Bangalore District Court
State By Ncb vs A1: N Babu Kumar on 31 January, 2018
THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE. CCH.33.
PRESENT:
Sri. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com., LL.B. (Spl.)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2018
SPL.C.C. NO.436/2015
COMPLAINANT : State by NCB, Bangalore.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : A1: N Babu Kumar, s/o.Nagaraj,
R/at.Village Primuthuly, Taluka-
Hosur district, Krishnagiri, Tamil
Nadu.
A2: Abhishek Kumar, s/o.Murlidharan
P, R/at.No.8, Anita Arcade Flat
No.301, Nandanam Colony, 4th
Cross, Hormavu, Bangalore - 43.
A3: Swami Gowda @ Anil, s/o.Manje
Gowda, Village Shetrehalli, Taluk-
Channarayapatana, District-
Hassan, Karnataka.
(A1 by Sri KSV, A2-SNSK, A3-MS, Adv.)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 26.3.2015
2
2. Date of report of offence: 26.3.2015
3. Arrest of the accused : 28.3.2015
4. Date of release of accused on A1: 2.12.2015
bail: A2: 20.11.2015
A3: 12.01.2016
5. Period undergone in custody: A1: 8 months 28 days
A2: 7 months 22 days
A3: 9 months 14 days
6. Date of commencing of 16.11.2016
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 6.12.2017
8. Name of the complainant: Sri Sabir Ali, PI
9. Offence complained of : U/s.8(C) R/w.Sec.22,
27, 27A, 28 & 29 of
NDPS Act
10. Opinion of the Judge : Offence not proved
11. Order of sentence : As per final order
---
JUDGMENT
The Intelligence Office, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore has lodged the above complaint before Court against the accused persons U/s.8(C) R/w.Sec.22, 27, 27A, 28 & 29 of NDPS Act.
CCH-33 3 SPl.C.C.436/15
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
On 26/03/2015 at 6.45 p.m. there was information of possessing and selling substances by accused persons. So complainant has secured panchanama witnesses along with staff members and visited the suspected place at house No.31, 4th Cross, Hosapalya Main Road, Bangalore-68. At that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 found in the house. On option given by the complainant, accused Nos.1 to 3 opted for their search by complainant himself. When search of accused No.1 is conducted, LSD substance found with him.
Thereafter on search of accused Nos.2 and 3 conducted, but nothing found. Further, when the entire house is searched, huge quantity of LSD, MDMA and Methadone are found. So complainant in presence of panchanama witnesses recovered the contraband properties after taking samples as S1 to S7 and bulk as P1 to P3, thereafter he packed the sealed properties and taken into custody under the recovery panchanama. So he arrested accused Nos.1 to 3 and produced before Court. Thereafter accused Nos.1 to 3 are 4 remanded to judicial custody. Later on accused are enlarged on bail.
3. After taking cognizance registered the case. Copies of the prosecution papers were supplied to accused Nos.1 to 3 U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. After hearing, charge framed U/Sec.2(C) of N.D.P.S. Act, read over and explained to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the case, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.46 and M.Os.1 to 10. Prayer of PP for reissue NBW to C.W.5 and 6 is refused as sufficient time is given. After closure, accused are examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., they denied the incriminating circumstances appeared against them and not chosen to adduce evidence for their defence.
5. Heard the arguments on both sides.
CCH-33 5 SPl.C.C.436/15
6. The points for consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.3.2015 at about 6.45 pm., at 4th floor, house No.31, 4th Cross, Hosapalya Main road, accused Nos.1 to 3 were in illegal possession of 10 ml LSD, 559 grams MDMA which are narcotic drugs, without license or permit, there by accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offence u/S.22(C) of NDPS Act?
2. What order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the negative.
Point No.2: See the final order for the following:
REASONS
8 POINT NO.1 :- The learned P.P. vehemently argued that as per evidence of PWs.1 to 7 and Exs.P.1 to P.46 and M.Os.1 to 10, the prosecution proved the guilt. Learned counsel for accused argued that no mandatory provision complied and so many contradictions and discrepancies found in the prosecution witnesses.
