Madhya Pradesh High Court
Aslam Pathan vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 October, 2016
Cr.A. No.1665/2015 1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT INDORE
SINGLE BENCH : Hon'ble Shri Justice Ved Prakash Sharma
Criminal Appeal No.1665/2015
Aslam Pathan S/o Alam Khan
Vs.
State of M.P.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Piyush Jain, learned counsel for the
respondent/State.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
ORDER
(Passed on 21st day of October, 2016) This appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") has been preferred against judgment and order dated 24.11.2015, rendered by Special Judge (under the Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 - for short, "the Act"), Indore whereby appellant Aslam Pathan, has been convicted for offence under Section 8/21(c) of "the Act" and has been sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of one year.
02. Prosecution story, briefly stated, is that on 07.04.2011, at around 06:00 a.m., a secrete telephonic information was received at Police Station - Aerodrome, Indore that one Aslam Pathan, son of Alam Pathan, having "Smack" in his possession, is coming in a Maruti Car, bearing Registration No.MP-09-HC-7797 from Depalpur to Indore to Cr.A. No.1665/2015 2 sell the same. This information was recorded at Serial No.435 in the daily diary (copy Ex.P/14). M.K. Bhargava (P.W. 2), the then Station House Officer, Police Station - Aerodrome, Indore, summoned two Panch witnesses namely - Rajendra Mishra (P.W.1) and Sanjay Chauhan (P.W.10). Memorandum (Ex.P/1) with regard to receipt of the aforesaid information was reduced in writing. Memo (Ex.P/2) was also prepared to the effect that due to paucity it is does not feasible to obtain a search warrant else, concerning person may escape away. Copy of this memorandum alongwith report (copy Ex.P/16) was sent, per messenger Head Constable Kishan Lal (P.W.5), to C.S.P., Malharganj, Indore. M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) thereafter, along with Panch witnesses Rajendra Mishra (P.W.
1), Sanjay Chauhan (P.W.10), Sub Inspector Badri Lal Medha (P.W.4) and few other police officials, proceeded towards Super Corridor, Indore in order to intercept the vehicle as per secret information. After half an hour, near Greater Baba Temple, the police party saw a Maruti Car of the given particular coming from Depalpur side. The same was intercepted by M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2). Appellant Aslam Pathan was driving the same with no other person in the car. The appellant tried to run away from the spot however, he was caught by the police party. M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) informed him that he is to be searched on account of suspicion that he is having contraband in his possession. Vide notice Ex.P/3, he was informed about his legal right to be searched in presence of nearest Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
03. Allegedly, the appellant, vide Ex.P/4 consented to Cr.A. No.1665/2015 3 be searched by M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2). Thereupon, after observing necessary formalities, search of the person of the appellant was carried out in which one kilogram five grams "Smack" was found kept in a polythene bag inside a pouch of cloth tied with a rope around west of the appellant. The same was recovered from the appellant. On being physically tested on the spot, the same was found to be "smack". Two samples of 25 gms. each were drawn from it packets of both samples and the remaining substance were separately sealed and marked respectively A1, A2 and A. The car as well as a mobile phone, found with the appellant were also seized alongwith the contraband vide seizure memo (Ex.P/11). The appellant was arrested, vide Arrest Memo (Ex.P/12). After conducting raid, the police party lead by M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) came back to police station - Aerodrome. Articles A1, A2 and A were again sealed at Police Station and thereafter deposited in Malkhana with Head Constable Dayaram (P.W.3). FIR Ex.P/21 was recorded against the appellant for offence under Section 8/21(c) of 'The Act' . Detailed report copy Ex.P/22 regarding arrest and seizure was made to C.S.P., Malharganj, Indore. One of the samples was sent through Constable Jitendra Jain (P.W.9), vide memo Ex.P/26, to forensic science laboratory, Bhopal. The same was deposited with the forensic laboratory on 13.04.2011. Dr. D.K. Sharma (P.W.11), Senior Forensic Officer, FSL, Bhopal, vide report (Ex.P/33) found the substance kept in the sealed packet, as "Di-acital Morphine"
(heroine) having concentration of 17.89%.
