Bangalore District Court
Ncb Bangalore vs Prabha on 14 August, 2025
KABC010192452017
THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE. CCH.33.
: P R E S E N T:
SMT.LATHA,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST 2025
SPL.C.C. NO.382/2017
COMPLAINANT : The Intelligence Officer,
Narcotic Control Bureau,
Bangalore Zonal Unit,
Bangalore.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : 1. Prabha,
W/o. Ansar,
Aged 40 years,
R/at. No.106, 6th Cross,
3rd Main Maruthinagar,
Ward 1 Yelahanka,
Bangalore 560 062.
2.
S Thilak,
S/o. Sekar,
Aged 22 years,
2
R/O 106, 6th Cross,
3rd Main, Maruthinagar,
Ward 1, Yelahanka,
Bangalore-62.
3. Reemala Krupanandh
- Split up in Spl.C.C.834/2024
4. Jurra Pathrudu - referred to
Juvenile court
(Rep. by Sri AP., Adv.)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 03.02.2017
2. Date of report of offence: 03.02.2017
3. Arrest of the accused : 04.02.2017
4. Date of release of accused on A1- 27.4.2017
bail: A2- 7.8.2017
5. Period undergone in custody: A1- 2 months 23 days
A2 - 6 months 3 days
6. Date of commencing of
8.12.2021
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 9.02.2024
8. Name of the complainant: Sri Samiran Paul, IO.,
9. Offence complained of : U/s.8(c) R/w.
Sec.20(b), 28 & 29 of
NDPS Act
CCH-33
3 Spl.C.C.382/2025
10. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
11. Order of sentence : Acquitted
::JUDGMENT::
The Intelligence Officer, NCB., Bengaluru filed complaint filed complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in NCB.F.No.48/1/02/2017/BZU for the offences punishable U/Sec.8(c) R/w. Sec.20(b), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under:-
2a. The Investigation officer, NCB received credible information that on 3.2.2017 at 8.00 am., that two persons/accused Nos.3 and 4 who were coming from Kakinada are carrying huge quantity of ganja and will be arriving at KR Puram Railway station and deliver the same to accused Nos.1 and 2. He secured panchas and staff members and came to the spot at 12.00 noon train reached 4 KR Puram Railway station. Two persons got down from the train and handed over the gunny 7 bags to other two persons who were waiting at the station. The complainant surrounded him and apprehended all the 4 accused persons. On search they found each with gunny bag contained 20.5 Kgs., of ganja. Thus, in all they seized 41 Kgs., of ganja from the accused persons. Out of which 24 grams was taken for sample. They drew panchanama, arrested the accused and produced before Magistrate and remanded to judicial custody. The seized sample was sent to CFSL and report from CFSL was received. On conclusion of investigation, complaint is filed against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.8(c) R/w. Sec.20(b), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act.
3. On presentation of complaint, accused were secured from judicial custody. As accused No.4 was a minor he was referred to juvenile Court. The learned Predecessor-
in-office of this Court, on perusing the contents of the CCH-33 5 Spl.C.C.382/2025 complaint and the annexed documents, took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 8(c) R/w. Sec.20(b), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act, 1985. The copy of the complaint and annexed documents were furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the accused Nos.1 to 3 as provided under Sec.
207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Since the offences alleged against the accused are cognizable in nature, the predecessor-in-office of this Court heard the learned counsel for the accused and Special Prosecutor before charge and framed Charges against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 8(c) R/w.Sec. 20(c), 28 & 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 on 13.12.2018, read-over and explained to the accused in the language known to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Therefore, posted the case for recording the evidence for the prosecution. Thereafter, as the accused No.3 was absconding, case against him came to be split up and a separate case is registered against him in Spl.C.C.834/2024.
64. The prosecution to prove the Charges levelled against the accused Nos.1 and 2 examined six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got 35 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P.35 and got two material objects marked as M.Os.1 & 4.
After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. However, they denied the incriminating statements made against them and did not offer defence evidence.
5. Heard the arguments of Spl.P.P., and learned counsel for the accused. Perused the Citations referred to by the learned counsel for the accused.
6. The learned counsel for the accused has relied on a number of decisions:-
1. 2021(19) SCC page-606 in the case of Boota Singh V/s State of Haryana.
2. 2009(8) SCC 539 in the case of Karnail Singh V/s State of Punjab.
3. 2013(2) SCC 502 in the case of Kishan Chand V/s State of Haryana
4. 2013(2) SCC 2012 in the case of Sukhdev Singh V/s State of Haryana CCH-33
7 Spl.C.C.382/2025
5. 1995(4) SCC 255 in the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgoankar V/s State of Maharastra
6. 2006(12) SCC 321 in the case of Ritesh Chakravathi V/s State of M.P
7. 2023 SCC Online SC 906 in the case of Simoranjit Singh V/s State of Punjab
8. 2023 SCC Online SC 862 in the case of Mangilal V/s State of M.P
9. 2023 SCC Online SC 1213 in the case of Balwinder Singh V/s NCB
10. 2024 SCC Online SC 680 in the case of Firdosh Khan V/s State of Gujrath
11. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1002 in the case of Amarchand V/s State of H.P
12. 2012 SCC Online Kar 9043 in the case of Mujeeb Mehboob V/s State of Kalsipalya
13. 2021 (2) SCC 50 in the case of Bharath Choudhary V/s Union of India
14. 1999(7) SCC 280 in the case of State of H.P V/s Jai Lal
15. (2008) 2 SCC 370 in the case of directorate of Revenue and anr., Vs., Mohammed Nisar Holia
16. (2000) 2 SCC 513 in the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri Vs., State of Gujarat
7. Having heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the learned Counsel for the accused and on perusal of the above rulings, the following points that arise for consideration is as follows :-
8Point No. 1 : Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.3 and 4 were transporting huge quantity of ganja from Kakinada to Bangalore in Train No.17210 Sheshadri Express and on arriving at Bangalore accused Nos.1 and 2 came to the railway station to receive the said ganja at that time accused Nos.1 to 4 were intercepted by the IO., NCB., Bangalore, on enquiry it is found that accused were in possession of 41 Kgs., of ganja without holding any licence or permission to transport the same and thereby accused Nos.1 & 2 along with accused Nos.3 and 4 have committed the offences punishable U/s.20(b)(ii)(C), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act?