6
9. On careful perusal of the materials placed on record, the prosecution mainly relied on the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to P.W.3.
P.W.1 has stated that on 26.3.2015 at 5.00pm., he received information that at Hosapalya main road 4th cross in a house accused are selling LSD and MDMA. He submitted Ex.P1 to C.W.2 superior officer and obtained permission to conduct raid. C.W.2 gave NCB seal Bangalore-3 and search warrant Ex.P2. He secured CWs.5 and 6 panchas and staff members and informed the information received by him. They went to the said house, accused No.1 opened the door. Accused Nos.2 and 3 were inside the house. He informed the information and shown the search warrant. He explained the legal right of the accused to be searched by Gazetted officer or Magistrate. They agreed to be searched by any member of the team and issued notice Ex.P5 to P7 to the accused persons. On personal search of accused No.1 they seized liquid LSD, it weighed 10 ml., out of which 5 ml was taken for chemical examination and packed separately and put seal.
CCH-33 7 SPl.C.C.436/15 On personal search of accused Nos.2 and 3 no contraband found. In the Almairh they seized MDMA weighing 3 grams, it is marked as S3. In another packet seized 117 grams of MDMA and Mephedrone, out of which 5 grams each was taken for sample and marked as S4 and S5. In another packet they found 439 grams of LSD cubes. They seized the same and drew mahazar Ex.P6 and issued notice Es.P8 to P10 to the accused to appear before court on the next day. Accused accompanied them to their office on the next day. He returned the NCB seal and produced property to C.W.2. Then he recorded the statement of accused No.3 Ex.P11. He arrested the accused No.3 as per arrest memo ExP12. Produced the accused to the court along with remand Ex.P13. He submitted arrest and seizure report Ex.P14 and P15 to C.W.2 and issued notice Ex.P15 to C.W.8 owner of the house of the accused. In the cross examination of P.W.1 has stated that he has not registered the information in separate register except Ex.P1 submitted to P.W.4 superintendent. P.W.4 permitted him to conduct raid and again handed over 8 Ex.P1 to him. He took Ex.P1 to spot. Immediately after permission accorded he has not opened the file No. Further stated that he has not entered in the log book in respect of the departmental vehicle used for raid. Further P.W.1 stated that he has not secured neighbouring persons to the spot. At the time of search at about 7.00 pm., as it was dark no separate record of reasons prepared. Further P.W.1 stated that in Ex.P3 to 5 notice issued to accused persons existing legal right for their personal search is not mentioned. There was no Gazetted Officer in the team at the time of personal search. they have not prepared separate inventory at spot. In test memo and summons Ex.P7 to P10 file No., is mentioned. According to P.W.1 test memo and summons issued to accused at spot. In fact no file No., was given at that time. He has stated that at the time of conducting mahazar, file No., was given. PW2 stated that on 27.3.2015 he recorded the voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2 Ex.P17 and P18 and arrested them and as per arrest memo Ex.P19 and P20. Again he took further investigation and CCH-33 9 SPl.C.C.436/15 written letter to Deputy Commissioner, Krishnagiri Ex.P21 to furnish the particulars of property and also to Deputy Commissioner Hassan to furnish property details of accused No.3. he obtained federal bank debit card report Ex.p25 of accused No.2. he recorded the statement of C.W.5 and also submitted S1, S2 sample articles to CSFL, Hyderabad. In his cross examination denied that he has not recorded the statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 and forcibly taken their signature and created falsely.
