Bangalore District Court
Excise P.S. Ramamurthy Nagar Range vs Christopher Allen L.V on 28 June, 2025
Spl.C. No.2353/2023
1
KABC010297932023
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, (NDPS),
BENGALURU.
Present: Sri. Syed Baleegur Rahaman, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XXXIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge &
Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
Dated this the 28th day of June 2025
Spl.C.No.2353/2023
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
By Ramamurthy Nagar Range,
Sub Dvn.10
BUD 05
Bengaluru.
(By the Ld Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused : 1.Christopher Allen.L.V,
S/o.Leo Vincent,
Aged about 33 years,
R/a.No.60, 2nd Cross,
Rajareshwari Temple Street,
Myniyappa Layout,
Kullappa Circle,
Kammanahalli,
Spl.C. No.2353/2023
2
Bengaluru North Taluk,
Bengaluru.
Also at:
R/a.No.10, Ground Floor,
4th Cross, Neharu Road,
Venkateshappa Layout,
RS Palya,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri.Narayan.M.Naik.,Advocate)
1.Date of the offence : 07-01-2022
2.Date of report of
the offence : 07-01-2022
3.Arrest of the accused : 07-01-2022
4.Date of release : 29-01-2022
Period of custody: Year/s Month/s Day/s
00 00 22
4.Name of the complainant: UmmeRubab,
Excise Inspector
5.Date of commencement of recording
the evidence: 28-01-2025
6.Date of closing the evidence: 10-03-2025
Spl.C. No.2353/2023
3
7.Offences complained of: U/s.20(b), 20(b)(ii)(A), 22, 8(c)
of NDPS Act.
8.Opinion of the Judge: Accused not found guilty.
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge &
Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Ramamurthy Nagar Range Excise Inspector have filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.20(b), 20(ii)(A), 22 & 8(c) of NDPS Act, 1985.
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 07.01.2022 at 5.00 p.m, the first informant received a credible information that some unknown persons is selling ganja and Methamphetamine at 1st "A" Main Road, near Srinidhi Upachar Hotel, Bengaluru. Therefore, the first informant and along with his staff and panchas reached to the spot and secured the accused. Thereafter, the first informant resisted CW-6 to come to the spot for the purpose of conducting search and the body of the accused. Accordingly, CW-6 came to the spot and upon search it was found that the accused was in possession of 7.45 gms of Methamphetamine (Crystall Spl.C. No.2353/2023 4 Meth) and ganja weighing 62 gms. The above said articles were seized in presence of the panchas and as per the report submitted by the first informant, this case has been registered against the accused for the commission of offences referred above.
3. This court being designated as a special court to try the offences under NDPS Act, cognizance of the offences taken and S.207 of Cr.P.C. has been complied with.
4. The accused is on bail and represented by his counsel.
5. On hearing the prosecution and defence, my learned predecessor in office has framed charge against the accused for offences punishable U/s.20(b), 20(ii)(A), 22 & 8(c) of NDPS Act, read over and explained to the accused, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined witnesses as P.W.1 to 5 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and M.O.1 and 2. After closing of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under S.313 of Cr.P.C., and he has denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The Spl.C. No.2353/2023 5 case of the accused is one of the total denial that he has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence. However, two documents are marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
7. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused.
8. Perused oral and documentary evidence on record.
9. Based on the materials, the following points are framed.
POINTS
1.Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 07.01.2022 at 5.00 p.m, the accused was found in possession of 7.45 gms of Methamphetamine and 62 gms of ganja near Srinidhi Upachar Hotel, 1st "A" Main Road, Bhuvanagiri, OMBR Layout, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.20(b), 20(ii)(A), 22 & 8(c) of NDPS Act?