Point No.2: What Order ?
8. 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:
CCH-33
9 Spl.C.C.382/2025 ::REASONS::
9. POINT No.1 :- The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, got the CW1 Samiran Paul, the then IO., of NCB, Bangalore zone has been examined by PW1. He deposed in his examination in chief that on 03.02.2017 at about 08.00 am., he received a call regarding an information that, two persons namely Krupanand and Pathrudu are coming from Kakinanda to K .R. Puram railway station, that they are carrying a huge quantity of Ganja in general compartment Sheshadri Express, Train no. 17210 and they will hand over the said Ganja at K. R Puram railway station on the same day to accused nos. 1 and 2, that he had noted the said information in a paper and informed the same to the Superintendent of NCB, Bangalore, that after getting permission from him, he constituted a team and obtained seal No.1 from the Superintendent of NCB, that along with the team members with the D.D Kit, laptop and printer moved from the office and left to K.R.Puram railway station, 10 that they reached the railway station at 10.40 am., that after reaching the railway station, he called two independent witnesses and got himself introduced to them and disclosed about the information received by him to them and requested them to be present during search and seizure procedure, to which, they voluntarily agreed, that on enquiry about their names they revealed their names as Akram and Sheikh Musa, they are the CW3 and CW4.
10. PW1 further deposed that they mounted surveillance in the entry gate, platform No.4 of K.R Puram railway station where the general compartment of train would stop, that at about 12 noon train came to the spot, that 2 persons came down from the general compartment with 2 big gunny bags, each one was holding 1 gunny bag, that they Handed over the gunny bags to the accused nos. 1 and 2 in the entry gate of K.R. Puram railway station, that among the 4 accused, accused no. 4 Pathrudu is a juvenile, that they surrounded the accused persons and disclosed to CCH-33 11 Spl.C.C.382/2025 them about the information they received, that PW1 had also showed his departmental ID card to them and also introduced himself to them and also introduced the independent witnesses that he had issued notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act that he explained the contents of notice to them that he also explained their right to have personal search in the presence of a gazetted officer or In the presence of a Magistrate that they replied that they need a gazetted officer for their personal search, that before issuing notice to them, they offered themselves for personal search to them, to which they have declined, that when he asked the accused persons about the contents of gunny bag, they stated that it contains ganja, that after opening the gunny bags, he found suspected material inside the gunny bags, he took a small portion of suspected material and tested it with the help of D.D. Kit and found it positive for ganja, that then they mixed the said contents properly and took 2 samples from each gunny bag, each sample contained 24 grams of ganja, that they kept the samples in 12 polythene pouch, heat sealed, and kept it in a envelop by marking it as S1, S2, S3 and S4, that each gunny bag contained 20.5 Kgs., of ganja, that they stitched the ganja bag and wrapped it with cloths and marked it as P1 and P2, they pasted a paper slip on it which contains the description of gunny bag, all the samples and bulk were sealed with NCB seal No.1, the contents of gunny bag was flowering and fruiting tops of ganja leaves with pungent smell, he affixed his signature on all the sealed packets, the signatures of panch witnesses and accused was also taken on it. At about 4.15 pm., DIG, BSF came to the spot and conducted personal search of accused, but no incriminatory articles were found, he prepared the panchanama in the spot, he issued notice to the accused persons, recorded the voluntary statement of all the four accused persons, arrested them and issued arrest memo, prepared jamathalashi and as the accused No.4 was juvenile a separate complaint filed before Juvenile justice board, that on 4.2.2017 he produced the accused persons before Court CCH-33 13 Spl.C.C.382/2025 and on 5.2.2017 he submitted success report, seizure report and arrest report before Zonal Director, NCB, sent samples to CFSL, Hyderabad on 5.2.2017 and transmitted P1, P2, S2 and S4 to NCB godown, he prepared the arrest memo in the spot and he forwarded the case file to CW.6 who was present during search and seizure procedure.
11. PW.2 Sri V. V. Singh, superintendent, NCB, Mumbai has deposed that on 3.2.2017 he received the information from PW.1, according to the information two persons were travelling in Sheshadri Express train and were about to supply huge quantity of ganja to the persons at KR Puram railway station, Bengaluru, that he directed PW.1 to constitute a team and take action, that on the same day at about 8.30 am., he issued NCB brass seal No.1 to PW.1, and made entry in seal movement register, on the same day at 21.00 hours PW.1 returned the seal that an entry in this regard was made in the register, on 9.2.2017 at 11.00 hours PW.1 has given the seized properties to him to keep in 14 malkana, an entry was made in malkana and on 20.3.2017 CW.6 gave him remnant samples, he entered the same in malkana.