10. P.W.3 land lord of accused No.1 bearing house No.31 stated regarding producing the lease deed Ex.P35 to NCB office. In his cross examination stated that on 28.3.2015 no summons was issued to him. Neighbouring persons of accused No.1 did not complain against accused No.1 regarding dealing in drugs business. He admits that in Ex.P35 lease deed no signature of accused and witnesses. 10
11. P.W.4 stated that on 26.3.2015 at 5.00 pm., P.W.1 submitted Ex.P1 information received by him. He permitted to conduct raid and handed over NCB seal and also issued Ex.P2 search warrant. Again at 11.50 pm., P.W.1 produced the articles and sample seal. He issued contraband godown receipt Ex.P37. On 28.3.2015 he received arrest report Ex.P14 and seizure report Ex.P15. He received opinion of customs house, Chennai regarding amphetamine found in sample articles. Again he sent the sample articles to CSFL, Hyderabad wherein he received report regarding sample articles responded Mephedrone. In his cross examination denied that Ex.P1 not submitted immediately and no property produced. He admits that accused were not produced along with property. Immediately after search and seizure, P.W.1 has not produced the accused and other documents except property to superior officer. P.W.4 has not received information, however he as voluntarily issued search warrant to conduct the ride of house, without request of the Pw1. U/s 41 if Gazetted officer received the information, then CCH-33 11 SPl.C.C.436/15 only he may authorised to subordinate officer and may issue search warrant. So search warrant issued by PW4 is not in accordance with mandatory provisions. He has not complied the mandatory provisions U/s.52A of NDPS Act. Even PW1 has not prepared reasons of record before search the house as who himself received the information.
12. P.W.5 stated that he received sample articles from NCB, Bangalore and conducted various tests and issued opinion Ex.P40. he opined that sample articles responded positive for the presence of Amphetamine. In his cross examination he has not specifically denied that Amphetamine is a medicine. He shows his ignorance as he do not know. So the evidence of P.W.5 expert is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.
13. P.W.6 FSL officer, CSFL, Hyderabad has stated that he conducted various tests on the sample articles and issued report Ex.P44. He has opined that in S2 sample articles no 12 LSD found, but glycerin is only identified in S3 also MDMA is not found, but Mephedrone. In S5 sample no MDMA and Mephedrone found. However, Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) found. In his cross examination admitted that in S2 and S5 glycerin found is not punishable under NDPS Act. But denied that Mephedrone found in S3 is not punishable under NDPS Act. At initial stage, examination of sample articles by P.W.5 no drugs founds. In the 2nd opinion also in S2 and S5 no drugs found which are punishable under NDPS Act. Except in S3 Mephedrone, other drugs does not come under NDPS Act. When there is conflict opinion of experts, the testimony of P.W.6 is no reliable as he conducted test on the sample articles for the second time that too after lapse of several months.
14. P.W.7 stated that he recorded the statement of P.W.3 as per Ex.P34 and obtained lease agreement Ex.P35 and lodged complaint Ex.P46. P.W.7 lodged complaint only after recording the statement of P.W.3 and obtaining lease CCH-33 13 SPl.C.C.436/15 agreement. None of the independent seizure witnesses examined by the prosecution. In the absence of independent witnesses, a testimony of official witnesses is not reliable and credit worthy. So many considerable contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
15. Ex.P1 submitted by P.W.1 seeking permission to conduct raid on the information received by him. P.W.1 has not submitted the information reduced in writing along with Ex.P1. So he has not complied the mandatory provision U/s.42 of NDPS Act. Ex.P2 search warrant, Ex.p3 t P5 notices issued U/s.50 of NDPS Act to accused wherein legal right of the accused for their personal search to be conducted before Gazetted officer or Magistrate is explained. But 3rd option given that if you so desire, you can also take the search of the raiding party prior to your search. None of the Gazetted officers were present at the time of personal search. Hence, P.W.1 explained the legal right regarding personal search to be conducted before Gazetted officer or Magistrate. 14 Accused stated their choice. But P.W.1 informed regarding desire of accused to be conducted by any raiding member. So notice issued to accused under Sec.50 is not in accordance with mandatory provisions. So personal search conducted by the non Gazetted Officer is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