2. What order ?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Spl.C. No.2353/2023
6
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1:- PW-1 Smt.Ummerubab the first
informant of this case has deposed that on 07.01.2022 at 3.30 p.m, when she was present in her office, she received a credible information stating that one person has come near Srinidhi Upachar Hotel, 1st Main Road, Bhuvanagiri, OMBR Layout, Banaswadi, Bengaluru for the purpose of selling Methamphetamine (Crystal Meth) and ganja. Therefore, she had entered the said information in the diary of the office. Thereafter, she informed this fact to CW-6 and requested him to lead the raiding party. Thereafter under leadership of CW- 6, herself and staff had secured two panchas near Ayappaswamy Temple and informed them about the information received by her. Thereafter, they reached the spot and found the accused. Seeing their arrival, the accused attempted to flee from the spot. The accused was secured. They gave information to him regarding his right of search by a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused had consented for a search by a Gazetted Officer. Thereafter, the accused also agreed to be searched by CW-6 who is also a Gazetted Officer. On search, the accused was found in Spl.C. No.2353/2023 7 possession of 7.45 gms of Methamphetamine and 62 gms of ganja. The same was sealed and seized in presence of the panchas under Ex.P-6. Thereafter, she came to the office along with the accused and seized articles and registered a case against the accused under Ex.P-7.
12. PW-2 Sri.Vivek.G has deposed that on 07.01.2022 at 3.45 p.m, CW-1 had submitted a requisition to her and requested to conduct search as per credible information received by her. Accordingly, himself, CW-1 and staff reached near Srinidhi Upachar Hotel, CW-1 secured the accused at the spot. On interrogation the accused admitted that he is in possession of the contraband. The accused was given information about his right of search by Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. The accused agreed for search by a Gazetted Officer. She told the accused that he himself is a Gazetted Officer. The accused agreed to undergo search as himself is a Gazetted Officer. On search it was found that the accused was in possession of 7.45 gms of Methamphetamine and 62 gms of ganja. The articles were sealed and seized in presence of the panchas.
13. PW-3 Sri.Hidayath Khaleel has deposed that on Spl.C. No.2353/2023 8 31.01.2022, he received the record of this case for further investigation from CW-1. On 02.02.2022 the seized articles were sent to FSL through CW-7. On the same day he recorded the statement of CW-2 to 5. On 29.09.2022 he recorded the statement of CW-7. As the investigation of the case was complete, he submitted final report before the court.
14. PW-4 Dr.Suma.S has deposed that on 03.02.2022, she received two sealed articles from Excise Department, Rammurthy Nagar Range with respect to Cr.No.39/21-22 for Chemical Analysis. The seal and article was intact and tallied with the specimen seal sent by the Investigating Officer. On opening the Article No.1 she found dull white crystalline substance packed with Zip locked plastic cover. Article No.2 was having dried stalks bearing brownish Green coloured small leaves, fruiting and flowering tops and seeds having characteristics smell. The samples were subjected to scientific analysis and thereafter he opined that the Article No.1 is responded positive for Methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is a stimulant drug. Article No.2 responded positive for cannabis which contains psychoactive constituents. Thereafter, she submitted her report as per Ex.P-13.
Spl.C. No.2353/2023 9
15. PW-5 Sri.Abhishek.M.R has deposed that on 07.01.2022, he has signed Ex.P-2 near Srinidhi Upachar Hotel in connection with selling of ganja and other contraband. On the said day at about 4 to 4-30 p.m, when himself and PW-2 were present near Ayyappaswamy Temple, the officials of Excise Department came and told that unknown persons are selling ganja and therefore called himself as PW-2 as witness. The officials had taken himself on CW-2 near Srinidhi Upachar Hotel. The accused was standing at the spot. Seeing the arrival of Excise officials, the accused attempted to flee from the spot. The accused was secured. Consent was taken for search. The accused was having a white colored powder in right pocket of his pant. Apart from it, the accused was having ganja packet. The said articles were seized by the officials of Excise Department.
16. The accused has been sent for trial for the commission of offences punishable U/s.20(b), 20(ii)(A), 22 & 8(c) of NDPS Act. This court has framed charge against the accused for the offences referred above. In case of this nature, first of all it is responsibility of the prosecution to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused was found in possession of the contraband as alleged by the prosecution. Needless to Spl.C. No.2353/2023 10 say that the NDPS Act provides for rigorous punishment for the violation of the provision. Therefore, the legislature has inserted several mandatory provisions in the said act in order to protect the innocent persons from malicious prosecution. Therefore, the compliance of the mandatory provision is the prime responsibility of the Investigating Officer. Any deviation or failure to comply the mandatory provision will make the story of the prosecution doubtful and thereby the accused will get the benefit of doubt of the same.
