Bangalore District Court
State By Indira Nagar P.S vs Chukkawadi Christian S/O Ajunuva Aged on 8 March, 2022
KABC010305632018
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 08th DAY OF MARCH 2022
SPL.C.C. NO.774/2018
COMPLAINANT : State by Indira Nagar P.S
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
accused : Chukkawadi Christian S/o Ajunuva aged
about 40 years, R/at 32 Vinayaka Layout,
1st Cross, Maddehalli, K.R. Pura
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Sri K.S.V., Adv.)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 29/12/2017
2. Date of report of offence: 29/12/2017
2
3. Arrest of the accused : 29/12/2017
4. Date of release of accused on 06/01/2018
bail:
5. Period undergone in custody: 08 days
6. Date of commencing of 20/01/2020
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 29/10/2020
8. Name of the complainant: Sri.Manjunatha Shetty
9. Offence complained of : U/s.21(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, Indira Nagar Police Station, Bangalore against the accused on the allegation that he has 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: PW.1 Sri. K. Manjunatha Shetty, Police Inspector, CCB W, and N, when he was discharging duties in his office he has CCH33 3 Spl.C.C.774/2018 received an information at 9.30 a.m that near ward No.80, BBMP Office a South African person is selling narcotics to the public. He has secured staff members and panchas, informed the ACP took written permission and went to the spot at 11.45 am., and found an African citizen. On enquiring him he has revealed his name and identity. When he was enquired by PI he has revealed that he is possessing cocaine. Further he his selling the cocaine to the public illegally to lead his life. He was surrounded him and apprehended. On search they seized 5 grams of Cocaine. His mobile phone, American Currency were seized under the panchanama drawn in the presence of panchas. The accused was arrested along with a report produced before the Station House Officer. The said report is the basis to register the case against the accused in Cr.No.385/2017 for the offence punishable U/s.21(b) of NDPS Act.
3. The accused herein was arrested and produced before the court. He was released on bail. The investigating agency on conclusion of investigation filed charge sheet against the 4 accused. This court on perusing the contents of police final report and the annexed documents taken cognizance of the offences punishable U/s.21(B) of NDPS Act, 1985. The copy of the charge sheet filed by PI., Indira Nagar 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.21(B) of NDPS Act, 1985, by my Predecessor in office on 1.3.2019. The contents of accusation read over and explained to him. 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 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P.16 and properties were marked as M.Os.1 to 8. After closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined 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 CCH33 5 Spl.C.C.774/2018 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 29.12.2017 at about 12.15 am., at 4th Main, 6th Cross, 1st Stage, Near BBMP ward office, within the limits of Bengaluru the accused herein is found in possession of 5 grams of Cocaine and he is selling it to the public without having any licence or permission to sell the same and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.21(B) 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: As per the final order for the following:6
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 : 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 had physical possession of the contraband drug. Presumption under this section - if an accused is found to be in possession CCH33 7 Spl.C.C.774/2018 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 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 possession of Cocaine by the accused herein.
10. PW.1 is the complainant and raiding officer who has conducted raid and seized the incriminatory article. According to the say of PW.1 on 29.12.2017 at 11.00 am., when he was in the police station he has received credible information that a that a South African citizen is selling contraband illegally near ward No.80 BBMP office. He has reduced the same into writing in the station house dairy and obtained written 8 permission from ACP to conduct raid. He has immediately called the panchas to the police station served notice upon them. He along with panchas and staff left the police station at 11.15 am., in the departmental jeep. He along with the team has reached the spot at 11.45 am. When they have been to the spot he has seen said person. He along with the staff and panchas surrounded the said person and on enquiry he has revealed his name Chikkuwadi Christian and his address. On further enquiry the said person has informed that he is selling contraband for his livelihood and is possessing cocaine. As the personal search of the accused is to be conducted he was apprised of his right to have his personal search through a gazetted officer or Magistrate. Immediately he has called Asst. commissioner of Police to arrive at the spot to be present at the time of personal search. ACP had been to the spot at about 1.20 noon. ACP has issued body search memo to accused. On enquiry the accused has admitted that he is in possession of contraband. ACP apprised the accused of his right to have personal search through a gazetted officer or Magistrate. He CCH33 9 Spl.C.C.774/2018 has issued notice under Sec.50 NDPS Act to the accused. During personal search accused was found in possession of 1gram of cocaine. It was tested with DD kit and confirmed to be cocaine. The said article was seized and SR seal was affixed. A detail panchanama was drawn, accused was arrested. The mobile phones of accused passport, Indian currency note Rs.2000/, 12 American Dollar notes were seized. The accused got station along with the seized articles, he has prepared a report and submitted before SHO of police station which is the basis to registered the case against the accused. Thereafter, he has submitted a raid success report to the DCP. He has identified the accused before the court and the seized article before the court.