12. PW.3 Smt. M Kumudhavalli, IO., NCB has deposed that on 03.02.2017 she along with PW.1 and other team members went to Platform No.4, KR Puram Railway station, she was told that one suspect in the case is a lady, they reached the railway station at 10.30 am., and waiting for Sheshadri Express train, PW.1 secured two panchas Cws.4 and 5 and shared the information and requested them to be present during search and seizure procedure, to which, they voluntarily agreed, that at about 12 noon train came to the spot, that 2 persons got down from the train carrying huge gunny bags, one lady and one man approached the two persons who were standing on the platform, the said passengers have handed over the gunny bags to the persons i.e., a lady and a man who were standing on the platform that immediately, their team CCH-33 15 Spl.C.C.382/2025 intercepted them and introduced themselves as officers of NCB and introduced the panch witnesses to them and informed them about the information they had received, on enquiry they revealed their names and addresses, the persons who got down from the train revealed their names as Jurra Pathrudu and Reemala Krupanandh, the persons who were in the platform are Prabha and Tilak, PW.1 issued Notices to all the four persons, he apprised their right to have personal search through a Gazetted Officer, they have consented have personal search through a Gazetted Officer, when PW.1 asked the contents of the bag, they revealed that they are carrying Ganja, on opening the bag, a strong pungent smell was coming, in that, there was flowering and fruiting tops of vegetation was found, small portion of the said substance was taken out from the gunny bags and tested with D.D kit, which gave positive response for Ganja, the contents of gunny bags was mixed property, 24 grams of Ganja was taken out from each of the gunny bag and marked as S1 to S4, On weighing the gunny bags each 16 came out to be 20 Kgs 500 grams, in total 41 Kgs, they were marked as P1 and P2 and affixed with NCB seal No.1, specimen seal was taken, The seizing officer and all the four accused have affixed their signatures on the articles and mahazar. A1 and A2 were speaking Tamil language, she explained the contents of mahazar in Tamil to them, A3 and A4 were speaking Telugu language, one of their team member explained the contents of mahazar to them in Telugu languag, A1 and A2 were carrying platform ticket, that has been seized under Jamathalashi. A3 and A4 were carrying ticket from Kakinada to Bengaluru, that were also seized, Sec. 67 were explained to them in their known language, they have affixed their signatures on mahazar, that the test memo was prepared on the spot by the seizing officer, that at around 4.15 p.m. DIG, BSF came to the platform No.4, K.R Puram Railway Station and conducted personal search of all the four persons, but no contraband was found, that A1 to A4 were taken to their office and PW.1 recorded their statements, that she was present at the time CCH-33 17 Spl.C.C.382/2025 of recording of statement of A1 and A2 as she was acquainted with Tamil language. That the statements of A1 and A2 typed by her in English, that the PW.1 was asking the questions in English, she was translating the same in Tamil to them and thereafter typed the same in English, she has made a shara in the said statement.
13. She further deposed that she had sent a letter to jurisdictional police about intimation of arrest and sent letters to Canara Bank Zonal Office, Indian Bank Head Office, Bengaluru regarding the seized Debit Cards from A1, that she received reply from Indian Bank on 21.3.2017 stating that Indian Bank Debit Card belongs to one Ansar which belongs to Thysayanvalai Branch of Indian Bank, that she had also received reply from Canara Bank on 24.3.2017 stating that, one Debit Card in the name of A1 having account in Yelahanka Branch, Sattelite Town, another Debit Card is in the name of Akhbar Ali, Mallapuram Branch, Kerala.18
14. She further deposed that on 24.3.2017 she recorded the statements of panch witnesses regarding seizure panchanama dtd 3.2.2017, on receiving the Bank Statement of Prabha, it is found that, there was huge monetary transactions in the account since from 2016, that therefore, she initiated proceedings to freeze the accounts u/Sec. 68(F) of NDPS Act through competent authority for a sum of Rs. 1,54,410/-, that the competent authority issued confirmation order dtd 17.7.2017, that it was confirmed that, some of the amount was earned through illicit drug transaction, that the competent authority confirmed that, there is no legitimate source of income to accused No.1.
15. She has also deposed that a separate complaint is filed before Juvenile Justice Board against A4 Jurra Pathrudu and he had pleaded guilty before the JJ Board, that he had been convicted to undergo SI for 5 months and 18 days, that she has also collected the CFSL report on 7.3.2017 stating that, the sample responded positive for CCH-33 19 Spl.C.C.382/2025 Ganja and after completion investigation filed the complaint before this Court on 2.8.2017.
16. PW.4 Sri Sunil Kumar Sinha, the then Zonal Director has deposed that on 3.2.2017, there was seizure of cannabis Ganja, that PW.1 has submitted seizure report and arrest report before him on 5.2.2017, that the CFSL authorities have sent a letter stating that, report is ready and requested to depute the official messenger to collect the report.
17. PW.5 Dr.Seema Srivathsava, Asst. director, CFSL, Hyderabad has deposed that in this case, she received two sealed brown colour paper envelopes on 7.2.2017 that on opening the S1 and S2, she found dark green colour flowering and fruiting tops of vegetative material kept in an auto pressed polythene packet, that the weight of the substance was 25.9677 and 26.8715 grams, excluding polythene packet, that she conducted in all 5 tests between 8.2.2017 to 3.3.2017 and opined that the sample responded 20 positive for the presence of Ganja and accordingly she submitted a report to the Zonal Director of NCB as per Ex.P35.
