Bangalore District Court
State By Koramangala P.S vs Jagan @ Jagga Split Up In on 23 February, 2022
22 KABC010053632018
THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE. CCH.33.
PRESENT:
Smt.B.S.JAYASHREE, LL.M.,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 23 rd DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
SPL.C.C. NO.115/2018
COMPLAINANT : State by Koramangala P.S
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : 1: Jagan @ Jagga Split up in
Spl.C.C.234/2022
2. Vijay @ Saithan S/o.Ravi, 20 years,
No.3, Slum quarters, MGR Jopadi,
Shonkambarinaga, JP Nagar,
Bengaluru.
3. Asgar @ Balinga, s/o.Hasan Khan,
2
32 years, R/at.No.510, 5th main,
Iliyas Nagar, KS Layout, Bengaluru
78.
(Rep.by A2: Sri TS., A3: MP., Adv.)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 10.7.2017
2. Date of report of offence: 10.7.2017
3. Arrest of the accused : A2: 11.7.2017
A3: under B/w
4. Date of release of accused on A2: 27.7.2017
bail: A3: In JC
5. Period undergone in custody: A2: 16 days
6. Date of commencing of 28.11.2019
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 18.12.2020
8. Name of the complainant: Sri R M Ajay, PI
9. Offence complained of : U/s.20(B) of NDPS Act
10. Opinion of the Judge : Offence not proved
11. Order of sentence : As per final order
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet submitted by the Police Inspector, Koramangala Police Station, Bangalore against the accused on the allegation that they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.20(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.
CCH-33 3 Spl.C.C.115/2018
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
On 10.7.2017 at 2.10 pm., he has received credible information about sale of ganja at 5th Block, 3rd cross, BBMP field by two unknown persons. He has noted the information in SHD, informed the matter to ACP., Madiwala and submitted a requisition seeking permission to conduct raid. After obtaining permission of higher officer, he has called upon the panchas to be present at the time of raid. He has issued notices to them. After having his personal search and the officials who have accompanied him and the panchas he went to the spot along with laptop, printer, weighing machine and investigation tools in the govt., vehicle. They have been to the spot at 3.30 pm., and were watching the movement of public. At about 3.45 pm., 2 persons came there holding plastic covers towards BBMP field. Informant has shown the said two persons. The said two persons were surrounded by the police officials and on enquiry they have revealed their names as 4 Jagath @ jaga and Vijay @ saythan. When the contents of plastic cover was enquired, they have admitted it contains ganja. He has informed the accused about their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer or a magistrate, they have consented for personal search through a gazetted officer, he has informed ACP to come to the spot to conduct personal search of accused. At about 4.30 pm ACP has come to the spot. ACP has conducted the personal search of accused. Prior to conducting search ACP has questioned about possessing ganja. The accused have admitted the possessing ganja. He has prepared questionnaire and gave it to accused which was duly answered by them. On opening the bag it was containing the seeds, stem and flowers of ganja. The ganja was weighed in a weighing machine it was found to be 3 Kgs. It was seized and sealed with STD seal, Rs.280/ seized from the possession of A1. One mobile phone also was seized. When the bag of A2 was examined it was containing ganja weighing 750 grams. On enquiry accused have revealed that they have purchased ganja from one Asgar @ Balinga.
CCH-33 5 Spl.C.C.115/2018 The said article seized under the mahazar. A detail mahazar drawn in the spot and submitted a report. The said report is the basis to register the case against the accused in Cr.No.278/2017 for the offence punishable U/s.20(B) of NDPS Act. During interrogation of A1 and A2, they have revealed that, they have purchased ganja from A3. A3 was in JC in some other case. He is secured under Body Warrant. He was interrogated and thereafter on conclusion of investigation, final report filed as against A1 to A3 alleging committed of offense punishable u/Sec. 20(B) of NDPS Act.