11. Learned counsel for accused has contended that accused is falsely implanted in the case. He is no way connected to the crime. IO has not followed the mandatory requirement as provided under the law. With the specific defence PW1 is cross examined by the defence. In the cross 10 examination it is brought ought that there is a movement register and information register maintained as prescribed under the rules. It is brought ought that Ex.P.1 information is on white paper and it is not noted in the prescribed register and page number of the register is also not noted in the Ex.P1. It is further brought ought that he has not produced the copy of movement register to ascertain his presence in the office. It is further brought out that he has not sent the information he has received to the higher officer. Cw.3 and 4 are not local witnesses. There is no memorandum prepared after receipt of permission forming a team to conduct raid. It is further brought out that there is no reference in the mahazar about informing the accused about the raid. There is no seizure list prepared about the articles which were in the possession of accused. There is no entry in the mahazar about seizing the articles and affixing seal in the said articles. It is stated that no raid is conducted and the mahazar is prepared in the office and thereafter signature of witnesses to taken to it, the said suggestions are denied. It is suggested that he has not CCH33 11 Spl.C.C.774/2018 received any information regarding possession of cocaine by the accused, the complaint is created in the police station, the said suggestion is denied. It is suggested that accused was brought to the station on 27/12/2017 and was under illegal detention and thereafter he was taken to his home and nothing was seized, thereafter false case is projected against the accused only to harass him, the said suggestion is denied.
12. PW.2 is the then ACP, CCB (W & N) who has granted permission to conduct raid. He has testified that on 29.12.2017, CW.1 has sent a letter seeking permission to conduct raid as a Nigerian citizen is selling cocaine at Indiranagar, Bengaluru. He has granted permission. Thereafter, CW.1 has been to the spot, apprehended the accused, confirmed about the possession of narcotics, informed him about the apprehension and requested him to be present in the spot. He has been to the spot, apprised the accused of his right to conduct personal search, prepared questionnaires and has recorded the answers of accused, 12 taken the signature of accused and panchas to the said questionnaires. After taking consent of the accused he has conducted personal search of the accused. In the right pant pocket there is one small plastic cover containing 5 grams powder. After checking the powder with DD kit it is confirmed as cocaine. He has sealed the article by affixed SR seal. 2 mobile phones, Passport and VISA, Rs.2000/ cash, 12 American Dollars, two wheeler were seized. A detail panchanama was drawn. He has identified his signature in the panchanama. He has identified the accused before the court.
13. In the cross examination it is brought out that at about 9.30 am., he has received requisition from Cw.1. The copy of information received by CW.1 has not been sent to him. It is suggested that body search memo to be issued by the raiding officer, the said suggestion is denied. It is brought out that except himself no other gazetted officer was called at the time of raid. He has not prepared a special report for participating in the search and seizure and has not given any CCH33 13 Spl.C.C.774/2018 statement. He has not affixed his signature to the sample seal. Except MO.1 no other articles were seized and sealed. It is suggested that no article was seized from the spot, it was seixed in the police station, he was not present at the time of search and seizure proceedings, the said suggestion is denied.
14. PW.3 is the then PSI., of Indiranagar PS., testifies that on 29.12.2017 at 7.30 pm., when he was in the police station, CW.1 came to the police station along with accused and seized articles and filed a complaint. Basing on the complaint, case in Cr.No.385/2017 is registered against the accused. He has prepared FIR, seized articles were noted in the PF, voluntary statement of accused recorded, accused is produced before the court. He has forwarded the records to CW.10 for further investigation. He has identified the accused before the court.
15. In the cross examination it is suggested that he has not received any complaint, seized articles, nor has noted the properties in the PF, the said suggestion is denied. It is 14 brought out that he has not taken the signature of panchas to the property form. Accused is not served with notice prior to recording his voluntary statement.