18. Under NDPS Act there are stringent mandatory provisions that are to be complied with by the investigating agency. Then only the prosecution can prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is significant to examine the records placed on behalf of the prosecution to find out whether the prosecution complied those statutory provisions or not and whether the prosecution succeeded to bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2.
19. The learned Spl. P.P., advanced arguments and specifically submitted that the prosecution has complied the statutory provisions of NDPS Act and proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Nos.1 & 2.
20. As seen from the documents got marked on behalf of the prosecution, Ex.P1 is the information forwarded to CCH-33 21 Spl.C.C.382/2025 the superintendent, NCB, BZU, Bangalore by the PW.1 Sri.Samiran Paul, the Intelligence officer. According to PW.1, Ex.P1 is forwarded to his superior officer under Section 42(2) of NDPS Act. The learned Sr. Counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 cross examined this witness and elicited from him that he received the information at about 8.00 am., when he was in his office over telephone, that he had only made note in NCB information, that he has not reduced the information into writing immediately on receipt of the said information, that there was no information register maintained in his office in the year 2017, that he had not recorded the information in any permanent register in the office as no register is maintained at that time, that he does not know that as per NCB Manual, the first information has to be noted in Form No.1(A) and also, that thereafter, it has to be reduced into writing in the information register, that he has not saved the said information in his laptop or in the office system. The evidence of PW.1 clearly indicates that PW.1 being the 22 Intelligence officer, on receiving the information did not reduced the said information into writing in any register and according to him in their office no such register is maintained. He deposes that Ex.P1 is the information reduced into writing U/s.42 of NDPS Act. As seen from Ex.P1 it is the forwarding letter signed by PW.1 and same is said to be forwarded to Superintendent of NCB namely PW.2 and that PW.1 specifically admitted that the information has not been recorded in any permanent register maintained by them in their office. At this stage it is relevant to reproduce Sec.42 of NDPS Act.
Sec.42 of NDPS Act reads as under:-
42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.--
(1)Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including paramilitary forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central CCH-33 23 Spl.C.C.382/2025 Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,--
(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of 24 any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and
(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.
CCH-33 25 Spl.C.C.382/2025 On relying on Sec.42(1) & (2), the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 & 2 submitted that the PW.1 who is the recipient of information did not comply the mandatory statutory provision envisaged under section 42 of NDPS Act.
In support of his arguments the learned counsel has relied on the decision reported in 2009(8) SCC 539 in the case of Karnail Singh V/s State of Punjab wherein it is observed as under :-
21. Sub-section (1) of Section 42 lays down that the empowered officer, if has a prior information given by any person, should necessarily take it down in writing and where he has reason to believe from his personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or that materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building etc. he may carry out the arrest or search, without warrant between sunrise and sunset and he may do so without recording his reasons of belief. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 42 lays down that if the empowered officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an 26 offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place, at any time between sunset and sunrise, after recording the grounds of his belief.
22. Sub-section (2) of Section 42 as it originally stood mandated that the empowered officer who have taken down information in writing or records the grounds of his belief under the proviso to sub section (1), should send a copy of the same to his immediate official superior forthwith. But after the amendment in the year 2001, the period within which such report has to be sent was specified to be 72 hours. Section 43 deals with the power of seizure and arrest of the suspect in a public place.
21. Further the learned counsel also relied on the decision in the case of Abdul Rashid and Sajan Abraham, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows :
CCH-33 27 Spl.C.C.382/2025
(a) The officer on receiving the information (of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of section 42) from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior .
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub- sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such 28 information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to section 42 by Act 9 of 2001.
Similarly in the decision reported in 2021 (19) SCC 606 in the case of Boota Singh Vs., State of Haryana and in the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the accused reported in 2013 (2) SCC 502 in the case of Kishan Chand Vs., State of Haryana the Hon'ble Supreme Court re-
affirmed the said preposition of law and held that the non compliance of Sec.42 is impermissible. However, in the present case the NCB officers, in spite of mandatory provision to be complied with did not comply it and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
CCH-33 29 Spl.C.C.382/2025
22. Further, it is to be noted that PW.1 in para-3 of his cross examination deposed that Sri Vishwavijay Singh was his immediate superior officer as on 3.2.2017 and he admitted that the information received by him has not been sent to his immediate superior Sri Vishwavijay Singh, that before proceeding for raid, he did not note down the information in any of his office record, that he has not given any reference number to Ex.P1 information, that he had shown the information to panchas but did not obtain endorsement of panchas on Ex.P1. Accordingly the learned counsel for the accused elicited from PW.1 about non compliance of Sec.42(1) and 42(2) of NDPS Act.
23. The learned Spl.P.P., though submitted the provisions of Sec.42(1) & 42(2) of NDPS Act are need to be complied with as the seizure of material object happened in public place, the learned counsel for the accused rightly pointed out that as PW.1 had received the information while 30 he was in office the strict compliance of Sec.42(1) & 42(2) is required.
24. In the decision of Sukhdev Singh Vs., State of Haryana reported in (2013) 2 SCC 212 which is relied herein above, it is observed as under:-
21. In the present case, the occurrence was of 4th February, 1994. The Trial of the accused concluded by judgment of conviction dated 4th July, 1998. Thus, it will be the unamended Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act that would govern the present case. The provisions of Section 42 are intended to provide protection as well as lay down a procedure which is mandatory and should be followed positively by the Investigating Officer. He is obliged to furnish the information to his superior officer forthwith. That obviously means without any delay. But there could be cases where the Investigating Officer instantaneously, for special reasons to be explained in writing, is not able to reduce the information into writing and send the said information to his superior officers but could do it later and preferably prior to recovery.
