Bangalore District Court
State By Intelligence Officer vs Sunny Guha S/O Late Ajait Kr on 10 March, 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS), BENGALURU.
(CCH.33)
Present : Smt.B.S.JAYASHREE, LL.M.,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 10th DAY OF MARCH 2022
SPL.C.C. No.202/2015
COMPLAINANT : State by Intelligence Officer, NCB.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED : 1. Sunny Guha S/o Late Ajait Kr
Guha, Flat No. C32, Diamond
District Appartment, Domlur,
Bangalore.
2. Babu Kumar.N S/o Nagarjun,
No.8, Ramagardeuli, Sidhapura
Road, Bangalore.
3. Deepak Jain, S/o Prakash Chand
H, No.3398, 13th Cross,
R.P.Road,Nanjangud, Karnatka.
4. Chaitanya Kolllu,
S/o.K.Padmanabhan, -(Dead
case against him stood abated).
5. Alwin Augustine S/o Augustine V
Thomas, No.9, Pearless Colony,
Virgo Nagar Post, Near Garden city
College, T.C.Paly, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore.
6. Rahul Taimwala S/o Ravi
Tainwala, No.38, Domlur, 2nd stage,
3rd Main, Bangalore.
2
7. Mihir Saksena S/o Padmaja
Saksena, No.B013, Fern Saroj
Apartments, Lal Bahadur Shastri
Nagar, 7th Cross, HAL, Bangalore.
8. Prasit Das S/o Gautam Das,
Virgo Nagar Post, Near Garden city
College, T.C.Paly, K.R.Puram,
Bangalore.
9. Akhul Madhok S/o Umang
Madhok, 21/3, Gora Chand Raod,
Park Corcus, CIT Road, Kolkata.
10. Ajay Rao S/o Vishwanath Rao,
A3, First floor, Kudremukh colony,
Kormangala, 2nd block, Bangalore.
11. Supreet K.B S/o Bhakar
Ganiga, 201, SMR Demukh
Apartments, A block, Near Kabab
Magic, Bilekahalli Main Road,
Bilekahalli, Bangalore.
12. Ravi.V.S. S/o V.Seetharamaiah,
No.135, thimmaiah Comp, Opp
Road, Immadihalli Main Road,
Hagadur Colony, Whitefiled,
Bangalore.
13. Nikael Joseph S/o BedaJoseph,
R/o.134 RBD Sarjapur Road,
Bangalore 560036.
(A1Sri HP, A2NG, A3SMS,
A5,8,9GS, A6,7 - MSS, A10,11AA,
A12KSA, A13PMM., Adv.,)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 17.09.2014
2. Date of report of offence: 17.09.2014
3. Arrest of the accused : 18.09.2014
4. Date of release of accused on A125.10.2014
bail: A2: 8.12.2014
A6,10,11 - 26.9.2014
3 CCH.33
Spl.C.C.202/2015
A4,7,8,9,12,13 -
30.9.2014
5. Period undergone in custody: A1: 1 month 7 days
A2: 2 months 20 days
A6,10,11 - 8 days
A4,7,8,9,12,13 - 12 days
6. Date of commencing of 19012019
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 28022020
8. Name of the complainant: Sri Sabir, IO.
9. Offence complained of : U/s.20(b) (ii) (b), 22(c),
21(c), 27, 27A of NDPS
Act.
10. Opinion of the Judge : Offence not proved
11. Order of sentence : As per final order
JUDGMENT
The Intelligence Officer, NCB, Bengaluru filed complaint against accused No 1 to 13 in NCB F No.48/01/05/2014/BZU for the offences punishable U/Sec.20(b) (ii) (b), 22(c), 21(c), 27, 27A of NDPS Act.
2. The allegations leveled in the complaint against the accused herein reads as here under: 2(a) That on 17092014 CW.1 has received credible information that accused No 1 to 3 are doing the business of Ganja, hashish, MDMA, LSD, and are providing these 4 drugs to students of different colleges in Bangalore and good quantity of Ganja, hashish, MDMA, LSD are kept at the address door No.8, C/o Manjunath, Anjaneya Swamy Temple Road, Siddapura, Whitefield Main Road, Bangalore
66. After receipt of information, he has recorded the information in the form of NCB1 information and the same was submitted to Superintendent, NCB., Bengaluru requesting for necessary directions. The complainant was directed to constitute a team to take action as per law. The complainant acting on the said information and direction of superintendent NCB, with team of officers and staff reached the spot at 4.30 p.m on 17092014. Two persons standing near the house were approached by him, on enquiry they have revealed their name and address as Venkatesh S/o Kondaiah, Srinath S/o Narayanappa. They were requested to be present at the time of raid, they were apprised about the secret information. They have agreed to be present at the time of raid. When the complainant along with his team knocked the door of the house, one person opened the door. On enquiry he has revealed his identity of N. Babukumar and the said that his two friends Deepak Jain and Sunny 5 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 Guha along with the customers of drugs were present in the house. The complainant introduce himself to them and told that team will carry out their personal search as well as search of the house for which they voluntarily agreed. When the NCB officials offered their personal search they declined. They were given notice under Sec.50 of NDPS Act and were apprised of their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer or Magistrate.
2(b) During the search of the house one black colour bag was recovered. On search of the bag some coloured papers were found, a small quantity of coloured paper was tested with drug detection kit which gave positive result for LSD. On the reasonable belief that the entire substance is 'LSD' a narcotic substance, the entire substance was seized. On weighing the same it was found to be 0.76 grams (61 blots). Out of that 2 sample was taken for chemical analysis. Thereafter, bulk in the sample were sealed with NCB seal No.4.
