Bangalore District Court
State By Adugodi P.S vs Bhuvanesh on 11 January, 2023
KABC010183482020
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 11 th DAY OF JANUARY 2023
SPL.C.C. NO.749/2020
COMPLAINANT : State by Adugodi P.S
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : 1. Bhuvanesh, s/o.Venkatesh,
25 years, No.356/1,
dhanlakshmi Jewels building,
I floor, Malleshpalya, HAL,
New Tippasandra Post,
Bangalore - 560 075.
2. Shivakumar, s/o.Vadamalai,
27 years, No.37/A, 4th cross,
church Street, New
Thippasandra,
Bengaluru - 560 075.
(Rep. by Sri SCN., Adv.)
2
1. Date of Commission of offence: 6.9.2019
2. Date of report of offence: 6.9.2019
3. Arrest of the accused : 6.9.2019
4. Date of release of accused on 13.9.2019
bail:
5. Period undergone in custody: 7 days
6. Date of commencing of 7.12.2021
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 9.9.2022
8. Name of the complainant: Sri Dilip Kumar K H, 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, Adugodi Police Station, Bangalore against the accused Nos.1 and 2 on the allegation that they have committed the offence punishable U/Sec.20(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
CCH-33
3 Spl.C.C.749/2020 On 6.9.2019 at 10.00 am., when the complainant was discharging duties in the Police Station he has received credible information that in a lane which leads to govt., Hospital near Church in Ambedkar Nagar, 80 feet road, Koramangala two persons are selling ganja. He has taken permission from the higher officer to conduct raid, he has also noted the information in Station house diary. He along with panchas, staff members, DD kit proceeded to the spot in a govt., vehicle. On reaching the spot he has mounted surveillance in the spot. Two persons came there in Kinetic Zoom two wheeler bearing No.KA 01 U 9413 holding black colour plastic bag. They are surrounded. On enquiry they have revealed their names and addresses. They have stated that Bhuvenesha s/o.Venkatesh and Shivakumara S/o.Edamali. When the bag of the accused persons was checked it was containing ganja. The said ganja was weighed in a weighing machine. The weight of the ganja came around 1 Kg., 150 grams. It was seized under the mahazar. RSN seal was affixed on it. the vehicle was seized under a mahazar. The cash which was found in the spot was also seized. A detail report has been prepared by the 4 PI., Adugodi PS., which is the basis to register the case in the Cr.No.149/2019 for the offence punishable U/s.20(B) of NDPS Act.
3. The accused are released on bail. The investigating agency on conclusion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2. This court on perusing the contents of police final report and the annexed documents taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.20(B)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act, 1985. The copy of the charge sheet filed by PI., Adugodi 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 for the offence punishable U/Sec.20(B) of NDPS Act, 1985, on 4.9.2021. 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.14 and properties were marked as M.O.1 & 2. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined CCH-33 5 Spl.C.C.749/2020 U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating circumstances available against him. The case of the accused is that of 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 has submitted that he has no evidence to lead on his 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 6.9.2019 at 10.00 am., in a lane which leads to govt., Hospital near Church in Ambedkar Nagar, 80 feet road, Koramangala, Bangalore accused Nos.1 & 2 were found in illegal possession of 1 Kg., 150 grams of ganja without having any licence or permission to sell the same and thereby accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable U/s.20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under: 6
Point No.1: In the Negative 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 CCH-33 7 Spl.C.C.749/2020 the prosecution proves that the 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.