3. A1 to A3 were secured before the court. This court on perusing the contents of police final report and the annexed documents taken cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.20(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. The copy of the charge sheet filed by PI., Koramangala PS., and the Annexures were furnished to the accused as provided U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the accused, Charge framed against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.20(B) of NDPS 6 Act, 1985 by my learned Predecessor on 19.9.2019. The contents of accusation read over and explained to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the allegation leveled against the accused, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.23 and properties were marked as M.Os.1 to 5. During the pendency of the trial, Accused No.1 arrested in some other case, he was produced under Body Warrant. After his release in the other case, this court has recalled the Body Warrant issued against Accused No.1. Thereafter, he remained absent. Hence, case against him is splitup and separate case is registered against him in Spl.C.C. 234/2022 and it is pending. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused Nos.2 and 3 examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating circumstances available against them. The case of the accused is that of total denial. On perusal of the evidence available on record and the statements of the accused, this court is of the considered view that the accused are not entitled for an order CCH-33 7 Spl.C.C.115/2018 of acquittal U/s.232 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the accused was called upon to lead evidence if any. The accused have submitted that they have no evidence to lead on their side.
5. Heard the arguments of P.P., and learned counsel for the accused.
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as here under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 10.7.2017 in between 3.30 pm., at 3 rd Cross, 5th Block, BBMP Ground, Koramangala, Bangalore accused No.2 along with accused No.1 were found in illegal possession of 5 Kgs., 750 grams of ganja having purchased the same from accused No.3 without having any licence or permission to sell the same and thereby accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed the offence punishable U/s.20(B) of NDPS Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative 8 Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 : As Per Sec.20 of NDPS Act even possession of ganja is an offence U/s.20(B) of the NDPS Act. As per Sec.54 of NDPS Act which lays down a rule of statutory presumption and rule of evidence which empowers the court to raise a presumption against the accused that until and unless contrary is proved that the accused has committed an offence under Chapter IV of the said Act in respect of possession of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily. The object of Section 54 is to lighten the burden which rests on the prosecution to prove every ingredient of the offence under Chapter IV by calling in aid the presumption under Section 54 of the said Act. The object behind this provision is to subordinate the interest of an ordinary citizen to the wider social and economic interest of the community and the needs of the law enforcement agencies. The stage for raising the presumption arises when the prosecution proves that the CCH-33 9 Spl.C.C.115/2018 accused had dealt with or had physical possession of the contraband drug. Presumption under this section - if an accused is found to be in possession of a narcotic drug, it is for him to account for such possession satisfactorily otherwise, the presumption under Section 54 comes into play. The initial burden of proof that the accused is in conscious possession of contraband drug is on the prosecution. Once, the burden of proof is discharged by the prosecution then the accused has to account for such possession satisfactorily otherwise, presumption prevails.
9. Now, let me dwell upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses who have conducted raid, who were present at the time of raid to assess the allegation of illicit sale of contraband by the accused herein.
13. PW.1 is the Scientific officer of FSL, Madiwala, Bangalore. She has testified that on 15.7.2017 she has 10 received sealed articles from Koramangala PS., in Cr.No.278/2017. At the time of receipt of the articles the seal was intact. She has opened the seal and taken out the articles which were sent for chemical analysis. After taking out the samples she has conducted microscopic examination, duquenois Levine test, para amino phenol test, thin layer chromatography and UV spectro photometric analysis. After conducting the said scientific tests, she has arrived at a conclusion that the article which was submitted for chemical analysis is a contraband ganja. She has issued report as per Ex.P1, her signature is at Ex.P1(a). After chemical examination the contraband was sealed and packed and their office seal was affixed as per Ex.P2 and it was sent to the investigating agency. It bears seal as CS No.753/2017. She has identified the sample before the court which is at MO.1 & 2. In the cross examination it is brought out she has not segregated the ganja leaves, stem and seeds at the time of analysis. It was brought out that she has not conducted the test to assess the percentage of contraband in the seized articles which was sent CCH-33 11 Spl.C.C.115/2018 for chemical examination. It is also brought out that there is delay in examining the contraband to issue the report.