2(c) In the said bag another light brown coloured crystalline substance was also found, the accused have 6 informed that it is MDMA narcotic substance, weighing 12 grams it was also seized.
2(d) In the bag another dark brown coloured substance was found, When it was tested with drug detection kit found to be hashish weighing 4.5 grams it was also seized.
2(e) One Gunny bag was recovered containing dark brown coloured dried leaves having peculiar smell, after test found to be ganja, weighing 1.6 kgs, seized. Gunny bag, weighing machines, Scooty used by accused No.2 were seized.
2(f) Accused No. 1 to 13 were in the house they were present at the time of seizure, they have also affixed their signatures to the mahazar.
2(g) A detail mahazar was drawn. In the voluntary statement of A1 he has revealed that he use to arrange ganja and hashish from Hosakote and MDMA and LSD from Goa to sell them to the students and others. A2 and 3 have assisted him financially in purchasing these drugs he is doing business of ganja. A2 has also stated that he and A 3 are providing monitory assistance to A1 to purchase drugs and to do the business of narcotics. Similar is the say 7 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 of A3. Accused No.4 to 13 have stated that they are consuming drugs and are aware of business of drugs by A1 to 3.
2(h) Accused No. 1 to 13 were arrested on the same date and were produced before the court remanded to JC.
2(i) Accused No.2 is also prosecuted in another case. 2(j) After receipt of FSL report, on recording the statement of witnesses, on collecting the material documents, on conclusion of investigation, IO NCB filed complaint before this court on 20042015 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sec.20(b) (ii) (b), 22(c), 21(c), 27, 27A of NDPS Act against the accused No 1 to 13.
3. This court on perusing the complaint averments and the annexed documents taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.8(c) R/w.Sec.21 & 28 of NDPS Act. The copy of the complaint filed by IO., NCB and the Annexures were furnished to the accused as provided U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the accused, Charge framed against accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.8(c) R/w.Sec.21, 23 & 28 of NDPS Act, 1985 and by my Predecessor in office 8 on 1.2.20019. 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 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.97 and properties were marked as M.Os.1 to 13. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating circumstances available against them. The case of the accused is that of a total denial. On perusal of the evidence available on record and the statement of the accused, this court is of the considered view that the accused is not entitled for an order 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. As there was a mistake crept in the charge, charge altered on 1.1.2022. Altered charge read over to accused No.1 to 3. They pleaded not guilty.
5. Heard the arguments of Spl.P.P., and learned counsel for the accused. Memo with citations filed by learned counsel for accused and the Spl.P.P. 9 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015
6. The points that arise for my consideration are as here under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No 1 to 3 staying in door No.8 Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Road Siddapura, Whitefield Main Road, during house searched by IO, NCB on 17092014 found in conscious possession of narcotic substances namely LSDMDMAwhich is a commercial quantity illegally and they are doing the business of selling the contraband without holding any licence which is punishable U/s.21(c) of NDPS Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No 1 to 3 who are staying in door No.8 Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Road Siddapura, Whitefield Main Road, during house search by IO, NCB on 17.09.2014 found in conscious possession of narcotic substances namely Ganja which is a commercial quantity illegally and they are doing the business of selling the contraband without holding any licence which is punishable U/s.20(B)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No 5 to 13 and deceased A4 herein who are found in door No.8 Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Road Siddapura, Whitefield Main Road, during house search by IO, NCB on 17092014 having knowledge of business of contraband by A1 to A3 they came to the house of the A 2 to purchase drugs and they are in the habit of consuming drugs which is an offence punishable under Sec.27 of NDPS Act?
4. What order?10
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: In the Negative Point No.4: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 & 2: 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 accused had dealt with or 11 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 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 storage of contraband, consumption of contraband by the accused herein.
10. PW.3 (CW.1)Sri Shabir Ali, the Intelligence Officer, NCB., Bengaluru is the complainant, seized the contraband, apprehended the accused, testified before this court that he stated to have received a credible information on 1709 2014, when he was in his office received a credible information that at House No.8 at Anjaneya Temple Road, 12 Siddapura, Whitefield Main Road, Accused No. 1 to 3 were sending MDMA, Hashish and Ganja to the college students and others. He is stated to have reduced the same into writing which is at Ex.P.14. He has forwarded the information to the superintendent who has instructed to form a team and to conduct raid. He has formed a team, he called 2 persons of the spot to be present at the time of raid. He has issued notices to them. He along with his team and the independent witnesses knocked the door of the house. One person open the door on enquiry he has stated that he is Bab Kumar and is accompanied by Deepak Jain and Sunny Guha. He has also informed that customers were also present there. In all they were 13 members in the house. PW.3 has given information to all the said 13 members about the information he has received. He has issued notice to them under Sec.50 of NDPS Act. The accused were apprised of their rights to have personal search through a gazetted officer. They have stated that they are intending to have personal search through a gazetted officer. During house search a bag was found in the room on searching the bag there are 0.76 grams of LSD 13 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 numbering 61 blots. It was seized under mahazar by affixing NCB 4 seal. Thereafter, white colour powder and dark brown colour 1 piece was found in the bag, which were also seized under mahazar. The said article is MDMA. In one Gunny bag ganja was seized weighing 1. 5 kgs. Sample was collected for chemical analysis. Vehicle of A2 was seized. A detail panchanama was drawn. Test memo written. House is sealed. The articles were produced before superintendent with a forwarding memo which was deposited in godown. He has recorded voluntarily statement of A1, 6, 9 and 13. He has arrested all the accused as they have admitted the sale of contraband and were produced before the court. He has identified the accused and the seized contraband before the court.