17. It is the specific case of prosecution that on 07.01.2022 at 3.30 p.m, CW-1 Smt.Ummerubab received a credible information that the accused herein was attempting to sell the contraband near Srinidhi Upachar Hotel situated at Banasawadi, Bengaluru. In view of the said information, she along with her Higher Officer i.e., CW-6 and the staff had been to the spot, secured the accused and recovered Methamphetamine and ganja from the possession of the accused.
18. In order to established the possession of contraband, the prosecution has examined independent panch witness to Ex.P-6 by name Sri.Abhishek.M.R as PW-5. During the Spl.C. No.2353/2023 11 course of his examination in chief, PW-5 has deposed that on 07.01.2022, the Excise Department officials had recovered Methamphetamine and ganja pocket from the possession of the accused near Srinidhi Upachar Hotel under Ex.P-6. The learned counsel for the accused cross-examined PW-5 at length. During the course of cross examination of PW-5 has admitted that the Excise Sub Inspector by name Ramakrishna had invited himself and CW-2 for panchanama. He has also admitted that on 07.01.2022 at 1-05 p.m, the above said Ramakrishna had issued notice to him. However, on perusal of Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2, it is seen that the said notice has not been issued by the Excise PSI by name Ramakrishna. The said notice has been issued by PW-1 Smt.Ummerubab. At this stage itself, it is pertinent to note that the accused has raised a specific defense that the Investigating Agency has lifted the accused from his house for the purpose of interrogating him in connection with Cr.No.15/21-22. In this regard, learned counsel for the accused has cross examined PW-1 at length. During the course of cross examination, PW-1 has admitted that as per Ex.D-1 Sri.Ramakrishna.D.N had registered a case in Cr.No.15/21-22 against one Tejas. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that as already discussed PW-5 during the Spl.C. No.2353/2023 12 course of his cross examination has categorically admitted that himself and CW-2 were invited as panchas by the Excise Sub Inspector, Ramakrishna, the notice as per Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 has been given to him by the said Ramakrishna. PW-2 Sri.Vivek.G, the Superintendent of Excise Department during the course of his cross examination has categorically admitted that on 07.01.2022, he participated in a raid pertaining to Cr.No.15/21-22 and he has admitted that Ex.D.1 is the document pertaining Cr.No.15/21-22. PW-2 has also categorically admitted that the MO-1 and 2 has been signed by the Sub Inspector of Range No.29 and he has also admitted that CW-1 (PW-1) Smt.Ummerubab belongs to Excise Sub Division No.10. PW-1 Smt.Ummerubab, during the course of cross examination has denied the fact that she is a member of raiding party with respect to Cr.No.15/21-22. The admission available in the evidence of independent panch witness i.e., PW-5 Sri.Abishek.M.R would probabalize the defense of the accused that in fact the accused was secured or taken to the police station for the purpose of interrogation with respect to Cr.No.15/21-22. Apart from it, as already discussed in the earlier part of this judgment as admitted by PW-2 Sri.Vivek.G that on MO-1 and 2 the address of he Range-29 and the Sub Inspector of Excise pertaining to Spl.C. No.2353/2023 13 Range-29 has signed on the above said material object. Therefore, a substantial doubt arises in the mind of the court regarding the seizure of material objects from the possession of the accused as alleged by the prosecution. For the reasons stated supra the evidence of independent panch witness i.e., PW-5 Sri.Abishek.M.R does not inspire the confidence of the court. Apart from all the above said facts PW-5 during the course of cross examination has categorically admitted that Ramakrishna, Excise of PSI has searched the accused and informed him that the accused is in possession of the contraband. He has also admitted that at the time of taking signature to the notice the above said Ramakrishna told him that the accused is in possession of the contraband. He has also admitted that Ex.P-2 was not read over to them and he does not know the contents of Ex.P-6. For all the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that it will not be safe to rely on the evidence of PW-2 to base conviction.