PW.1 is the complainant/PI who is the search and seizing officer has testified that on 6.9.2019 at 10.00 am., when he was discharging duties in his office received credible information that near Ambedkarnagar Church some 2 persons are selling ganja to the public. He has 8 obtained permission through the ACP Madiwala sub division. He has called the panchas to the station, apprised them about the information he has received. He has served notices to them. He along with DD kit, panchas and staff had been to the spot at 10.30 am., he has mounted surveillance in the spot. Two persons were found carrying a plastic cover. On confirming that they are in possession of contraband ganja they were surrounded. On further probing they have revealed their names and addresses. They are carrying ganja. They are selling the ganja at Rs.20,000/- per Kg. They have apprised of their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer. The medical officer of PHC., Judicial block of Koramangala was called to the spot. The medical officer was apprised about the case. The medical officer he being a gazetted officer conducted the personal search of accused. Prior to conducting search he has informed the accused about their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer. His personal search was conducted. The ganja which was in the hand cover of the accused was weighed around 1 Kg., 150 grams it was seized. RSN seal was affixed on the seized articles. Cash of CCH-33 9 Spl.C.C.749/2020 Rs.1000/- was also seized. The scooter which was there in the spot was also seized. Accused were arrested. A detail panchanama has been drawn in the spot. The witness identified the accused and the seized sample before the court. The sample seal taken in the spot was also identified by the witness. A detail report is prepared by PW.1 and basing on the said report a case is registered against the accused in crime No.149/2019 alleging commission of offence punishable U/s.20(b) of NDPS Act. He has identified accused No.1 before the court since accused No.2 was absent, his identity is not disputed his absence is exempted.
13. In the cross examination, it is brought out that he has not enquired about the procurement of ganja by the accused persons. He has not noted the name of panchas in the report submitted before the court. He has noted the information in the Station house diary and thereafter he has obtained permission and proceeded to the spot to conduct raid. It is suggested that accused were not apprised of their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer, the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that he has not 10 made a note in the report that apprising the accused as provided under the provisions of NDPS Act in regard to their right to have personal search through a gazetted officer, he has denied the suggestion. It is further brought out that he has not observed how the accused persons were selling ganja. It is suggested that a false case has been foisted against the accused persons, the said suggestion is denied.
PW.5 & 6 are witnesses to panchanama have not supported the case of prosecution. Except identifying the signature in the panchanama they have not stated any thing about search and seizure and drawing of mahazar. They have been treated as hostile witnesses and were cross examined by the prosecution in length. In the cross examination nothing has been brought out in proof of their presence at the time of incident.
11. PW.2 is the Scientific officer of FSL, Madiwala, Bangalore. She has testified that on 5.11.2019 she has received sealed article from Adugodi PS., in Cr.No.149/2019 through PI. At the time of receipt of the article the seal was CCH-33 11 Spl.C.C.749/2020 intact. She has opened the seal and taken out the article which was sent for chemical analysis. After taking out the sample 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.P12. After chemical examination the contraband was sealed and packed and their office seal was affixed and it was sent to the investigating agency. She has identified the sample seal at Ex.P13. In the cross examination it is brought out that the percentage of ganja found in the sample is not mentioned in the report. Further the ganja which was sent for chemical analysis is not segregated and examined. She has not compared the seal found on the article and send endorsement to that effect. It is suggested that he has filed unscientific report, the said suggestion is denied.
12
PW.3 is the Medical officer and he is the gazetted officer in the case in whose presence search and seizure is held. His testimony before this court is on 6.9.2019 PI Adugodi PS., has submitted a requisition to him to come to the spot. He has gone to the spot and found the accused persons therein and when they were questioned about possessing Ganja, they have admitted that they were in possession of ganja. They are informed about their right to have their personal search through a Gazetted officer or Magistrate. They have consented to have their personal search through a gazetted officer. When he has conducted the personal search of the accused, they were in possession of ganja to the tune of 1 Kg., 150 grams, the said ganja was seized, detailed mahazar has been drawn. He has identified the accused before the court.
In the cross examination it is brought out that he is working as a medical officer in PHC., NGV., when he had been to the spot, PI., and accused were present. It is brought out that he has not apprised the accused about their right to have personal search through a gazetted CCH-33 13 Spl.C.C.749/2020 officer. It is further brought out that prior to his visit to the spot, police have conducted the personal search of the accused. It is suggested that he has not been to the spot and he has affixed his signature on the mahazar and other investigation papers in the police station, the said suggestion is denied.