Compliance of Section 42 is mandatory and there cannot be an escape from its strict compliance.
CCH-33 31 Spl.C.C.382/2025
22. This question is no more res integra and stands fully answered by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana [(2009) 8 SCC 539]. The Constitution Bench had the occasion to consider the conflict between the two judgments i.e. in the case of Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat [(2000) 2 SCC 513] and Sajan Abraham (supra) and held as under:-
"35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is that Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows:
(a) The officer on receiving the information [of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 42] from any person had to record it in writing in the register concerned and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of Section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to
(d) of Section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.32
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer.
But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is, after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance with requirements of sub- sections (1) and (2) of Section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance with Section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non- sending of a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of Section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of Section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with Section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to Section 42 by Act 9 of 2001."
23. Having referred to the above settled principle of law, we are unable to accept the contention raised on behalf of the CCH-33 33 Spl.C.C.382/2025 State and have to grant our approval to the submission made on behalf of the appellant.
It is further observed in the aforesaid decision as under:-
22. There is patent illegality in the case of the prosecution and such illegality is incurable. This is a case of total non-
compliance, thus the question of substantial compliance would not even arise for consideration of the Court in the present case. The twin purpose of the provisions of Section 42 which can broadly be stated are that : (a) it is a mandatory provision which ought to be construed and complied strictly; and (b) compliance of furnishing information to the superior officer should be forthwith or within a very short time thereafter and preferably post- recovery.
23. Once the contraband is recovered, then there are other provisions like Section 57 which the empowered officer is mandatorily required to comply with. That itself to some extent would minimize the purpose and effectiveness of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It is to provide fairness in the process of recovery and investigation which is one of the basic features of our criminal jurisprudence. It is a kind of prevention of false implication of innocent persons. The legislature in its wisdom had made the provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act mandatory and not optional as stated by this Court in the case of Karnail Singh (supra).
34At this stage, it is also relevant to know the deference between Sec.42 & 43 of NDPS Act. In the decision reported in (2008) 2 SCC 370 in the case of Directorate of Revenue and another Vs., Mohammed Nisar Holia, the difference between those two provisions clearly made out as under:-
13. Requirements of Section 42 was read into Section 43 of the NDPS Act. A somewhat different view, however, was taken subsequently. Decisions were rendered opining that in conducting search and seizure in public place or a moving vehicle, provisions appended to sub-section (1) of Section 42 would not be attracted. Decisions were also rendered that in such a case even sub-section (2) of Section 42 need not be complied with.
14. Section 43, on plain reading of the Act, may not attract the rigours of Section 42 thereof. That means that even subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority, as is required under sub-section (1) of Section 42, need not be complied with, only because the place whereat search is to be made is a public place. If Section 43 is to be treated as an exception to Section 42, it is required to be strictly complied with. An interpretation which strikes a balance between the enforcement of law and protection of the valuable human right of an accused must be resorted to. A CCH-33 35 Spl.C.C.382/2025 declaration to the effect that the minimum requirement, namely, compliance of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would serve the purpose may not suffice as non-
compliance of the said provision would not render the search a nullity. A distinction therefor must be borne in mind that a search conducted on the basis of a prior information and a case where the authority comes across a case of commission of an offence under the Act accidentally or per chance. It is also possible to hold that rigours of the law need not be complied with in a case where the purpose for making search and seizure would be defeated, if strict compliance thereof is insisted upon. It is also possible to contend that where a search is required to be made at a public place which is open to the general public, Section 42 would have no application but it may be another thing to contend that search is being made on prior information and there would be enough time for compliance of reducing the information to writing, informing the same to the superior officer and obtain his permission as also recording the reasons therefor coupled with the fact that the place which is required to be searched is not open to public although situated in a public place as, for example, room of a hotel, whereas hotel is a public place, a room occupied by a guest may not be. He is entitled to his right of privacy. Nobody, even the staff of the hotel, can walk into his room without his permission. Subject to the ordinary activities in regard to maintenance 36 and/or house keeping of the room, the guest is entitled to maintain his privacy. The very fact that the Act contemplated different measures to be taken in respect of search to be conducted between sunrise and sunset, between sunset and sunrise as also the private place and public place is of some significance. An authority cannot be given an untrammeled power to infringe the right of privacy of any person. Even if a statute confers such power upon an authority to make search and seizure of a person at all hours and at all places, the same may be held to be ultra vires unless the restrictions imposed are reasonable ones. What would be reasonable restrictions would depend upon the nature of the statute and the extent of the right sought to be protected. Although a statutory power to make a search and seizure by itself may not offend the right of privacy but in a case of this nature, the least that a court can do is to see that such a right is not unnecessarily infringed. Right of privacy deals with persons and not places.
In view of that, in the present case on hand also there is no material to show the compliance of Sec.42(1) & 42(2) of the Act.
25. It is also the submission of learned counsel for the accused that PW.1 has also not strictly complied the CCH-33 37 Spl.C.C.382/2025 provisions of Sec.50 of the Act and the seizure of the so called contraband not effected in the presence of gazetted officer and therefore, the so called seizure is bad under law.