14. PW.2 is a panch witness to the case. According to prosecution in the presence of panch witnesses the contraband is seized from the possession of accused persons herein. PW.2 except identifying his signature in the body search memo, seizure mahazar and giving his statement before the investigating officer has not stated any thing about the contents of the said documents and his presence at the time of seizure. The prosecution has treated the witness as hostile and subjected him to the test of cross examination. In the cross examination nothing has been brought out to prove his presence at the time of seizure.
15. PW.3 who is the police inspector and is a raiding officer. His testimony before this court is on 10.7.2017 at 2.10 pm., he has received credible information about sale of ganja at 5th Block, 3rd cross, BBMP field by two unknown persons. He has noted the information in SHD, informed the matter to 12 ACP., Madiwala and submitted a requisition seeking permission to conduct raid. After obtaining permission of higher officer, he has called upon the panchas to be present at the time of raid. He has issued notices to them. After having his personal search and the officials who have accompanied him and the panchas he went to the spot along with laptop, printer, weighing machine and investigation tools in the govt., vehicle. They have been to the spot at 3.30 pm., and were watching the movement of public. At about 3.45 pm., 2 persons came there holding plastic covers towards BBMP field. Informant has shown the said two persons. The said two persons were surrounded by the police officials and on enquiry they have revealed their names as Jagath @ jaga and Vijay @ saithan. When the contents of plastic cover was enquired, they have admitted it contains ganja. He has informed the accused about their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, they have consented to have personal search through a gazetted officer, he as informed ACP on to come to the spot to conduct personal search of accused.
CCH-33 13 Spl.C.C.115/2018 At about 4.30 pm ACP has come to the spot. ACP has conducted the personal search of accused. Prior to conducting search ACP has questioned about possessing ganja. The accused have admitted the possessing ganja. He has prepared questionnaire and gave it to accused which was duly answered by them. On opening the bag it was containing the seeds, stem and flowers of ganja. The ganja was weighed in a weighing machine it was found to be 3 Kgs. It was seized and sealed with STD seal, Rs.280/ seized from the possession of A1. One mobile phone also was seized. When the bag of A2 was examined it was containing ganja weighing 750 grams. On enquiry accused have revealed that they have purchased ganja from one Asgar @ Balinga. The said article seized under the mahazar. A detail mahazar drawn in the spot. Thereafter he along with accused and seized articles came back to the police station and submitted a written complaint which is the basis to register the against the accused. He has identified seized articles before the court. In the cross examination it is suggested that accused were not in possession of seized 14 articles, the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that PW.3 has not been to the spot and has not conducted raid, the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that he has not seized the contraband from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2, the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that accused No.3 has not supplied the contraband to accused Nos.1 and 2, even the the said suggestion is denied.
16. PW.4 is the Tahsildar before whom inventory has been conducted. He has testified that on 13.7.2017, Cw.14 has brought the seized contraband before him. HIn his presence sample is collected the rest bulk is ordered to be submitted to DDC for disposal. The inventory report is at Ex.P13. In the cross examination it is suggested that no sample is seized in his presence, the said suggestion is denied.
17. PW.5 is the then PSI., of Kormangala PS., he has testified that he has accompanied PW.3 at the time of raid. PW.3 has informed him about the information he has received CCH-33 15 Spl.C.C.115/2018 about sale of ganja on 10.7.2017 at 3 rd cross, 5th block, BBMP play ground, Koramangala. He has been to the spot along with PW.3. He has further stated that the information has been reduced to writing in SHD by PW.1 when he has been to the spot, accused Nos.1 and 2 were there holding a cover. On search in the presence of ACP they were in possession of contraband. The said contraband ganja was seized and sealed. The accused were arrested and brought to police station. He has specified the details of contraband seized from the accused persons. He has identified accused Nos.1 and 2 before the court. It is suggested that nothing has been seized in his presence and the mahazar is created in the police station , the said suggestion is denied.