19. It is now well settled that because of rigorous punishment provided for the violation of the provision of NDPS Act, the said act mandates certain procedure to be followed strictly. Search has to be strictly in compliance of Spl.C. No.2353/2023 14 Sec.50 of the NDPS Act. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW-1, it is clear that PW-1 has not whispered anything regarding the preparation of inventory at the time of seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused. Apart from it, she has not at all whispered anything regarding the production of the inventory before learned Magistrate for certification of the same. She has also not disposed anything regarding the drawing of the samples in presence of the Magistrate as contemplated U/s.52(A) of the NDPS Act. PW.3 Sri.Hidayath Khaleel who has conducted investigation in the present case and filed charge sheet has also not whispered anything regarding the production of the seized articles before the learned Magistrate for the purpose of certification of inventory and also with respect to drawing of samples in presence of Magistrate as contemplated U/s.52(A) of the NDPS Act. For the sake of convenience the relevant portion of Sec.52(A) is extracted below :-
"52A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. (1) The central government may, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage space or any other relevant consideration, in respect of any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled Spl.C. No.2353/2023 15 substances or conveyances, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyance or class of narcotic drugs, class of psychotropic substances, class of controlled substances or conveyances, which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may, from time to time, determine after following the procedure herein after specified.
(2) Where any narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances has been seized and forwarded to the officer in charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity. mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the Spl.C. No.2353/2023 16 purpose of:-
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or
(b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs, substances or conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or
(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.
(3) Where an application is made under sub- section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973(2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section(2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence."
20. On careful perusal of the above provision of law it becomes clear that, if Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Spl.C. No.2353/2023 17 Substances have been seized and forwarded to the officer incharge of the police station or to the officer empowered U/s.53, it is the responsibility of such an officer to prepare an inventory and shall submit an application to the Magistrate for the purpose of certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared and the photographs shall be certified of the drugs shall be taken in presence of the Magistrate and same has to be certified. Sec.52(a)(2)(c) would mandate that sample has to be drawn in presence of Magistrate and he has to certify the correctness of list of sample so drawn. On careful perusal of the evidence of PW-1 to 3 it becomes clear that there has been gross violation of Sec.52(A) of NDPS Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Yusuf V/s State reported in 2023 SCC online SC 1328, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed that the mere presence of a Gazetted Officer at the time of drawing of sampling process is insufficient to satisfy the mandatory requirement of Sec.52(A) 2 of the NDPS Act. It further makes clear that the presence of the Gazetted Officer cannot be substituted to the drawing of the samples in presence of the Magistrate. The relevant portion of the observation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment refer supra is as under :-
Spl.C. No.2353/2023 18 "12. A simple reading of the aforesaid provisions, as also stated earlier, reveals that when any contraband/narcotic substance is seized and forwarded to the police or to the officer so mentioned under Section 53, the officer so referred to in sub
7|10 section (1) shall prepare its inventory with details and the description of the seized substance like quality, quantity, mode of packing, numbering and identifying marks and then make an application to any Magistrate for the purposes of certifying its correctness and for allowing to draw representative samples of such substances in the presence of the Magistrate and to certify the correctness of the list of samples so drawn.
13. Notwithstanding the defence set up from the side of the respondent in the instant case, no evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as Spl.C. No.2353/2023 19 preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate. No evidence has also been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate. The mere fact that the samples were drawn in the
8|10 presence of a gazetted officer is not sufficient compliance of the mandate of sub- section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
14. It is an admitted position on record that the samples from the seized substance were drawn by the police in the presence of the gazetted officer and not in the presence of the Magistrate. There is no material on record to prove that the Magistrate had certified the inventory of the substance seized or of the list of samples so drawn.
15. In Mohanlal's3 case, the apex court while dealing with Section 52A of the NDPS Act clearly laid down that it is manifest from the said provision that upon seizure of the contraband, it has to be forwarded either to the officerincharge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who is obliged to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband and then Spl.C. No.2353/2023 20 to make an application to the Magistrate for the purposes of getting its correctness certified. It has been further laid down that the samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list thereof on being certified alone 3 Union of India vs Mohanlal and Anr (2016) 3 SCC 379
9|10 would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of the trial.
16. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband and the samples drawn therefrom would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial. Once there is no primary evidence available, the trial as a whole stands vitiated."
21. Thus on marshalling of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and keeping in mind the mandate of law as contemplated U/s.52(A) of NDPS Act, it can be said that in case of non compliance of the mandatory provision of Sec.52(A)(2) of the NDPS Act, the entire story of prosecution Spl.C. No.2353/2023 21 regarding search and seizure of contraband from the possession of the accused becomes doubtful.
22. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Dr.Suma.S, Senior Scientific Officer, FSL, Bengaluru, who has conducted chemical analysis and submitted her report as per Ex.P-13. According to Ex.P-13 the Article No.1 has responded positive for Methamphetamine and the Article No.2 has responded positive for cannabis. On perusal of Ex.P-13 it is found that the Article No.1 was weighing 3.31 gms before the examination and the Article No.2 was weighing 31.21 gms before the examination. Though the material witnesses i.e., PW-1 to 3 have not whispered anything regarding the procedure followed U/s.52(A) of NDPS Act, but on perusal of the case papers it is found that the certificate of learned Magistrate is available on record with respect to drawing of samples in his presence and certificate of inventory has also been produced. But here is a case wherein as already discussed in the earlier part of this judgment the admission available in the evidence of PW-5 and PW-3 substantial doubt arises in the mind of the court regarding the genuinity of the recovery made from the accused. When there is a material available on record to show that some other Inspector has Spl.C. No.2353/2023 22 secured the panchas in respect of some other case and when the Mos produced before the court also shows the recovery of the material object in some other case, then it would not be safe to rely on such doubtful evidence to base the conviction. In criminal cases, it is responsibility of the prosecution to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If any reasonable doubt arise in the mind of the court regarding the recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused, then the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused.
23. On overall verification of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I am of the view that the accused deserves to get the benefit of doubt. Therefore, I answer the Point No.1 in the Negative.
24. POINT NO.2 :- In view of my finding to Point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under S.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Spl.C. No.2353/2023 23 accused is acquitted of the charge brought against him.
The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety shall continue for a period of six months in terms of S.437(a) of Cr.P.C., to ensure his appearance before the higher court in case of any appeal or revision.
M.O.1 and 2 being worthless articles shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal period, if an appeal is preferred, then after its disposal, as per law.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by her, script corrected and signed by me, then pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of June 2025.) (Syed Baleegur Rahaman) XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 : Smt.Ummerubab
P.W.2 : Sri.Vivek.G
P.W.3 : Sri.Hidayath Khaleel
Spl.C. No.2353/2023
24
P.W.4 : Dr.Suma.S
P.W.5 : Sri.Abhishek.M.R
List of the documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 & 2 : Pancha Notices
P.1(a)&2(a) : Signatures of PW-1
P.2(b) : Signature of PW-5
Ex.P.3 : Record of Right
P.3(a) : Signature of PW-1
P.3(b) : Signature of PW-5
Ex.P.4 : Body Search Letter
P.4(a) : Signature of PW-1
P.4(b) : Signature of PW-2
Ex.P.5 : Sample Seal
P.5(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.6 : Panchaname
P.6(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.7 : Complaint
P.7(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.8 : First Information Report
P.8(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.9 : Information Report
P.9(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.10 : Requisition Letter
P.10(a) : Signature of PW-2
Ex.P.11 : Letter of FSL
P.11(a) : Signature of PW-3
Ex.P.12 : Endorsement issued by FSL
Ex.P.13 : FSL Report
P.13(a) : Signature of PW-3
Ex.P.14 : Sample Seal
P.14(a) : Signature of PW-4
Spl.C. No.2353/2023
25
List of material objects:-
M.O.1 : Methamphetamine
M.O.2 : Ganja
List of documents got marked for the defence:-
Ex.D.1 : Division 29 No.15/2021-22,
Dt:07.01.2022
Ex.D.2 : Notice to Accused Arrest
SYED Digitally signed by SYED
BALEEGUR RAHAMAN
BALEEGUR Date: 2025.07.01
RAHAMAN 14:14:10 +0530
(Syed Baleegur Rahaman)
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.