11. In the cross examination of accused No. 1 to 3 it is brought out that as on 17092014 PW.3 herein is not a gazetted officer. Further he has not noted the information in any office register. The informant has not come to his office. He has stated that he has noted the information in a rough sheet and thereafter written in NCB one form, but the said rough sheet is not part of Ex.P14. He has not stored the 14 information in the office computer. He states he has received information over phone,he has noted the phone number. He has not forwarded the copy of information he has received along with the report to his higher officer. At the time of conducting raid neighborers were watching the proceedings. The entire raid is not video graphed. He has informed the contents of Sec.57 of notice to the accused in their language. He has not collected the document of ownership of house No.8 and has not enquired who is the owner of said house. He has not recorded in the statement of owner of the house. At the time of panchanama owner of the house was not present. He has not handed over copies of panchanama to all the accused. When it is suggested that A1 is residing at C32, Diamond District, Domalur, he pleads ignorance. When it is suggested that A1 is not residing in the place of raid, the said suggestion is denied. He has stated that voluntary statement of A1 is not recorded in the place of incident. It is brought out further that since from 1709 2014 5.00 p.m till production of A1 before the court he was in the custody of IO NCB, but it was not noted in the arrest document. In Ex.P.30 summons the place where the 15 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 summons issued to A1 is not noted. In the summons as well as in the voluntary statement case number is not referred. It is suggested that on 17092014 A1 was with his friend at Indigo live club from 9.30 p.m to 1.00 a.m in the morning, and at 1.30 a.m he had food at empire hotel Indiranagara, thereafter, he has boarded his car, there he was apprehended, the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that the accused was detailed illegally, tortured and thereafter his statement is recorded under threat, the said suggestion is denied. NCB seal 4 not handed over to panchas test memo does not contain the signature of panchas. Accused No.1 was illegally brought to NCB office on 18072014 at 1.30 a.m from Empire Hotel and no contraband is seized from the house where the mahazar was drawn, the said suggestion is denied. The voluntary statement does contain the legal words stated in the panchanama for that question is states that accused No.1 might have seen the mahazar and written the statement. It is suggested that typed statement is given to accused and thereafter forced him to copy the same, the said suggestion is denied. It is brought out that MO1 to 13 contains file 16 number. MO1 to 13 does not contain Serial numbers. It is suggested that accused No.2 is an agriculturalist residing at Doddamutthahalli, Hosuru and is not owning any 2 wheeler the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that A3 is not in the place of incident, falsely implanted in the case, the said suggestion is denied.
12. PW.4 is the Superintendent of IO NCB who has granted permission to PW.3 to conduct raid. He has testified that on 17092014 at 3.00 p.m he has received the information through CW.1 that accused No.1 to 3 were doing the sale of contraband, MDMA, Ganja and Hashish to the students and have stored the same at a house situated at Siddapura, Whitefield Road. He has instructed CW.1 to form a team and to take action as per law. He has handed over NCB 4 seal to Cw.1. On the same day at 10.00 p.m he has received the seized articles as per forwarding memo. He has issued godown receipt. In the case 13 accused who were arrested by 4 officers and arrest report submitted before him. Seizure report is also submitted before him. He has sent the seized sample articles to customs house laboratory Chennai for chemical analysis. He has issued 17 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 search authorization on 21092014, 15102014, 20.02.2015, 01042015 to the CW.5 and other NCB officers.
13. In the cross examination of A1 to 3, it is brought out that Ex.P.14 copy is not forwarded to him by Cw.1. He has not enquired Cw.1 how he has received the information. He is not aware whether Cw.1 has noted the information in writing and thereafter Ex.P.14 is prepared. He has not given the case number and the reference number to Cw.1 after receipt of information. It is brought out that he has not given case number in regard to the document submitted by Cw.1 before them. In regard to submission of Ex.P.14 to his office, there is no correspondence from his office. Further Cw.1 has not noted the information in his office register. It is brought out that further NCB 4 seal is used in other case also. NCB 4 seal is used when the sample were used to laboratory for examination. When it is suggested that before production of accused before the court Sec.57 report is not submitted by Cw.1, he pleads ignorance. It is brought out that the report under Sec.57 of NDPS Act it is different from seizure and arrest. It is brought out that at the time of seizure of contraband accused were not arrested. At the time 18 of issuance of Ex.P.58 search authorization is not aware of contraband which was stored in the house of A1. When it is suggested that the house referred in such authorization is not belonging to A1 and it was belonging to his brother, he pleads ignorance.
14. PW.1 is the Intelligence officer who has recorded the voluntary statement of Accused No 2, 8 and 12. He has testified that he has recorded the voluntarily statement of A 2,8 and 12, basing on the voluntary statement issued arrest memo. He has submitted arrest report to superintendent as per Sec.57 of NDPS Act. He has identified the accused before the court.
15. In the cross examination of A12 it is suggested that it is not the member of raiding team. Further Cw.1 is not authorized to arrest the accused in writing. It is suggested he has not recorded the voluntary statement of A 2,8 and 12 and had no authority to arrest them the said suggestions are denied.
16. PW.2 is the Intelligence officer who has recorded the voluntary statement of Accused No 3 to 5. He has 19 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 testified that he has recorded the voluntary statement of A3 to 5, basing on the voluntary statement issued arrest memo. He has submitted arrest report to superintendent. He has identified the accused before the court.
17. In the cross examination made by the counsel for the accused it is suggested that he has dictated the statement to the accused and has taken their signatures forcibly on the said statements, the said suggestion is denied.
18. In the cross examination of made by the counsel for accused No.12, it is suggested that he is not the member of raiding team. Further Cw.1 is not authorized to arrest the accused in writing. It is suggested he has not recorded the voluntary statement of A2, 8 and 12 and had no authority to arrest them the said suggestions are denied.