18. PW.6 is the official who has handed over the sample to FSL official for scientific analysis. His testimony is of no much relevance as delivery of sample for chemical analysis is not disputed.
16
19. PW.7 is the PSI Koramangala, who has received the complaint from PW.3, he has registered the case, basing on the complaint, recorded the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2. The accused were produced before the court. Thereafter, he has assigned staff to apprehend accused No.3, he has submitted the articles for inventory report. After arrest of accused No.3 he has recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.3. after receipt of FSL report and on conclusion of investigation he has filed the Charge sheet. In the cross examination by learned counsel for accused No.3, it is elicited that from the possession of accused No.3 no incriminatory article is seized. It is further elicited that at the time of registration of the case, accused No.3 was in jail in some other case. It is suggested that accused No.3 has not supplied any ganja to accused Nos.1 and 2. It is suggested that accused Nos.1 and 2 have not given any voluntary statement before him, the said suggestion is denied.
CCH-33 17 Spl.C.C.115/2018
20. PW.8 is the Gazetted Officer and he is the ACP of Madiwala in whose presence personal search of accused Nos.1 and 2 is conducted. His say before this court is on 10.7.2017 he has received telephone call from PW.3 to be present at the time of search and seizure. He has been to the spot, apprised the accused of their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer. On taking their consent, personal search of accused Nos.1 and 2 was conducted. During personal search of accused No.1, 3 Kgs., of ganja, leaves, stem, and flowers were recovered. During personal search of accused No.2 2 Kg., 750 grams of ganja containing leaves, stem and flowers. Thereafter, a detail mahazar was drawn. Further, the articles were seized and affixed with seal. He has identified the samples before the court. He also states that accused No.1 and 2 have stated that accused No.3 has supplied the contraband to them. In the cross examination it is suggested that no requisition is submitted to him to be present at the time of raid, the said suggestion is denied. In his presence no 18 incriminatory article is recovered, the said suggestion is denied.
21. PW.9 is a witness to seizure who is an independent witness. His testimony before this court is police have taken his signature on some papers. He is not aware of seizure of ganja from the accused persons. He does not know any thing about the search and seizure and recovery of incriminatory substance. Though he was cross examined by the prosecution on treating him as hostile, nothing has been brought out in proof of the case of prosecution.
22. The contention of defence is IO has not followed the procedures contemplated U/s.42 and 50 of NDPS Act. There is total non compliance of Sec.42(2) of NDPS Act. Exact copy of the report has not been forwarded to higher officer. The ganja is weighed along with stem, seeds and flowers, there is no correct measurement of contraband. There is delay in submission of contraband for forensic examination. There is CCH-33 19 Spl.C.C.115/2018 serious lacuna in the case of prosecution. With the afore said specific defence, prosecution witnesses were tested. In the cross examination while weighing the ganja leaves, stem, seeds, sticks were not separated. It is brought out that accused No.3 was in judicial custody in some other case even prior to the incident. The witnesses to the panchanama have not supported the case of prosecution.
23. The prosecution vehemently argues that ganja seized from the public place from the conscious possession of accused Nos.1 and 2 to the tune of 5 Kgs., 750 grams, accused No.2 has failed to give explanation satisfactorily as to how he came into possession of the contraband. The prosecution witnesses particularly PW.3, 4, 5 & 7 have spoken in unequivocal terms about the seizure of contraband from the accused. IO on complying the statutory provisions of NDPS Act has seized the articles. The charges against the accused stands proved.