04. The appellant during interrogation revealed that he Cr.A. No.1665/2015 4 had procured the contraband from Dashrath therefore, he was also apprehended. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid against the appellant and Dashrath before Special Judge, Indore. Appellant Aslam Pathan and co- accused Dashrath were, respectively, charged under Section 8/21(c) and Section 29 of "the Act". Both of them abjured guilt and pleading innocence, claimed to be tried.
05. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge, examined as many as 10 witnesses including M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2), Sub Inspector Badri Lal Medha (P.W.4), Head Constable Kishan Lal (P.W. 5), Constable Jitendra Jain (P.W.
9) and Panch witnesses Rajendra Sharma (P.W.1) and Sanjay Chouhan (P.W.10). Documents Ex. P/1 to Ex.P/40 were also marked in evidence. Two witnesses Alam Khan (D.W. 1) - the father of the appellant and Usman Khan (D.W. 2) - the brother of the appellant were examined in defence. Apart that, documents Ex.D/1 to Ex.D/9 were also marked.
06. The appellant in his examination under Section 313 of "the Code" denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded that on 05.04.2011, he and his brother Usman Khan (D.W.2) were lifted by police from their house at Jaora. Usman Khan (D.W. 2) was allowed to leave with the understanding that the appellant shall be freed from custody, if a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is paid by him to M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2), else the appellant shall be implicated in a case of narcotics. Co- accused Dashrath also denied the prosecution case and claimed false implication.
Cr.A. No.1665/2015 507. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, vide the impugned judgement, came to hold that the appellant was found in possession of contraband one kilogram and five gram,opium which was seized from his possession by M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) after duly complying with various procedural safeguard stipulated in "the Act".
08. As no connecting material could be found against co-accused Dashrath, except the disclosure statement of the appellant, he was acquitted of charge under Section 29 of "the Act". The appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated herein above.
09. The appellant has challenged his conviction on the ground that the learned trial Court overlooking material contradictions and omissions, has recorded conviction on the basis of faulty appreciation of evidence, which is wholly unwarranted by law. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the defence put-forth by the appellant has been wrongly discarded. It is further submitted that compliance of provisions contended in Sections 42, 50, 52, 52-A, 55 and 57 of "the Act" was not duly proved and that the prosecution story was not supported by the independent Panch witnesses, therefore, the conviction and sentence deserves to be set aside.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State has submitted that the learned trial Court on due appreciation of evidence has convicted the appellant for offence under Section 8/21(c) of "the Act". It is further submitted that as the contraband was recovered in search of the person and that search of the vehicle, vessel, conveyance was not involved, Cr.A. No.1665/2015 6 therefore, Section 42 of ''the Act'' was not attracted in the instant case, still, the provisions contained in Section 42, 50, 52-A, 55 and 57 of "the Act" were scrupulously complied with by the police. Lastly it is submitted that the defence put-forth by the appellant was discarded after due consideration being found unworthy of credence, hence, no interference is called for in the impugned judgment.
11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. In view of the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is required to be seen whether alleged contraband was recovered from the appellant as alleged and that various procedural safeguards stipulated in "the Act" were duly complied with?
13. Section 42, which pertains to entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation, runs 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 intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central 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 Cr.A. No.1665/2015 7 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 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 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 Cr.A. No.1665/2015 8 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.]"
14. In a catena of cases, including State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh: (1994) 3 SCC 299, it has clearly been held that compliance of Section 42 of "the Act" is required only in cases pertaining to search of building, conveyance or place. Where contraband has been recovered pursuant to search of the person and not on the search of the vehicle, vessel or conveyance then, compliance of Section 42 of "the Act" will not be required.