19. PW.5 is the Intelligence officer who has recorded the voluntary statement of Accused No 7, 10, 11. He has testified that he has recorded the voluntary statement of A 7, 10, 11, basing on the voluntary statement issued arrest memo. He has search the house of A1 on 21092014 and 20 no incriminatory article is seized. During the voluntary statement of A7,10 and 11 they have revealed that they have been to the house of A2 and they are aware of sale of contraband by A2. He has submitted arrest report to superintendent. He has recorded the statement of brother of A1. He has searched the house of A13, 11 on 15102014 01042015 and no incriminatory articles were seized. He has identified the accused No 7. 10 and 11 before the court. On conclusion of investigation filed the complaint before this court.
20. In the cross examination of accused it is suggested that he has dictated the statement to the accused and has taken their signatures forcibly on the said statements, the said suggestion is denied. It is brought out that medical examination of accused No 10 and 11 is not conducted on the date of their apprehension. He is the complainant and investigation officer in the case. The witnesses Ex.P.70 panchanama are not witnesses in the case. During the course of investigation no contraband is found in the house of A13 and no report regarding the consumption of contraband A13. Several suggestions are 21 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 made disputing the investigation conducted by him in the case, he has denied the said suggestions. It is brought out that prior to searching the house of A1 there is no information about stock of contraband in his house. In Ex.P.58 is search authorization there is no details. It is brought out the brother of A1 is not doing drug peddling.
21. PW.6 is the Chemical examiner who has examined the samples sent for chemical analysis. She has testified that on 23092014 she has received 4 sealed articles from NCB ., Zonal Director, Bengaluru along with forwarding memo and authorization letter which are S1, S3 and S5 and S6. She has also received test memo and specimen seal from one Santosh. She has issued acknowledgement for having received the same. The seals were intact. On opening the seal she found multi colour blot paper which is LSD, crystalline powder, MDMA, Hashish and Ganja. After taking out the samples, it was analyzed by conducting scientific test. The result thus obtained have been analyzed and gave her report as per Ex.P.97. In the respective samples MDMA, LSD, Hashish and Ganja were detected which is referred in detail in her report. After chemical examination the 22 contraband was sealed, packed and their office seal was affixed and it was sent to NCB., Bangalore vide forwarding letter Ex.P.96.
22. In the cross examination it is brought out that she has not received any samples from NCB officer, and has not conducted any test the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that she has given a false report, the said suggestion is denied.
23. PW.7 is the Owner of house where the accused were apprehended and huge quantity of contraband was seized. He has not supported the case of prosecution. The prosecution treated the witness as hostile and cross examined him, but nothing has been brought out in proof of the fact that he is the owner of the house where the contraband was stored and accused were apprehended.
24. The prosecution vehemently argues that huge quantum of contraband seized from the conscious possession of accused No 1 to 3. Accused failed to give explanation satisfactorily as to how they came into possession of the contraband. The prosecution witnesses 23 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 particularly PW.1,to 4 have spoken in unequivocal terms about the seizure of contraband from the accused No 1 to 3. IO on complying the statutory provisions of NDPS Act has seized the articles. The charges against the accused stands proved.
25. 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 NCB form No.1 Ex.P14 is a general form. No separate information is forwarded to the higher officer. The information which has been reduced into writing has not been stated in the mahazar. Official work done by the NCB has not been noted in the diary, no case diary is maintained. The officer who receives the information has to reduce the information into writing and to forward to the superior officer. Here in the instant case that has not been done. Initial information is received by some other person through a telephone. There is no sudden search as prior information has been received. Sec.43 is not applicable. There is no strict compliance of Sec.42(1) of NDPS Act. Search and seizure is not in accordance with the provisions of NDPS Act. 24 Therefore, the seizure of NDPS substance is vitiated. It cannot be looked into. Seizure of Mos.1 to 10 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.
26. With the back drop of afore said evidence, and the assertions made by the rival parties let me dwell upon the material in depth as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving the allegation of conscious possession of contraband from the accused, whether the investigating agency followed the mandatory requirement for the seizure as contemplated under the law. It is well settled law that keeping in mind the grave consequences which are likely to follow on proof of possession of illicit articles from the accused, namely the shifting of the onus of the accused and the severe punishment to which he becomes liable, legislature has enacted and provided certain safe guards in various provisions of the accused including Secs. 42 and 50 of the Act. The harsh provisions of the act cast a duty upon the prosecution to strictly follow the procedure and compliance of the safeguards. Herein the case on hand, this 25 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 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 storage of contraband in the house of PW.7 at house No.8 Whitefield Main Road, Near Anjaneya Temple Road. He has noted the information in NCB1 form and informed his superintendent. The information which has been reduced to writing and the submission of information to the superintendent has been attacked by the defence by referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2013 (2) SCC 2112 Sukhdev Singh Vs., State of Harayana in the said dictum the Hon'ble Apex Court pleased to observe that: "requirement of writing down and conveyancing information to immediate superior official mandatory in nature of need for strict compliance. Object purpose of ensuring strict compliance with Sec.42 held: Sec.42 is a mandatory provision which ought to be construed and complied strictly, compliance of furnishing information to the superior officer should be forth with or within a short time thereafter and preferably prior to recovery. But there could be cases where investigating officer, for special reasons to be explained in writing, is not able to instantaneously reduce the information into writing and 26 send the said information to his superior officer but could do it later and preferably prior to recovery. Thus, a ruling of Constitution Bench in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [(2009) 8 SCC 539] reiterated that while total non compliance with requirements of sec.42(1) & (2) is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation for delay would be acceptable compliance with Section 42. Further more, whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. Admittedly, in the present case no effort was made by IO., in spite of there being ample time, to comply with provisions of Sec.42. Since there was total non compliance with 42 and question of substantial compliance did not even arise hence appellant accused acquitted.