20
24. On the other hand, it is the vehement contention of defence that the initial requirement of search and seizure has not been followed by the IO. The entries made in the SHD Ex.P8 exact copy has to be forwarded to the higher officer, but in this case it has not been done. There is non compliance of sec.42(2) of NDPS Act. Under the definition of ganja, stem, stick would not fall, flower and stalk has to be segregated out of the bulk, then only the contraband would fall within he definition of cannabis would attract. Here in this case, no such procedure is adopted. Articles seized must reach FSL safely. Here in this case there is inordinate delay in sending the articles for FSL. Impression of seal should not be retained with the IO, further seal is used in various cases. Specimen seal is not marked and not produced before the court. Seizure of MOs.1 and 2 is doubtful. There are serious lacuna in the case of prosecution which creates doubt about the case projected. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
CCH-33 21 Spl.C.C.115/2018
25. Herein the case on hand, this court has to appreciate whether the provision of 42 and 50 of the Act have been strictly complied by the complainant police. PW.3 has received the information through an informant about the sale of contraband ganja in a public place. Immediately on receipt of information he has noted the same in the SHD. Ex.P9 is the requisition submitted to ACP, Madiwala seeking permission to conduct raid, which does not contain the copy of information received by the raiding officer. ACP vide letter Ex.P10 granted permission to conduct raid. The time of informing PW.3 granting permission is not visible in Ex.P10 document. The information he has received has not been noted in any other register. In the information given to the ACP it is stated that one person is selling the ganja at BBMP playground, Kormangala police station limits. In the panch notice also the same information is extracted. The report which is going to be submitted to the higher officer should be verbatim the information he has received. As per the enunciation of law in the case of State of Punjab Vs., Balbeer Singh reported in 22 1994 (3) SCC 299 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "under Sec.42(2) the empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section 42(10 should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case."
There is no material placed by the investigating agency that he has made a separate note about the information he has received. As per the Drug law enforcement field officers hand book if a complainant receives information from a person he should get it recorded in writing in the first person, preferably in the handwriting of the informer duly signed by him or by putting his left thumb impression. The officer would then seal the recorded information after endorsing "recording by me" and sign it mentioning his name, designation and the time and date of recording. The next step involves filling in other entries CCH-33 23 Spl.C.C.115/2018 including the gist of information in proper format and sending the same along with sealed envelop to his superior officer, if possible, immediately, or within 72 hours of such recording. The compliance of Sec.42(2) is mandatory. Here in the case on hand, PW.3 as per his testimony before this court he has not made a note in any of the register about the information he has received and has not sent the verbatim information to the higher officer. As per the Manual the information recorded has to be sealed and sent to the superior. Whether the report is submitted to superintendent in sealed cover or any separate information is submitted to him there is no record. Here in the present case, complainant raiding officer has not reduced the information in writing and has not forwarded the same to higher officer prior to conducting raid. As per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court when there is non compliance of Sec.42 and 50, the evidence collected is inadmissible. The entire seizure stands vitiated. Thus the fundamental requirement of compliance of reducing the information into writing as provided under the manual has not been followed by PW.3. 24
26. Further, as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(2) Crimes 727 (MP) State of MP Vs., Vijay Kumar there should be substantial compliance with the requirement of Sec.50 NDPS Act. It is a mandatory requirement U/s.51 of NDPS Act that the empowered officer has to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is not a mere formality, but IO should have to follow strictly the right of the accused to be searched through a gazetted officer. Here in this case, on looking to the records, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were informed in writing as per ExP4 and P5 informing the accused their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer or Magistrate. There is no details furnished to accused about his right of personal search. As enunciated in the dictum referred above, the authorised officer is empowered to apprise the person intended to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate has not been complied in the case on hand. Whether he has been given full information about the statute to have his personal search by a gazetted officer is CCH-33 25 Spl.C.C.115/2018 made known or not there is no document. But information was given to the accused that his personal search has to be conducted by a gazetted officer or magistrate. As per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 2699 State of Delhi Vs., Ram Avatar while discharging the onus of Sec.50, prosecution has to establish that the information regarding existence of such a right had been given to a suspect. If such information is incomplete and ambiguity, then it cannot be construed to satisfy the requirements of Sec,.50. Non compliance of provision of Sec.50 would cause prejudice to the accused and therefore, amount to the denial of a fair trial. To secure a conviction under S.21 of the Act, the possession of the illicit article is a sine qua non. Such contraband article should be recovered in accordance with the provisions of S.50 of the Act, otherwise, the recovery itself shall stand vitiated in law. Here in this case the investigating agency has failed to comply sec.50 of the NDPS Act. 26
27. At another essential aspect in the case is articles seized must reach FSL safely within the stipulated period of 72 hours. Here in this case, articles seized were sent to FSL only on 15.7.2017 i.e., after 5 days of seizure which is bad in law. The sample must reach FSL within the stipulated period of 72 hours. In this case, that has not been complied. This rule is salutary because any attempt at tampering with the sample recovered from the accused can have fatal consequences to the case of the prosecution. Strict compliance has to be insisted upon in such an event.