In support of his arguments the learned counsel for the accused has relied on the decision rendered in (2013) 2 SCC 502 in the case of Kishan Chand Vs., State of Haryana wherein in paragraph Nos.19 to 21 it is observed as under:-
19. The provisions like Section 42 or 50 of the Act are the provisions which require exact and definite compliance as opposed to the principle of substantial compliance. The Constitution Bench in the case of Karnail Singh (supra) carved out an exception which is not founded on substantial compliance but is based upon delayed compliance duly explained by definite and reliable grounds.
20. While dealing with the requirement of complying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act and keeping in mind its mandatory nature, a Bench of this Court held that there is need for exact compliance without any attribute to the element of prejudice, where there is an admitted or apparent non-compliance. The Court in the case of State of 38 Delhi v. Ram Avtar alias Rama [(2011) 12 SCC 207], held as under:-
26. The High Court while relying upon the judgment of this Court in Baldev Singh and rejecting the theory of substantial compliance, which had been suggested in Joseph Fernandez, found that the intimation did not satisfy the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The Court reasoned that the expression "duly" used in Section 50 of the Act connotes not "substantial" but "exact and definite compliance". Vide Ext. PW 6/A, the appellant was informed that a gazetted officer or a Magistrate could be arranged for taking his search, if he so required. This intimation could not be treated as communicating to the appellant that he had a right under law, to be searched before the said authorities.
As the recovery itself was illegal, the conviction and sentence has to be set aside.
27. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that when a safeguard or a right is provided, favouring the accused, compliance therewith should be strictly construed. As already held by the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja, the theory of "substantial compliance" would not be applicable to such situations, particularly where the punishment provided is very harsh and is likely to cause serious prejudice against the suspect. The safeguard cannot be treated as a formality, but it must be construed in its proper perspective, compliance therewith must be ensured. The law has provided a right to the accused, and makes it obligatory upon the officer concerned to make the suspect aware of such right. The officer had prior information of the raid; thus, he was expected to be prepared for carrying out his duties of investigation in accordance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. While discharging the onus of Section 50 of the Act, the prosecution has to establish that information regarding the existence of such a right had been given to the suspect. If such information is incomplete and CCH-33 39 Spl.C.C.382/2025 ambiguous, then it cannot be construed to satisfy the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. Non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act would cause prejudice to the accused, and, therefore, amount to the denial of a fair trial.
21. When there is total and definite non-compliance of such statutory provisions, the question of prejudice loses its significance. It will per se amount to prejudice. These are indefeasible, protective rights vested in a suspect and are incapable of being shadowed on the strength of substantial compliance.
26. The learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2argued that the prosecution has also failed to prove that the investigating officer has complied the provisions of Sec.57 of NDPS Act. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 no where the PW.1 in the examination in chief deposed about the compliance of Sec.57 of NDPS Act. As contemplated U/s.,57 of NDPS Act as soon as the raid is completed the raid success report shall be submitted to his superior officer within reasonable time. As seen from Ex.P11 the seizure report U/s.57 of NDPS Act submitted to Zonal director and then signature of Zonal director for having received the said 40 report is at Ex.P11(b). Ex.P12 is the arrest report submitted U/s.57 of NDPS Act to the very same Zonal Director and the Zonal Director affixed his signature on Ex.P12 for having received the said report, the signature is at Ex.P12(b). in view of these two documents this Court is of the considered view that the seizing officer has complied the provisions of Sec.57 of NDPS Act as on 5.2.2017.
27. Further, the learned counsel for accused has also submitted that the search and seizing officer did not secure the witnesses from the railway station where the alleged contraband said to be seized and the witnesses who have signed the seizure mahazar have not been examined by the prosecution which adversely affects the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel for accused while arguing so has relied on the decision reported in 2024 (5) SCC 393 in the case of Mohammad Kalid and anr., Vs., State of Telangana wherein it is observed that the two independent panch witnesses i.e., Sharif Shah and Mithun Jana who CCH-33 41 Spl.C.C.382/2025 were associated in the recovery proceedings, were not examined in evidence and no explanation was given by the prosecution as to why they were not being examined.
28. Likewise, in the present matter also CWs.3 Sri Syed Musa and CW.4 Sri Akram pasha have not been examined by the prosecution.
29. Evidently the alleged raid happened in the KR Puram Railway station. Obviously, in the railway station there will be crowd and also railway employees. The raiding officer would have secured mahazar witnesses from the railway station itself. Moreover, the said officer had time till arrival of train to secure independent witnesses from the station. But he did not attempt to secure witnesses from the railway station itself. This is also one of the suspicious circumstances from which Court is unable to accept the story of prosecution.
30. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 and 2 has also argued by attacking the FSL 42 report submitted before the Court which is at Ex.P35. As seen from Ex.P35, the duration of examination of articles is from 8.2.2017 to 3.3.2017 and the result of examination is mentioned in Para-12 of the report. Same is extracted herein below for better understanding.
12. Results of Examination:-
The exhibit were analysed by Physico-Chemical examination, Microscopic examination, colour tests (fast Blue B salt test, dequinois Levine test, para - aminophenol test), Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC) and Gas Chromatography - Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) methods. Bases on the above methods, the results obtained are given below:-
1. Ganja has been detected in the exhibit marked as Exhibits-S1 and S3.
As could be seen from the report, the chemical examiner did not mention the method of analysis and number of tests conducted to arrive at conclusion that the said articles contained 'Ganja'. As pointed out by learned counsel for accused the report is cryptic and no quantitative test is conducted to arrive at proper conclusion that whether that CCH-33 43 Spl.C.C.382/2025 article contained the substance of 'Ganja'. The learned counsel for accused also relied on amended Rule 14 of NDPS Rules 2022.