16. Ex.P6 panchanama is also not proved as none of the panch witnesses are examined. Ex.P7 test memo is a carbon copy. Ex.P8 to 1p summons issued to accused. Immediately after search and seizure P.W.1 has not apprehended the accused and brought to the NCB office. He issued summons. But orally suggested that accused came to the office. Ex.P11 is the voluntary statement of accused No.3. Ex.P12 arrest memo, Ex.P13 remand, Ex.P14 arrest report, ex.P15 seizure report, Ex.P16 notice, Ex.P17 and 18 voluntary statement of accused Nos.1 and 2, Ex.P19 and 20 arrest memo of accused Nos.1 and 2 are prepared subsequent to search and seizure. Voluntary statement of CCH-33 15 SPl.C.C.436/15 accused persons has no presumptive value and it is not admissible in evidence as it is recorded after search, seizure and arrest. No further contraband seized on the basis of their statements. Ex.P21 and 22 letters written to Dy. Commissioners to furnish the details of properties of accused persons. Ex.P23 letter written to Addl. Director of Income Tax, Ex.P24 letter written to Chief Manager, Federal Bank, Ex.P25 details issued by the bank to NCB. Other documents are pertaining to procedural aspects for collecting the information for investigation. They are not helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.
17. For the above, prosecution has not complained the mandatory provisions U/s.41, 42, 50, 52 and 57 of NDPS Act. In the absence of expert opinion, as stated above, the oral testimony of official witnesses cannot be reliable. 16
18. In view of the decisions reported in 2009 Crl.L.J. 4299 in Karnal Singh Vs., State of Haryana, (2007) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 744 in Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs., State of MP, (1999) 7 SCC 280 in State of HP Vs., Jailal and others and in AIR 2013 Supreme Court 357 in the case of Krishan Chand Vs., State of Haryana wherein it is held that:-
(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), Ss 42, 50, 57 - Search - Pre search requirement of recording information received and sending it to superior officer-Demands exact and definite compliance as opposed to substantial compliance - So is requirement of S.50 - Compliance with provisions of S.57 does not dispense compliance with requirements of Ss.42 and 50.
2014 Crl.L.J. 1756 in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs., Parmanan and another wherein it is held that:-
(c) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S 50 - Search and seizure - Option to be searched before Gazetted officer or Magistrate -third option given to accused persons viz., to be searched before Superintendent who was part of raiding party-
CCH-33 17 SPl.C.C.436/15 Would frustrate provisions of S.50 (1) Search conducted therefore, is vitiated."
2002 Crl.L.J. 4502 in the case of Koyappakalathil Ahamed Koya Vs., A.S.Menon and another, wherein it is held that:-
(c) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S 50 - Search an seizure-procedure-
Right given to accused to get searched in presence of Gazetted officer or Magistrate -fact that members of raiding party informed accused that Gazetted Officer is present in raiding party-It is allurement given to accused prompting him for expressing no objection for being searched in presence of said Gazetted officer - An not for asking to be searched in presence pf any other Gazetted officer or Magistrate -Sai procedure is against safeguard provided by S.50 to accused.
AIR 2013 Supreme court 953 in the case of Sukhdev Singh Vs., State of Haryana wherein it is held that:-
(B) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S 42 - Search an seizure - On receipt of secret information-Requirement to reduce information in writing and sent it forthwith to superior officer- Is mandatory-Needs strict 18 compliance-Some delay in compliance is permissible only for special reasons but compliance should be prior to recovery.
(c) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S 42, 15 - Search conducted hours after receipt of information-no effort was made by I.O to reduce information in writing and inform his higher authorities instantaneously or even after or reasonable delay-No evidence produced to show as to what prevented I.O from recording information and sending it to superior total non compliance with provisions of S.42 - Such defect is incurable -
Accused liable to be acquitted.