By referring to the above said dictum it is argued by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 that PW3 and PW4 who have admitted in their cross examination that they have not received any information about the information PW.3 has received through an informant. With the back drop of the enunciation of law, let me now appreciate whether the investigation agency has followed the mandatory requirements of Sec.42 or 50 of the Act. PW.3 is the complainant. He has received information about possession of LSD, MDMA, Hashish and Ganja by A1 to 3. He has 27 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 reduced the information in writing in NCB Form1. During the course of cross examination of PW.1 it is brought out that no separate note is made by the complainant except the NCB1 form. 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 including the gist of information in NCB 1 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 has made a note in NCB1 form and in regard to dispatch of information there is no entry in the register or any document placed before this court about the dispatch of information to superior officer. Except NCB form1 there is no any other 28 entry noting the information he has received through an informant. As per the Manual the information recorded has to be sealed and sent to the superior. But as admitted by PW.3 in the cross examination there is no such procedure done in the case. That apart superintendent has made a note on NCB 1 form to constitute a team and to take action as per law. Whether the report is submitted to superintendent in sealed cover or any separate information is submitted to him there is no record. That part, except NCB 1 form the case dairy or any other register maintained by the PW.3 there is no information. PW.3 has admitted in the cross examination he has not maintained case diary and he has made a separate report about the information he has received and send it in a sealed cover to the superior. 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.
27. Yet another essential element in the case is PW.3 who is the IO., NCB as admitted by him is not a gazetted officer. As per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab vs., Baldev Singh in (1999) 6 SCC 172 referred to 29 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 by the learned counsel for the accused where an empowered officer or a duly authorized officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the concerned person of his right under sub sec.(1) of Sec.50 of being taken to the nearest gazetted officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in writing. Failure to inform the person concerned about the existence of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate would cause prejudice to an accused. A search made by an empowered officer, on prior information, without information of his right if he so requires, he shall be taken before a gazetted officer or Magistrate for search and in case if he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from his person, during a search conducted in violation of provisions of Sec.50 of the Act. On looking to the seizure report there is no information given to 30 the accused to have his personal search before a gazetted officer. Therefore, as rightly argued by the learned counsel for accused and as per the enunciation of law in the above said dictum the recovery of illicit article is in breach of Sec.50(1) of NDPS Act.
28. It is argued by the defence that the contraband was recovered from a house. The possession of contraband has to be proved by the prosecution by placing clinching evidence. Here in the instant case the accused Nos.1 to 3 were residing in the house and at their instance the huge quantum of contraband has been stored. The house No.8 is standing in the name of one Radha Krishna but he is has not supported the case of prosecution. The accused No.1 to 3 are not the residents of house No.8. no document is collected by the IO., NCB., to whom house No.8 is belonging. Though the owner of the house is examined before the court he has not supported the case of prosecution. The document of the house is also not collected. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gagandhar Vs., State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 31 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 2020 (9) SCC 202 referred to by learned counsel for accused was pleased to make an observation that: "when accused was held to be owner of the house from whom ganja was recovered relying upon voters list of particular year rejecting his defence that he has sold his house to coaccused in the subsequent year. The voters list entry of 2008 being prior to the sale is of no consequence. It is not without reason that the coaccused had absconded. In view of the nature of evidence available it is not possible to hold that the prosecution had established conscious possession of the house with the appellant so as to attribute the presumption under the NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery of the contraband. Conviction could not be based on a foundation of conjectures and surmises to conclude on a preponderance of probabilities, the guilt of the appellant without establishing the same beyond reasonable doubt. The police investigation was very extremely casual, perfunctory and shoddy in nature. The appellant has been denied the right to a fair investigation, which is but a facet of a fair trial guaranteed to every accused under Article 21 there was Gross mis appreciation of evidence by below courts, let alone poor investigation by the police, has resulted in the appellant having to suffer incarceration for an offence he had never committed. The conviction of appellant is held to be unsustainable."
Further at para8 of the judgment it is held that: 32 "the presumption against the accused of culpability under Section 35, and under Section 54 of the Act to explain possession satisfactorily, are rebuttable. It does not dispense with the obligation of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt. The presumptive provision with reverse burden of proof, does not sanction conviction on basis of preponderance of probability. Section 35(2) provides that a fact can be said to have been proved if it is established beyond reasonable doubt and not on preponderance of probability."
In the said case, the accused was held to be the owner of house from whom huge quantum of ganja was seized, but the prosecution has failed to prove that where the contraband was stored was belonging to the accused No.3 herein. In the said circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when the prosecution has failed to establish conscious possession of house with the accused, the presumption under NDPS Act against him with regard to recovery of contraband cannot be drawn.
29. He has also referred to 1996 (9) SCC 462 in Mohd., Aslam Khan Vs., NCB in the said case Hon'ble Apex Court held that prosecution not producing any independent evidence to establish ownership of the flat either by 33 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 producing document from Registrar's office or by examining the neighbors. In the said circumstances of the case, retracted statements of the appellant not sufficient to connect the accused with the house in question and conviction set aside.
Here in the instant case, the accused Nos.1 to 3 were found in house No.8 when the search and seizure was held. But no document was collected by the IO., in regard to the owner ship of the house.