31. Apart from that the learned counsel has also relied on the decision rendered in Criminal Petition No.10262/2024 in the case of Mr. Dhanaram Patel Vs. State of Karnataka. Where in it is held as under:
20. In Dayaram Singh's case supra, the Madhya Pradesh High Court held as under:-
"3. As per the allegations in the present case, on 19.3.2011 the police Amarpatan made a Panchanama that from the pump house of the petitioners, the alleged 2.500 kgs of Ganja was recovered by the Excise Department. The petitioners have assailed the lodging of FIR in question and subsequent proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof on legal parameters. In order to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it would be relevant to see the definitions as enumerated in Section 2 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "NDPS Act, 1985"). For ready reference, Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, 1985 is hereby reproduced as under:--
"(iii) cannabis (hemp) means-44
(a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish;
(b) ganja, that is, the flowering of 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; and
(c) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom."
4. Cannabis plant and cannabis (hemp) are two distinct contrabands under the NDPS Act, 1985. Cannabis plant means any plant of the genus cannabis. Charas is separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant. It also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish. Ganja is flowering of fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops).
5. The contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioners was subjected to chemical analysis. As per the chemical analysis report dated 31.3.2011, Ex.A-1 and A-2 were found containing greenish and whitish coloured leaves, flowers and vegetable item. The chemical microscope and thin layer chromatography examination found the contraband to be Ganja. The FSL report did not show the presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in any manner. The CCH-33 45 Spl.C.C.382/2025 sample as a whole was classified as Ganja without any classification based on percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol. In case of Bhang, tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample stuff would be 15%. In case of Ganja, it would be 25% and in case of Charas, it would be between 25-40%. The presence of tetrahydrocannabinol on percentage pattern in the sample stuff would show whether it is actually Bhang, Ganja or Charas. In the absence of such percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol given in the FSL report, no other evidence would make the recovered contraband to be a Bhang, Ganja or Charas. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nagendra Shah v. State of HP, (2010) 4 RCR (Cri) 194.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners, even in the absence of any such pleadings submitted that the issue is purely a legal issue and can be racked up during the course of arguments and the arguments are duly supported by the precedents in Nagender Shah's case (supra) and Anav Jain v. State of Haryana, CRM-M No. 51512 of 2022 decided on 1.12.2022, wherein the Court after considering the different precedents on the subject held the aforesaid proposition. As per the Working Procedure Manual of conducting the test, the Directorate of forensic Science Services, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India has prescribed working procedure in terms of 5.7.2.5 i.e. test for differentiation between Bhang, Ganja and Charas.
7. The FSL report is totally silent with regard to adoption of working procedure while determining the contraband to be Ganja only. In the absence of showing presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol, 46 Cannabinol and Cannabidiol being part of manufacturing process, no offence under the NDPS Act, 1985 is made out. Para No. 29 and 30 of judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Roshal Lal, 2010 SCC OnLine HP 2554 are reproduced as under:-
"29. As noticed hereinabove, the only tests, which were conducted by the Experts, were to find out tetrahydrocannabinol or cystolithic hair. They found tetrahydrocannabinol but did not indicate in their reports the percentage thereof. While in the witness- box also, the Experts did not say what was the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the samples. Specific category of a cannabis product, like Charas, ganja, or mixture, as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, or anything else, like bhang, etc., can also be determined, with reference to the percentage of in the stuff. As noticed hereinabove, percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol varies from one product to other product of cannabis.
30. According to Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, in the case of bhang it is 15 per cent, in the case of ganja it is about 25 per cent and in the case of Charas it is between 25 and 40 per cent. When the percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol in the sample stuff is not indicated in the report nor had any test been conducted to ascertain whether the stuff was Charas, that is to say resin, or some other preparation of cannabis, it cannot be said that the stuff was in fact Charas. As regards eystolithic hair, these being the fibre of cannabis plant, are bound to be present in all the products of cannabis. It is quite likely that the samples were only of bhang, i.e. the dried leaves of cannabis plant, which is also supposed to contain 15 per cent concentration of tetrahydrocannabinol.
CCH-33 47 Spl.C.C.382/2025 Possession of only the leaves or the seeds of cannabis plant is no offense, because it is only the Charas, ganja or mixture, as defined in Section 2(iii) of the Act, which is an offense, under Section 20 of the Act. Leaves and seeds of cannabis plant are not included either in the definition of Charas or ganja and are rather specifically excluded from the definition of ganja, unless accompany the flowering and fruiting tops of the plant."
8. The FSL report is absolutely silent about the percentage of Tetrahydrocannabinol, Cannabinol and Cannabidiol, and therefore the prosecution has miserably failed to show the commission of any offence. Reference can also be made to Arjun Singh v. State of Haryana, (2004) 4 RCR (Cri) 506. Evidently the Bhang does not fall under the definition of cannabis hemp as defined under Section 2(iii) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
9. The alleged contraband recovered from the petitioners finds place at Sl. No. 55 of the table, wherein 1000 gms. would fall under small quantity and commercial quantity starts from 20 kg onwards. After filing of the charge sheet/173 of Cr. P.C., the ingredients of the FSL report cannot be improved. The FSL report is discrepant with regard to presence of tetrahydrocannabinol in any manner. The sample stuff can only be categorized as Ganja, if percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol is found to be 25%.
10. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Nagendra Shah's case (supra) and other precedents on the subject, I am of the view that further prosecution in the aforesaid criminal case would 48 result in futility, as the sample stuff cannot be categorized as Ganja on the basis of chemical analysis. The sample stuff has been categorized as Ganja solely on the basis of FSL report, which is discrepant in terms of percentage of tetrahydrocannabinol, rather cannabinol as a component in the sample stuff has not been mentioned in the FSL report. The FSL report has only indicated that some greenish, whitish coloured leaves and flowers were found in the sample stuff and on the basis of some chemical analysis and thin layer chromatography, sample stuff was categorized to be Ganja. In the aforesaid test, tetrahydrocannabinol was not found as a component contributing any required percentage in order to bring the sample stuff within the four corner of Ganja.
11. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to accept this petition, as no bonafide purpose would be served in carrying out with the case, as the recovered article/item cannot be categorized to be Ganja by any stretch of imagination. The complicity of the petitioners on the basis of recovery of small quantity of Ganja cannot result in any conviction, as no case is made out to bring the alleged contraband within the definition of Ganja.
In view of that without quantitative test it cannot be concluded that the seized articles contained substance of Ganja and it is Ganja within the meaning of Sec.2(iii) of NDPS Act.
CCH-33 49 Spl.C.C.382/2025
32. Further in the present matter the chemical examiner has been examined as PW.5. He specifically admitted that since he did not conduct quantitative test he cannot say that to designate a product as Ganja 15-20% THC is required. When such being the case, where is the evidence to establish that the seized article is Ganja when the prosecution failed to establish the basic requirement to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2, on the sole ground the accused 1 and 2 are entitled to be acquitted.
33. Accordingly for want of compliance of mandatory statutory provisions of NDPS Act as discussed above and for want of proof of the contents of Ganja in the seized Article the Court shall hold that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2.
34. Further, on fact also the prosecution could not prove that seizure of the so called article from the possession of the accused Nos.1 and 2. The prosecution did not examine the material witnesses and the prosecution 50 case is depending on only the official witnesses. The non-
examination of independent witnesses cited in the witnesses list is definitely adversely affected the case. Further, the prosecution has not relied on the amount found in he bank account of accused No.1. However, this Court by its order dated 9.6.2017 itself has observed that the amount was credited to her account on 20.5.2017 and the seizure proceedings taken place on 3.2.2017. there is no nexus between this case and the said amount and accordingly, the account of the accused No.1 was ordered to be de-freezed subsequently, the accused No.1 during the recording of her statement U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., she filed written statement and in her statement she stated about her false implication in this case and also explained that Rs.65,000/- was credited by her landlord on 20.5.2017 and Rs.35,000/- was deducted by him towards rent from the total advance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. Further she also submitted that she was doing textile business from 15 years. In view of her written explanation as the amount credited subsequent to CCH-33 51 Spl.C.C.382/2025 her arrest it cannot be said that the amount found in her bank account was gained illegally by involving in the business of selling illicit drugs. Accordingly, viewing from any angle the prosecution left the reasonable suspicions without clearing it and therefore, it has to be held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt shall be extended on accused Nos.1 and 2 and thus accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to be acquitted for the offences punishable U/sec.20(b)(ii)(C), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act. Accordingly, I answer Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Negative.
35. Point No.3: In the result, following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused No.1 Smt.Prabha & accused No.2 S Thilak are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 20(c), 28 & 29 of NDPS Act.
The entire record and properties are ordered to be preserved and kept in the split up case in 52 Spl.C.C.No.834/2024 registered against accused No.3.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 are directed to comply Sec.437-A 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 14th day of August 2025) (LATHA) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Sri. Samiran Paul
P.W.2 : Sri. V.V.Singh
P.W.3 : Smt. M Kumudavalli
P.W.4 : Sri. Sunil Kumar Sinha
P.W.5 : Dr. Seema Srivathsava
(b) Defence :
- NIL -
CCH-33
53 Spl.C.C.382/2025
2. List of documents exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Information (a) (b) Sig., of PW.1 & 2 Ex.P.2 : Panchanama (a) sign.
Ex.P.3 to P6 : Notices (a) signatures Ex.P.7 to P10 : Notices (a) signatures Ex.P.11 : Seizure report U/s.57 of NDPS Act Ex.P.12 : Arrest report (a) sign. Ex.P.13 : Godown receipt (a) sign. Ex.P.14 : Test Memo (a) sign. Ex.P.15 : Forwarding Memo (a) sign. Ex.P.16 : Railway platform ticket Ex.P.17 : Railway train ticket Ex.P.18 : Voluntary statement of A1 Ex.P.19 : Voluntary statement of A2 Ex.P.20 : Arrest Memo (a) sign. Ex.P.21 : Arrest Memo (a) sign. Ex.P.22 : Details of debit card of A1 Ex.P.23 : Letter sent to Indian Bank Ex.P.24 : Reply received from Indian Bank Ex.P.25 : Reply received from Canara Bank Ex.P.26 : Letter sent to Canara Bank Ex.P.27 : Bank statement Ex.P.28 : Summons Ex.P.29 : Summons Ex.P.30 : Statement of witness Ex.P.31 : Statement of witness Ex.P.32 : Freezing Notice Ex.P.33 : Confirmation order dt.17.7.2017 Ex.P.34 : Proceedings of JJ Board Ex.P.35 : FSL report 54 (b) Defence: -Nil-
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : Sample contraband
M.O.2 : Sample contraband
M.O.3 : Sample contraband
M.O.4 : Sample contraband
(LATHA)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.
CN/*