16. PW.4 is the then PI., of Indiranagar PS., he has collected inventory report, as the investigation was concluded in the case, he has filed charge sheet. A suggestion made refuting the verification of records prior to filing charge sheet, he denies the suggestion.
17. PW.5 is the then Head Constable of Indiranagar PS., who role is collecting the sample cocaine and submitting the same for FSL examination. He has spoken to that effect. In the cross examination suggestion made refuting the submission of sample for FSL, the said suggestion is denied.
18. PW.6 is the then Scientific officer of FSL, Hyderabad. He has testified that on 14.2.2018 he has received sealed cover from Indiranagar PS., of Cr.No.285/2017 through HC 6031. At the time of receipt of the article the seal was intact. He has opened the seal and taken out the article which was sent for CCH33 15 Spl.C.C.774/2018 chemical analysis. After taking out the sample, he has conducted Scott reagent test, UV visible spectrophotometry and gas chromatography, mass spectrometry (GCMS) methods. After conducting the said scientific tests, he has arrived at a conclusion that the article which was submitted for chemical analysis is a contraband cocaine. He has issued report as per Ex.P15, her signature is at Ex.P15(a). After chemical examination, the contraband was sealed, packed and their office seal was affixed and it was sent to the investigating agency. He has identified the sample before the court which is at MO.1. He has also identified the SR seal affixed on the said sample. In the cross examination it is brought out that he has noted the type of test conducted by him, results were not noted. It is suggested that he has prepared a false report without conducting chemical analysis, the said suggestion is denied.
19. The prosecution vehemently argues that cocaine seized from the public place from the conscious possession of 16 accused to the tune of 5 grams, accused failed to give explanation satisfactorily as to how he came into possession of the contraband. The prosecution witnesses particularly PW.1 and 2 have spoken in unequivocal terms about the seizure of contraband from the accused. IO on complying the statutory provisions of NDPS Act has seized the articles. The charges against the accused stands proved.
20. 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 raiding officer has not reduced the information to writing and has not forwarded to the higher officer. There is non compliance of sec.42(2) of NDPS Act. Article seized on 29.12.2017 must reach FSL safely. Here in this case the properties were sent to FSL on 13.2.2018. there is inordinate delay in sending the article 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 CCH33 17 Spl.C.C.774/2018 projected. Therefore, the benefit of doubt has to be extended to the accused.
21. 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 18 the provision of 42 and 50 of the Act have been strictly complied by the complainant police. PW.1 has received the information through an informant about the sale of contraband cocaine in a public place. Immediately on receipt of information he has not noted the same in any register nor has submitted the same to higher officer. Ex.P2 is the requisition submitted to ACP, CCB, (W & N) seeking permission to conduct raid, which does not contain the copy of information received by the raiding officer, the said letter contains the signature of ACP. But the date and time is not mentioned. The information he has received has not been noted in any register. In the information given to the ACP it is stated that one African citizen is selling the cocaine near BBMP Ward No.80, 4th Main, 6th Cross, I Phase, Indiranagar, Bangalore. In the panch notice also the same information is extracted. The report which is going to be submitted to the higher officer should be verbatim the information he has received. As per the enunciation of law in the case of State of CCH33 19 Spl.C.C.774/2018 Punjab Vs., Balbeer Singh reported in 1994 (3) SCC 299 where the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that: "under Sec.42(2) the empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section 42(1) should forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case."
There is no material placed by the investigating agency that he has made a separate note about the information he has received. As per the Drug law enforcement field officers hand book if a complainant receives information from a person he should get it recorded in writing in the first person, preferably in the handwriting of the informer duly signed by him or by putting his left thumb impression. The officer would then seal the recorded information after endorsing "recording by me" and sign it mentioning his name, designation and the time and date of recording. The next step involves filling in other entries 20 including the gist of information in proper format and sending the same along with sealed envelop to his superior officer, if possible, immediately, or within 72 hours of such recording. The compliance of Sec.42(2) is mandatory. Here in the case on hand, PW.1 as per his testimony before this court he has not made a note in any of the register about the information he has received and has not sent the verbatim information to the higher officer. As per the Manual the information recorded has to be sealed and sent to the superior. Whether the report is submitted to superintendent in sealed cover or any separate information is submitted to him there is no record. Here in the present case, complainant raiding officer has not reduced the information in writing and has not forwarded the same to higher officer prior to conducting raid. As per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court when there is non compliance of Sec.42 and 50, the evidence collected is inadmissible. The entire seizure stands vitiated. Thus the fundamental requirement of compliance of reducing the information into writing has not been followed by PW.1.