30. Yet another contention of defence is non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution. He has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in 2006 (12) SCC 321 Ritesh Chakravarthy Vs., State of MP in the said dictum Hon'ble Apex Court was pleaded to make an observation that "an offence committed under the NDPS Act is a grave one, hence, Procedural safeguards to the accused provided under a statute require strict compliance. recovery of contraband in presence of the independent person assumes importance. search should normally be conducted by a magistrate or a gazetted officer. Presence of a gazetted officer in the raiding team would not sub serve the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. In the said case, PW.5 has sent PWs.1 and 2 an 34 auto rickshaw driver and a Pawn shop owner as witnesses and that too half an hour before proceeding to search, why they were chosen not explained. PW.1 had contended that their signatures have been obtained on blank papers. No person who has witnessed the occurrence was made a witness and even their addresses and names was not taken, hence, PWs.1 and 2 cannot sent to be independent witnesses. Considering the grave nature of offence there is always a danger that conjectures and suspicion may take the place of legal truth. In absence of strict degree of proof and higher degree of assurance, appellant entitled to benefit of doubt.
30(a) He has also referred to the judgment reported in 1995 (4) SCC page 255 in Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar Vs., State of Maharashtra in the said dictum Hon'ble Apex Court held that: "independent and respectable inhabitants of locality have to be examined as provided U/s.100(4) of Cr.P.C., panch witnesses not belonging to the locality where search was conducted. Inconsistent versions given by them regarding purpose of their visit to justify their presence at the place of occurrence. One of the witnesses found to be a pocket witness and other witness being his friend and associate their friendship having developed during their days of gambling. His conduct of giving false address to the police on more than one occasions rendering him untrustworthy. No serious attempt made by the raiding party to join 35 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality. In the said circumstances panch witness not reliable. It is also held in the said dictum that: "testimony of official witnesses cannot be discarded for that reason, but his evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible should be corroborated in material particulars. On facts, evidence of official witnesses would not be acted upon without there being any independent corroboration of their testimony. Further, it is held that but prudence dictates that their evidence needs to be subjected to strict scrutiny and as far as possible corroboration of their evidence in material particulars should be sought. Their desire to see the success of the case based on their investigation requires greater care to appreciate their testimony. In the present case the police officials did not joint any independent witnesses of the locality and made an attempt to create an impression on the courts that both the witnesses were witnesses of locality and were independent knowing fully well that one of the witnesses was under their influence and available to them, as he has been joining the raids earlier also. The very fact that the police officers joined these witnesses in the raid creates a doubt about the fairness of the investigation."
Here in the instant case, the independent panch witnesses were not examined. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 36 the afore said dictum that too local dependent witnesses respectable persons of the locality has to be examined as provided U/s.100(4) of Cr.P.C., when the independent and respectable inhabitants of locality were not examined seizure held to be not proved.
31. Further it is argued that NCB seal No.4 retained by PW.3 there is possibility of concocting the seal cannot be ruled out. As provided U/s.57 report not submitted by PW.3 to PW.4. Further, till 19.9.2014 no sufficient cause to arrest the accused has been shown by PW.4. NCB 4 seal not given to panch witnesses. Ex.P28 is the panchanama, 4 items seized, two panch witnesses are not examined, no corroboration from the independent witnesses.
32. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 that the confession of accused before a investigating agency would not be looked into in believing the seizure of contraband from the accused in view of latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh's case. In view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Tofan 37 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 Singh case of a larger bench where reference has been made to the larger bench to consider the following questions.
1. Whether the officer investigation the matter under NDPS Act would qualify as police officer or not?
2. Whether the statement recorded by the IO U/s.67 of NDPS Act can be treated as confessional or not even if IO is not treated as Police officer?
3. Whether the statement recorded in terms of Sec.67 part takes the character of sec.167/164 of Cr.P.C.?
4. Whether it is hit by Sec.25 of the Evidence Act?
5. Whether it can be used a substantial evidence? By a split verdict, the Hon'ble 2 Judges of Bench have answered the reference as here under:
1. That the officers who are invested with the powers U/s.53 of NDPS Act are "Police Officers"
within the meaning of Sec.25 of the evidence act, as a result of which, any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Sec.25 of Evidence act and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
2. That a statement recorded U/s.67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confession statement under the NDPS Act.
38In view of the judgment of Tofan Singh case by a larger Bench the argument advanced by the prosecution to rely upon the statement of accused in regard to the seizure of contraband is unsustainable.
33. It is the vehement contention of prosecution that the official witnesses have spoken in unequivocal terms that accused No.1 to 3 were found in conscious possession of huge quantum of contraband when they were apprehended in the house they failed to give satisfactory explanation as to how they came into possession of the contraband. To buttress his argument he has referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jeet Ram Vs., NCB 2020 SAR (Cri) 1113 in the said case the accused was prosecuted U/s.21(c) of NDPS Act. The facts of the said case, accused is an owner of dhaba, allegedly found in possession of 13 Kgs., of charas just below the counter of the dhaba a gunny bag. It is held in the said facts, sec.50 of NDPS Act is applicable only in the case of personal search, as such there is no basis for the finding recorded by the trial court that there was non compliance of provision U/s.50 of the NDPS Act. Further it is also observed in the dictum that plea of non examination 39 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 of independent witnesses, incident had happened at about 10.30 pm., in a dhaba which is away from the village site and all other persons who are found in the dhaba were the servants of the accused. Witnesses examined on behalf of the accused are closely related to him who are none other than the servant of the dhaba. It cannot expect such a person to be a witness against his own master. In such circumstances non examination of independent witnesses is not fatal to case of prosecution.
33(a) I have carefully gone through the case law. That is a case where 13 Kgs., of charas was seized from a dhaba and the accused is the owner of the dhaba. In the said facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation that, Sec.50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only in case of personal search and not where the contraband is seized from a building.