28. Yet another aspect is to be noted is the seal which is going to be affixed on the article should not be used repeatedly. Further copy of the seal has to be produced before the court. That apart the specimen seal is not produced before the court to prove that there is no tampering with the seized contraband.
29. Let me now refer to Sec.2(ii) cannabis (hemp) means: CCH-33 27 Spl.C.C.115/2018
(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever, name they may be known or designated.
Here in this case the contraband seized with seeds, flowers, stem, stick is not segregated. Actually what is the percentage of contraband there is no detail report. The evidence collected during search is in clear violation of procedure contemplated under the Act. Thus, to tie the strings together, there has been delayed submission of contraband to FSL. The sample seal not produced to court to show that it is not tampered. There is no compliance of Sec.51 of NDPS Act. Based on the above detailed discussions, I proceed to hold that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence U/s.20(B) of NDPS Act. Therefore, he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the negative.
30. Point No.2: In the result, following:
ORDER 28 Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.2-Vijay @ Saithan & accused No.3-Asgar @ Balinga are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 20(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.
Accused No.3 shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case.
Accused are directed to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.
Entire record and property is ordered to be kept in Spl.C.C.234/2022 for trial of accused No.1. [Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 23rd day of February 2022) (B.S.JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Dr.Vani
P.W.2 : Sri Biju John
P.W.3 : Sri R M Ajay
P.W.4 : Sri Shivakumar
P.W.5 : Sri R.V.Munjanath
P.W.6 : Sri Prakash
P.W.7 : Sri D L Srinivas
CCH-33
29 Spl.C.C.115/2018
P.W.8 : Sri A V Laxminarayan
P.W.9 : Sri Santhosh
(b) Defence :
NIL
2. List of documents exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : FSL report
Ex.P.2 : Specimen seal of FSL
Ex.P.3 : Notice to panch
Ex.P.4 : Body search memo
Ex.P.5 : Body search memo
Ex.P.6 : panchanama
Ex.P.7 : Statement of PW.2
Ex.P.8 : SHD
Ex.P.9 : Request letter
Ex.P.10 : Letter
Ex.P.11 : Request letter
Ex.P.12 : complaint
Ex.P.13 : Certificate U/s.52 A
Ex.P.14 : Letter of Tahsildar
Ex.P.15 : Acknowledgement of FSL `
Ex.P.16 : Statement
Ex.P.17 : FIR
Ex.P.18 : Voluntary statement
Ex.P.19 : Voluntary statement
Ex.P.20 : Letter of ACP
Ex.P.21 : Letter of ACP
Ex.P.22 : Voluntary statement
Ex.P.23 : Voluntary statement
(b) Defence:
NIL
30
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : Sample
M.O.2 : Sample
M.O.3 : Mobile
M.O.4 & 5 : Cash
(B.S.JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.
CN/*