2009 Crl.L.J. 2407 in the case of UOI Vs., Bal Mukund and others wherein it is held that:-
(B) Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), Ss.8, 18, 67 - Recovery of narcotics-
confessional statements by accused-Admissibility purported raid conducted early in morning-Large number of police officers including high ranking officers were present-accused were found to be in possession of 10 Kgs., of narcotics-Documents categorically show that accused were interrogated- Therefore, confessional statements cannot be said, in the back drop of aforementioned events, to be made CCH-33 19 SPl.C.C.436/15 by them although they had not been put under arrest-court while weighing evidentiary value of such statements cannot lose sight of ground realities- circumstances attendant to making of such statements should be taken into consideration. On careful reading of the above said decisions, the fact, circumstances and ratio is similar with case on hand.
2014(4) Crimes 304 (P&H) - Ram Lubhaya vs. State of Punjab, 2011 (3) Crimes 210 (SC) - Rajendra Singh vs. State of Haryana, 2013 (1) Crimes 51 (SC) - Suresh and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2011 (4) Crimes 26 (SC) - State of Delhi vs. Ram Avtar @ Rama, 2011(1) Crimes 508 (Karnataka) - K.K. Rejji and others vs. State by Murdeshwar Police Station, Karwar.
2014(2) Crimes 234 (Kar) in Ravi and others Vs., State by Manna-E-Khelli Police, Bidar district wherein it is held that:-
"Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20(b)(ii)(c) and 42 - Recovery of 5 bags of ganja weighing 45 kilograms from possession of appellants - Conviction by Trial Court - Appeal 20 against conviction - Failure to comply with procedure under section 42 of Act - absence to record in writing the information received in first instance - No emergent situation which warranted postponement of said Act of recording the information received in writing-Nor any such record in writing at a later point of time - Held entire proceedings Vitiated by virtue of failure to record circumstances in writing - Quantity of ganja indicated as having been in possession of appellants was also inaccurate as the weighment was of stalks, leaves seeds and possibly the flowering and fruiting tops - inaccurate weighment would have a telling effect on the degree of punishment that could be imposed-this was because NDPS Act provides for a schedule which prescribes the degree of punishment dependent on the weight of substance involved -m hence, held that there was a failure in the charges being framed accurately against accused - impugned judgment of court below set aside - Appeal allowed."
2014 (1) Crime 324 (SC) State of Rajasthan Vs., Parmanand and another wherein it is held thus:
(a) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Provision is mandatory - but it applies to search of the person of the accused only -
CCH-33 21 SPl.C.C.436/15 does not apply to search of a bag carried by him - However, if the bag carried by him is searched and his person is also searched, Section 50 applies.
"(b) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 50 - Two accused persons - not informed of their rights individually - Joint notice communicated - one of the accused signing for both -
conviction vitiated."
The learned counsel for accused relying decisions reported in AIR 1994 SC 1872, AIR 2009 SC 2441, 1999 SC 2378, AIR 1995 SC 244, AIR 2002 SC 1810, 2009 (12) SCC 161, 2007 AIR SCW 497, 2006 (13) SCC 210, AIR 1956 SC 217 On careful reading of above decisions, facts, circumstances and ratio is applicable to case on hand, as prosecution has not followed mandatory provisions.
The learned SPP relying the decisions reported in AIR 2011 SCW 3106 22 (B)Evidence Act (1 if 1872), S.24-Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1872), S.24 - Narcotic drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S.67 - Confession - Whether voluntary - Confession recorded by officers of Narcotics Bureau - Accused produced before Court on several dates not complaining of any torture or harassment in recording confession - confession is voluntary - Retraction of confession for first time in statement u/s.313, criminal P.C. - Irrelevant - Conviction for offence u/ss.8, 18 of NDPS Act can be maintained solely on basis of such confession (para 13) Confession of accused u/s.67 of the NDPS Act is relevant if other reliable evidence and mandatory provisions followed. The facts and circumstances of the above decision is not similar with case on hand as mandatory provisions are not duly complied.