33(b) Here in the instant case, personal search is conducted by the IO., NCB., further accused Nos.1 to 3 were found in the house. The facts and circumstances in the said case law differs from the present facts. With due respect it may not be made applicable to the present facts. 40
34. The learned Prosecutor has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 2021 SAR 102 Rajesh Dhiman Vs., State of Himachal Pradesh in the said case there was recovery of charas from the bag pack of the accused who was traveling as a pillion rider in a bike. The bag pack of the accused was containing charas. On appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation that recovery of charas, investigation by informant/complainant biased in a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. Enmity or other motive for the police to falsely implicate the accused and let the real culprits walk free not claimed at any stage of the trial. No reason to draw an adverse inference against ASI himself investigating his complaint.
Here in the instant case, it is not the contention of defence that the investigating officer and complainant are the same, further the IONCB has conducted raid and conducted part of investigation and other officials have also coordinated in 41 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 conducting investigation. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the said case law differs from the present case. Hence, With due respect it may not be made applicable to the present facts.
34(a) He has also referred to the judgment of Gurmail Chand Vs., State of Punjab 2020 SAR (Cri) 553 in the said case witness of mahazar appeared as a defence witness. In the said facts Hon'ble Apex Court observed that mere a fact that witness of seizure appeared as a defence witness does not lead to conclusion that entire prosecution story has to be disbelieved. Witness did not deny his signature on the seizure memo, rather his excuse was that it was taken on the blank paper which was rightly disbelieved by the courts below. In the said dictum it is also held that non sending report of seizure within prescribed period of 48 hours does not vitiate the proceedings.
The case the facts and circumstances of the said case law differs from the present case. Hence, With due respect it may not be made applicable to the present facts.
34(b) He has also referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Kulwinder Singh and anr Vs., State of 42 Punjab in 2015 SAR (Cri) 597 wherein it is held that factum of conscious possession, once possession is found, the accused is presumed to be in conscious possession. In the said case, the prosecution case came to be rejected solely on the ground that independent witness have not been examined. On careful perusal of the said case law the facts in the said case differs from the present case. Hence, With due respect it may not be made applicable to the present facts.
35. On careful analysis of materials available on record, it is evident that PW.3 has not apprised the accused Nos.1 to 3 of their right contemplated under Sec.50 of NDPS Act. He has not apprised the accused of their right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer. PW.3 has admitted that he is not an gazetted officer and the search is not conducted in the presence of a gazetted officer there is clear violation of Sec.50. Independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality ought to have been secured by the investigating agency to be present at the time of raid, but the localites are not witnesses to the panchanama. That 43 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 apart the owner of the house who is examined before the court has not supported the case of prosecution. When the prosecution failed to establish the ownership of the flat where the accused were found to have stored the contraband, either by producing documents or by examining the neighbours the statement of accused is not sufficient to connect the accused with the premises in question. Presumption against accused of culpability U/s.35 of NDPS Act and U/s.54, to explain possession satisfactorily or rebuttable. It does not dispense with obligation of prosecution to prove charge beyond all reasonable doubt. Presumptive provisions with reverse burden of proof, does not sanction conviction on basis of preponderance of probability as discussed in detail in Gangadhar's case. Here in the circumstances of the case, no document is collected by the investigating agency about the ownership of the house. The owner who is examined before the court has turned hostile. No independent witnesses were examined as contemplated U/s.100(4) of Cr.P.C. As provided U/s.100(4) of Cr.P.C., which requires that before making a search, the officer or other person about to make it, shall call upon 2 or 44 more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situated or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. Here in the case on hand, the independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality were not called by the IO. Though the owner of the house is examined before the court to prove the ownership of the house and to prove the search and seizure he has not supported the case of prosecution. That apart the case projected by the prosecution basing on the statement of the accused admitting the guilt cannot be used as a confession statement in view of the latest judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tofan Singh's case. Bereft of statement of accused if other aspects are appreciated carefully, the compliance of mandatory provisions as contemplated U/s.50 and 42 of NDPS Act i.e., the right of the accused to be searched in the presence of gazetted officer has not been complied. When there is no strict compliance with the provisions of Sec.42 and 50 which has caused prejudice to the accused when the 45 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 accused has not been apprised of his rights to be searched before a gazetted officer. The seizure of contraband would stand vitiated. Though the official witnesses have spoken to about the investigation done in the case in view of mandatory requirement of compliance of Sec.42 and 50, the accused herein could not be convicted. The seizure of huge quantum of contraband which has been done not in accordance with the provisions contemplated under the NDPS Act, in view of dictums of Hon'ble Apex Court referred in detail in the afore said paragraphs, I am of the considered opinion that the seizure of contraband from the accused Nos.1 to 3 which is not in accordance with prevailing provisions of NDPS Act does not stands proved. Consequently, the points for consideration are answered in the Negative.