CCH33 21 Spl.C.C.774/2018
22. Further, as per the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2012(2) Crimes 727 (MP) State of MP Vs., Vijay Kumar there should be substantial compliance with the requirement of Sec.50 NDPS Act. It is a mandatory requirement U/s.51 of NDPS Act that the empowered officer has to apprise the person intended to be searched of his right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. It is not a mere formality, but IO should have to follow strictly the right of the accused to be searched through a gazetted officer. Here in this case, on looking to the records, there is questionnaires prepared by the PW.2 informing his right of personal search through a gazetted officer. 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 22 such a right had been given to a suspect. If such information is incomplete and ambiguity, then it cannot be construed to satisfy the requirements of Sec,.50. Non compliance of provision of Sec.50 would cause prejudice to the accused and therefore, amount to the denial of a fair trial. To secure a conviction under S.21 of the Act, the possession of the illicit article is a sine qua non. Such contraband article should be recovered in accordance with the provisions of S.50 of the Act, otherwise, the recovery itself shall stand vitiated in law. Here in this case the investigating agency has failed to comply sec.50 of the NDPS Act.
23. At another essential aspect in the case is article seized must reach FSL safely within the stipulated period of 72 hours. Here in this case, article seized were sent to FSL only on 29.12.2017 i.e., after 1½ months of seizure which is bad in law. PW.5 has stated that on 13.2.2018 he has sent the contraband for FSL. The sample must reach FSL within the stipulated period of 72 hours. In this case, that has not been CCH33 23 Spl.C.C.774/2018 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.
24. Yet another aspect is to be noted is the seal which is going to be affixed on the article should not be used repeatedly. The seal has to be handed over to panchas to avoid tampering after the seizure. Here in this case seal is not handed over to panchas.
25. Yet another contention of defence is non examination of independent witnesses is fatal to the case of prosecution. At this stage it is necessary for me to refer 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. 24 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 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. In the judgment reported in 1995 (4) SCC page 255 in Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar Vs., State of Maharashtra it is 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 CCH33 25 Spl.C.C.774/2018 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 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 1 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.
26. Here in the instant case, the independent panch witnesses were not examined. As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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.
27. 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.42 of NDPS Act. Based on the above detailed discussions, I proceed to hold that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed an offence U/s.21(B) of NDPS Act. Therefore, he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Hence, I answer the point for consideration in the negative.
CCH33 2 Spl.C.C.774/2018
28. Point No.2: In the result, following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused - Chukwudi Christian is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 21(B) of N.D.P.S. Act.
M.O.1 contraband is ordered to be returned to complainant PI., Indiranagar PS., for producing before the Drug Disposal committee for disposal.
M.O.2 to 4 - 3 mobiles, MO.6 and 7 cash and American Dollar are ordered to be confiscated to State.
M.O.5 - Passport and M.O.8 - two wheeler key are ordered to be returned to the accused.
Accused is directed to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 08th day of March 2022) (B.S.JAYASHREE) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.3
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sri Manjunatha Shetty
P.W.2 : Sri B.S. Mohan Kumar
P.W.3 : Sri Arun Salunke
P.W.4 : Sri Ravi
P.W.5 : Sri K. Bhaktha Kumar
P.W.5 : Sri Sathish Rajaram Nailkar
(b) Defence :
NIL
2. List of documents exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : SHD
Ex.P.2 : Request letter
Ex.P.3 Permission letter
Ex.P.4 : Notice to Pancha
Ex.P.5 : Request letter
Ex.P.6 : Body search
Ex.P.7 : Mahazar
Ex.P.8 : Complaint
Ex.P.9 : Success report
Ex.P.10 : Specimen seal
Ex.P.11 : FIR
Ex.P.12 : 52 A certificate
Ex.P.13 : Photos
Ex.P.14 : Statement of Bhakthakumar
Ex.P.15 : FSL report
Ex.P.16 : Sample seal
CCH33
4 Spl.C.C.774/2018
(b) Defence:
NIL
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : Sample
M.O.2 to 4 : Mobile
M.O.5 : Passport
M.O.6 : Cash of Rs.2000/-
M.O.7 : American Dollar
M.O.8 : Bike key
(B.S.JAYASHREE)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.