Further relying a decision 2011 CRI.L.J.680 between Vijay Singh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat CCH-33 23 SPl.C.C.436/15 (D) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (61 of 1985), S.50 - Search and seizure - Option given to empowered officer to take suspect either before nearest Gazetted officer or magistrate endeavor should be to produce suspect before the nearest Magistrate, who enjoys more confidence of common man compared to any other officer.
Facts and circumstances of the above decisions is not similar with case on hand as personal search of accused is not conducted before Gazetted officer
19. For the above, in the absence of corroborated evidence the testimony of prosecution witnesses cannot be reliable to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3. So many considerable contradictions and discrepancies found in the prosecution witnesses. There is no link of chain found in the circumstantial evidence. Serious doubt arises in the mind of the Court to believe that accused have committed the offence. So accused are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt beyond 24 reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the 'Negative'.
20. Point No.2: In the result, following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 22(C) of N.D.P.S. Act.
Bail bond of the accused shall stands cancelled.
M.Os.1 to 9 sample and bulk are ordered to be returned to the I.O/complainant with a direction to produce before Drug Disposal Committee for disposal in accordance with law.
M.O.10-Hokkah is ordered to be
destroyed.
Accused are released U/Sec.437(A) of Cr.P.C., on execution of bond for Rs.50,000/-
CCH-33 25 SPl.C.C.436/15 each with a surety for likesum, for the purpose of his appearance before Appellate Court, in the event of filing of any appeal by the State.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerised by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 31st day of January 2018) (D.Y. BASAPUR) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sabir Ali
P.W.2 : Anil Kumar
P.W.3 : Thimmareddy
P.W.4 : Pankaj Kumar
P.W.5 : Talige Arasi
P.W.6 : Satish Rajaram
P.W.7 : Vivekumar Pandy
(b) Defence :
NIL
26
2. List of documents exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Information
Ex.P.2 : Search warrant
Ex.P.3 : Notice
Ex.P.4 : Notice
Ex.P.5 : Notice
Ex.P.6 : Panchanama
Ex.P.7 : Test memo
Ex.P.8 : U/s.67 of NDPS Act of A1
Ex.P.9 : U/s.67 of NDPS Act of A2
Ex.P.10 : U/s.67 of NDPS Act of A3
Ex.P.11 : Voluntary statement
Ex.P.12 : Arrest memo
Ex.P.13 : Remand application
Ex.P.14 : Arrest report
Ex.P.15 : Seizure report
Ex.P.16 : Notice
Ex.P.17 : Voluntary statement
Ex.P.18 : Voluntary statement
Ex.P.19 : Arrest memo
Ex.P.20 : Arrest memo
Ex.P.21 : Letter
Ex.P.22 : Letter
Ex.P.23 : Letter
Ex.P.24 : letter
Ex.P.25 : Reply letter
Ex.P.26 : Statement
Ex.P.27 : Statement
Ex.P.28 : Covering letter to FSL
Ex.P.29 : FSL report
Ex.P.30 : Letter
Ex.P.31 : Letter
Ex.P.32 : Letter
Ex.P.33 : U/s.67 of NDPS Act
Ex.P.34 : Voluntary statement
CCH-33
27 SPl.C.C.436/15
Ex.P.35 : Rent agreement
Ex.P.36 : Extract of lodge book
Ex.P.37 : Extract of lodge book
Ex.P.38 : Letter
Ex.P.39 : Test memo
Ex.P.40 : Test report
Ex.P.41 : Letter
Ex.P.42 : Letter
Ex.p43 : Forwarding note
Ex.P44 : FSL report
Ex.P45 : Letter
Ex.P46 : complaint
(b) Defence:
NIL
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : FSL
M.O.2 : FSL
M.O.3 : FSL
M.O.4 : 5 grams MDMA
M.O.5 : FSL
M.O.6 : 5 grams LSD
M.O.7 : 5 grams LSD
M.O.8 : 107 grams of MDMA
M.O.9 : 429 grams LSD
M.O.10 : Hookah
(D.Y. BASAPUR)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.
CN/*