36. Point No.3: The allegations against accused Nos.5 to 13 is they have purchased contraband from accused Nos.1 to 4 for their personal consumption. The investigating agency, particularly PW.2 has stated that accused Nos.3 to 5 have given voluntary statement in their handwriting about purchase of contraband from accused 46 No.1. Similarly, PW.1 has stated that accused Nos.2, 8 & 12 have given voluntary statement. PW.3 has stated that accused Nos.1, 6, 9, 13 have given voluntary statement before him. PW.5 has stated that accused Nos.7, 10 & 11 have given voluntary statement before him and stated about purchase of contraband.. Except the voluntary statements of accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 13 about purchase of contraband from accused Nos.1 to 3 there is no material collected by the investigating agency about the date of purchase and monetary transaction between accused Nos.1 to 3 and other accused. In regard to purchase of contraband there is absolutely no material collected by the investigating agency. Yet another aspect is accused Nos.5 to 13 are in the habit of consuming narcotics. But in regard to consumption medical report is not collected. In the absence of medical report about consumption of narcotics by them, the allegation against them does not stands proved. PW.3 in the cross examination has admitted that he has not got the blood test report and urine test report of accused Nos.6 and 7 in regard to the consumption of drugs. PW.5 during the course of cross examination has admitted that he has not collected 47 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015 any material about consumption of narcotics by accused No.13, 10 & 11. Thus, as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in the Tofan Singh's case the statement recorded under NDPS Act cannot be used as a confession statement under the Act. On careful analysis of entire material except the voluntary statements of accused Nos.5 to 13, there is no material collected by the investigating agency about the purchase of contraband by them from accused Nos.1 to 3 and about consumption of drugs. Thus, there is no material available on record in proof of consumption of drugs by accused Nos.5 to 13. therefore, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed to prove the allegation of consumption of drugs by accused Nos.5 to 13. in the result, I answer the Point for consideration in the negative.
37. Point No.4: In the result, following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No 1 to 3, are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 20(b) (ii) (B), 22 (c), 21(c) of N.D.P.S. Act 1985.48
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No 5 to 13, are acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 27 of N.D.P.S. Act.
M.O.1 to 10contraband are ordered to be returned to complainant IO NCB BZU, for producing before the Drug Disposal committee for disposal after appeal period.
M.Os.11 Black colour bag ordered to be destroyed after appeal period.
M.O.12 and 13 are ordered to be confiscated to State after appeal period.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 10th day of March 2022) (B.S.JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
(a) List of witnesses examined for the:
Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sri Samiran Pawl
P.W.2 : Sri Kanjalet Hokip
P.W.3 : Sri Sabir Ali
P.W.4 : Sri Pankaj Kumar Dwevedi
P.W.5 : Sri Anil Kumar
P.W.6 : Sri K. Selvatirumagal
49 CCH.33
Spl.C.C.202/2015
P.W.7 : Sri Manjappa
(b) Defence :
NIL
(b) List of documents exhibited for the:
2. Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Voluntary statement of A2 Ex.P.2 : Voluntary statement of A8 Ex.P.3 : Voluntary statement of A12 Ex.P.4 : Arrest memo of A2 Ex.P.5 : Arrest memo of A8 Ex.P.6 : Arrest memo of A12 Ex.P.7 : Voluntary statement of A3 Ex.P.8 : Voluntary statement of A4 Ex.P.9 : Voluntary statement of A5 Ex.P.10 : Arrest memo of A3 Ex.P.11 : Arrest memo of A4 Ex.P.12 : Arrest memo of A5 Ex.P.13 : Report to superintendent of NCB Ex.P.14 : Letter of possession (a) Pw.3
Ex.P.15 to 27 : Notice Sec.50 of NDPS Act Ex.P.28 : Panchanama Ex.P.29 : Test memo Ex.P.30 to 42 : Summons U/Sec. 67 of NDPS Act Ex.P.43 : Forwarding memo Ex.P.44 : Godown receipt Ex.P.45 : Voluntary statement of A1 Ex.P.46 : Voluntary statement of A4 Ex.P.47 : Voluntary statement of A9 Ex.P.48 : Voluntary statement of A13 Ex.P.49 : Arrest memo of A1 Ex.P.50 : Arrest memo of A6 Ex.P.51 : Arrest memo Ex.P.52 : Arrest memo of Nikal Joseph Ex.P.53 : Seizure report PSI of NDPS Ex.P.54 : Arrest report of 57 NDPS Act Ex.P.55 : Arrest report of @ Pankaj Kumar Ex.P.56 : Arrest report Ex.P.57 : Letter Ex.P.58 : Authorization to search Ex.P.59 : Authorisation to search 50 Ex.P.60 : Authorisation to search Ex.P.61 : Authorisation to search Ex.P.62 : Voluntary statement Ex.P.63 : Voluntary statement Ex.P.64 : Voluntary statement Ex.P.65 : Arrest memo Ex.P.66 : Arrest memo Ex.P.67 : Arrest memo Ex.P.68 : panchanama Ex.P.69 : Summons Ex.P.70 : Voluntary statement Ex.P.71 : Letter Ex.P.72 : Letter Ex.P.73 : Letter Ex.P.74 : Letter Ex.P.75 : Panchanama Ex.P.76 : Panchnama Ex.P.77 : Summons Ex.P.78 : Statement Ex.P.79 : Letter Ex.P.80 : Letter Ex.P.81 : Letter Ex.P.82 : Notice Ex.P.83 : Letter Ex.P.84 : Letter Ex.P.85 : Letter Ex.P.86 : Summons Ex.P.87 : Letter Ex.P.88 : Letter Ex.P.89 : Letter Ex.P.90 : Register extract Ex.P.91 : Letter Ex.P.92 : Letter Ex.P.93 : Mahazar Ex.P.94 : Notice Ex.P.95 : Statement Ex.P.96 : Forwarding letter Ex.P.97 : FSL report
(b) Defence:
NIL 51 CCH.33 Spl.C.C.202/2015
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : LSD confining 10 blots or coloured bag M.O.2 : LSD confining 10 blots or coloured bag M.O.3 : 5 gram crystalline MDMA M.O.4 : 5 grams crystalline MDMA M.O.5 : 4.5 gram Hashish M.O.6 : 24 grams of Ganja M.O.7 : 24 grams of Ganja M.O.8 : 41 LSD strips M.O.9 : 2 grams MDMA M.O.10 : 1.5 52 kg of Ganja M.O.11 : Black coloured bag M.O.12 : Belta Weighing machine M.O.13 : CAMRY weighing machine (B.S.JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.