 : Serarch warrant Ex.P.47 : Search warrant Ex.P.48 : Summons Ex.P.49 : Statement of panch Ex.P.50 : Summons Ex.P.51 : Statement Ex.P.52 : Summons Ex.P.53 : Voluntary statement of accused No.1 Ex.P.54 : Gmail details Ex.P.55 : Arrest memo Ex.P.56 : CD Ex.P.57 : Certificate of TATA Ex.P.58 : Letter dated 30.8.2017 Ex.P.59 : Information given by Chandigarh NCB Ex.P.60 : Information by JPEE drugs 52 Ex.P.61 : Letter dated 29.6.2017 from Jodhpur NCB Ex.P.62 : Letter received by NCB, Mumbai Ex.P.63 : Envelop covers Ex.P.64 : Letter of Aircel Ex.P.65 : Letter of Vodafone Ex.P.66 : Summons Ex.P.67 : Information of vehicles Ex.P.68 : Information of vehicles Ex.P.69 : Letter sent to Subregistrar Ex.P.70 : Letter to Western Union Ex.P.71 : Information given by Western union Ex.P.72 : Request letter to Wall Street Finance Ex.P.73 80 : Request letters to banks Ex.P.81 : Letter to Muthoot finance Ex.P.82 : Summons Ex.P.83 : Statement Ex.P.84 : Request letter to IT department Ex.P.85 : Details given by IT department Ex.P.86 : Letter sent to competent authority Ex.P.87 : Order of confirmation Ex.P.88 : Letter to ACT internet Ex.P.89 : Panchanama Ex.P.90 : Panchanama Ex.P.91 : Arrest report Ex.P.92 Receipt for having deposited the seized amt.
Ex.P.93 Request letter to Bank of America
Ex.P.94 Summons
Ex.P.95 Reply
Ex.P.96 Summons
Ex.P.97 Request letter to Canara bank
Ex.P.98 Reply given by Canara bank
Ex.P.99 Summons
Ex.P.100 Statement of Rasool
Ex.P.101 Letter to Karnataka Bank
Ex.P.102 Reply given by Karnataka bank
Ex.P.103 Summons
Ex.P.104 Statement
Ex.P.105 Request letter to Canara Bank
CCH33
53 SPl.C.C.561/17
Ex.P.106 Reply by Canara Bank
Ex.P.107 Statement
Ex.P.108 Arrest memo
Ex.P.109 Arrest report
Ex.P.110 Statement of Anand
Ex.P.111 Letter of ACT internet
Ex.P.112 MTCN details of accused No.1
Ex.P.113 Forwarding memo
Ex.P.114 Godown receipt
Ex.P.115 Letter to CFSL
Ex.P.116 Statement of P.W.15
(b) Defence:
NIL
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.119 : Samples
M.O.20 : Cartoon box
(G.M.SHEENAPPA)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.
CN/*