PW.4 is the then PSI of Adugodi PS., who has registered the case basing on the report of PW.1. His testimony before the court is on 6.9.2019 at 1.15 pm., he has received a report through CW,.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.149/2019 against accused persons under sec.20(b) of NDPS Act. He has recorded the voluntary statement of accused. He has noted the seized articles in the PF. Accused was arrested. On 16.10.2019 the seized ganja was submitted before the magistrate for inventory. After collecting the sample on 28.10.2019 it was sent to FSL for analysis. He has recorded the statement of CW.10. He has identified the accused and seized sample of ganja before the court.
14
In the cross examination made by the defence it is brought out that in the letter sent to FSL the date of incident is shown as 6.4.2019. Further it is brought out that in the said letter it is noted that on 16.10.2018 the seized ganja is submitted before the Learned Magistrate for inventory. Witness has stated that the said dates have been wrongly noted in the said letters. No investigation is conducted about the ownership of the vehicle. In the complaint name of the panchas is not mentioned. In the complaint there is no details about the description of the ganja. No investigation is conducted about the procurement of ganja by the accused persons. The persons who has sold ganja is from Tamil Nadu, he is not enquired. It is suggested that accused have been falsely implanted in the case for extraneous reasons, the said suggestion is denied.
PW.7 is the then the PSI of Adugodi PS., who has filed the charge sheet in the case. He has testified that after receiving the records on 31.5.2020 he has perused the investigation papers. On 27.8.2020 he has collected the FSL report. On 8.9.2020 he has submitted charge sheet to CCH-33 15 Spl.C.C.749/2020 the court. In the cross examination it is brought out that he has not enquired about the ownership of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle has not been examined by the investigating agency. Further the person who has sold ganja to the accused persons was also not enquired, He has also not investigated as to how the accused persons were selling ganja to the public. It is suggested that accused was called by one Vivek of Adugodi Police Station and thereafter they were arrested in the case, the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that he has not looked into the investigation papers and without ascertaining the case he has filed the false charge sheet, the said suggestion is denied.
17. The prosecution vehemently argues that ganja seized from the public place from the conscious possession of accused to the tune of 1 Kg., 150 grams, accused failed to give explanation satisfactorily as to how he came into possession of the contraband. The prosecution witnesses particularly PW.1, PW.3 & PW.4 have spoken in unequivocal terms about the seizure of contraband from the accused. 16 PW.7 has filed the Charge sheet and PW.1 is the search and seizure officer, IO on complying the statutory provisions of NDPS Act has seized the articles. The charges against the accused stands proved.
18. 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.P3, 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. Seizure of MO.1 is doubtful. There are serious lacuna in the case of prosecution which creates doubt about the case projected.
CCH-33 17 Spl.C.C.749/2020 Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
19. 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 court has to appreciate whether the provision of 42 and 50 of the Act have been strictly complied by the complainant 18 police. PW.1 has received the information through an informant about the sale of contraband ganja in a public place. After confirming about the information he has been to the place of incident. According to PW.1 he has noted the information in SHD. On reading the contents of SHD, it is not very clear. It is stated that he has received information about sale of contraband and he has informed the matter to ACP. In the said entries there is no reference about the place of sale of ganja and there is no description about the number of persons who are selling ganja. At 1.15 pm., a detail note has been made in the Station house diary narrating the search and seizure procedures, apprehension of accused and seizure of ganja. It is astonishing to note that in the letter dated 6.9.2019, Ex.P1 which was submitted to ACP of Madiwala sub division, the PI has stated that some two persons are selling ganja near Ambedkarnagar church street in the lane leading to govt., hospital on 80 feet road. But in the initial information Ex.P3 Station house diary there is no reference as to the place of incident and the number of persons and about the sale of CCH-33 19 Spl.C.C.749/2020 ganja. Further more, in Ex.P1 letter the time of submission of letter to ACP is not mentioned. Panch notice contains details of place of incident. Ex.P4 is the letter submitted to gazetted officer who is the medical officer of PHC. In the said letter a detail reference made about the accused persons and the accused persons carrying ganja with them. Even in Ex.P4 the time of submission of the letter to the medical officer is not referred to Ex.P5 is the body search memo issued by the medical officer after his arrival to the spot.
20. The empowered officer is PW.1 he ought to have informed the accused about their right to have personal search before a gazetted officer. In the mahazar recitals there is no reference about apprising the accused about their right to have their personal search through a gazetted officer. The sample seal which was taken in the spot was not handed over to panchas. PW.3 the gazetted officer has stated that prior to his arrival to the spot PW.1 has conducted the personal search of the accused persons. The SHD extract Ex.P3 is not the first information. The entire 20 search and seizure procedure has been noted in the diary. In the body search memo there are two questions framed by the PW.2 who has conducted the personal search of accused which is about enquiring the accused as to his possession of narcotics and asking him whether personal search to be conducted by a gazetted officer or magistrate, which is answered by him.
21. It is the contention of defence that the report which is going to be submitted to the higher officer should be verbatim the information he has received. As per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(2) Crimes 727 (MP) State of MP Vs., Vijay Kumar that is for a proposition that there should be substantial compliance with the requirement of Sec.50 NDPS Act. It is a mandatory requirement U/s.50 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, CCH-33 21 Spl.C.C.749/2020 PW.1 has informed the accused about his right to have personal search through a gazetted officer. The gazetted officer has stated that prior to his arrival PW.1 has conducted the personal search of the accused. Further the Ex.P3 information i.e., the SHD extract is not the first information whereas it is the raid completion report. 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 appraise 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 made known or not there is no document. 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 22 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. PW.2 is not the Gazetted Officer. In spite of it he has conducted personal search of the accused.
20. Yet 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 28.10.2019 i.e., after 52 days of seizure which is bad in law. PW.4 has stated that on 28.10.2019 he has sent the contraband for FSL. Whereas in the FSL report it is stated that contraband is received in the office for analysis only on 5.11.2019. The contraband was subjected to examination from 1.4.2020 to 7.4.2020. FSL report is CCH-33 23 Spl.C.C.749/2020 received in the office on 27.8.2020. There is inordinate delay in receipt of FSL report. 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.
21. At another aspect to be noted is the seal which is going to be affixed on the article should not be used repeatedly. The seal is not handed over to panchas after the seizure of contraband.
22, Let me now refer to Sec.2(ii) cannabis (hemp) means:
(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. 24
23. The witnesses to seizure panchanama have not supported the case of prosecution. The respectable localities were not called to be present at the time of seizure. In 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 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 CCH-33 25 Spl.C.C.749/2020 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 though were examined have not supported the case of prosecution. Respectable localities were not examined. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid dictum that two local independent 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. The SHD extract produced by the PW.1 does not contain the first information. 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. There is no compliance of Sec.50 of NDPS Act. Based on the above detailed discussions, I proceed to hold that prosecution has failed to 26 prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed an offence U/s.20(B)(ii)(b) of NDPS Act. Therefore, they are entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the negative.
23. Point No.2: In the result, following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 - Bhuvanesh and accused No.2 - Shivakumar are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.
M.O.1 contraband is ordered to be returned to complainant PI., Adugodi PS., for producing before the Drug Disposal committee for disposal. M.O.2 cash shall be confiscated to 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 11th day of January 2023) (B.S.JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sri Dilip Kumar K H
P.W.2 : Dr. Vani N
CCH-33
27 Spl.C.C.749/2020
P.W.3 : Dr. Ravishankar
P.W.4 : Sri H S Krishna
P.W.5 : Sri Vijay G
P.W.6 : Sri Mohan
P.W.7 : Sri Basavaraj Jande
(b) Defence : -
NIL
2. List of documents exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Permission letter
Ex.P.2 : Request letter
Ex.P.3 : Station house diary
Ex.P.4 : Request letter
Ex.P.5 : Body search memo
Ex.P.6 : Body search memo
Ex.P.7 : Panchnama
Ex.P.8 : Sample seal
Ex.P.9 : Complaint
Ex.P.10 : Success report
Ex.P.11 : Photo
Ex.P.12 : FSL report
Ex.P.13 : Sample seal
Ex.P.14 : FIR
b) Defence:
NIL
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : Sample
M.O.2 : cash
(B.S.JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.