15. As the instant case did not involve search of the premises, or conveyance, therefore, compliance of Section 42 of "the Act" was not required. However, from the evidence, it is found that the information received by M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) was recorded in the daily dairy of police station at Sr. No.435. Apart this, as deposed by M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2), Panchnama (Ex.P/1) and (Ex.P/2) were prepared immediately in presence of Panch witnesses Rajendra Sharma (P.W.1) and Sanjay Chouhan (P.W.10). Though both these witnesses having admitted their signatures on various documents, have not supported the prosecution case, there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of M.K. Bhargava (P.W.-2), which is duly corroborated by contemporaneous documents (Ex.P/2 Cr.A. No.1665/2015 9 and Ex.P/14). It is further found as deposed by Kishan Lal (P.W. 5) that he delivered copies of Ex.P/1, Ex,.P/2 and Ex.P/16 to Hemant Tiwari (P.W.6)- the Reader to C.S.P., Malharganj on the same day. Testimony of these two witnesses stands further corroborated with Ex.P/1, Ex.P/2 and Ex.P/16. It is noticeable that necessary entry in this regard was also made in the daily diary a copy ( Ex.P/17) of which was produced before the Court.
16. Thus, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has erred in recording a finding about proper compliance of Section 42 of "the Act".
17. With regard to Section 50 of "the Act", which relates to search of persons, Hon'ble the Apex Court in State of Delhi Vs. Ram Avtar @ Rama reported in 2011 (7) SCALE 428, referring to various pronouncement on the issue has considered at length about ambit,scope and applicability of Section 50 of ''the Act''. Relevant part of the observations runs as under:
"15. In the case of Vijaysingh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2007) 1 SCC 433, a three Judge Bench of this Court had taken the view that the accused must be informed of his right to be searched in presence of a Magistrate and/or a Gazetted Officer, but in light of some of the judgments we have mentioned above, a reference to the larger bench was made, resulting.
16. Accordingly, a Constitution Bench was constituted and in the case of Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) of this Court, referring to the language of Section 50 of the Act, and after discussing the above-mentioned judgments of this Court, took the view that there was a right given to Cr.A. No.1665/2015 10 the person to be searched, which he may exercise at his option. The Bench further held that substantial compliance is not applicable to Section 50 of the Act as its requirements were imperative. The Court, however, refrained from specifically deciding whether the provisions were directory or mandatory. It will be useful to refer the relevant parts of the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra). In para 23, the Court said 'In the above background, we shall now advert to the controversy at hand. For this purpose, it would be necessary to recapitulate the conclusions, arrived at by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh case'. After further referring to the conclusions arrived at by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's case (supra) (which have been referred by us in para 9 of this judgment) and reiterating the same the Constitution Bench in Vijaysinh Chandubha Jadeja (supra) this case concluded as under:
31. We are of the opinion that the concept of "substantial compliance" with the requirement of Section 50 of the NDPS Act introduced and read into the mandate of the said section in Joseph Fernandez and Prabha Shankar Dubey is neither borne out from the language of Sub-section (1) of Section 50 nor it is in consonance with the dictum laid down in Baldev Singh case. Needless to add that the question whether or not the procedure prescribed has been followed and the requirement of Section 50 had been met, is a matter of trial. It would neither be possible nor feasible to lay down any absolute formula in that behalf."
18. The aforesaid pronouncement makes it abundantly clear speaks that the compliance of Section 50 should be proved in later and spirit and that even substantial compliance cannot be sufficient to establish that Section 50 was complied with.
Cr.A. No.1665/2015 1119. M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) with regard to compliance of Section 50 of "the Act" has deposed as under in para 5:
"vkidks fof/k vuqlkj ;g dkuwuh gd gS fd vki viuh ryk'kh fudVre eftLVsªV egksn; vFkok jktif=r vf/kdkjh ds le{k djok ldrs gSA mDr lwpuk crkrs /kkjk 50 ,u-Mh-ih-,l-,DV dk lwpuki= fn;k Fkk tks iz- ih&3 gS!"
20. The relevant part of notice (Ex.P/3) said to have been given to the appellant with regard to compliance of Section 50 of "the Act" also required to be reproduced, which run as under :
^^vkidks ;g dkuwuh vf/kdkjh gS fd vki pkgs rks vkidh ryk'kh fudVre eftLVªsV egksn; ;k jktif=r vf/kdkjh ds le{k djkbZ tk ldrh gSA^^
21. The aforesaid testimony of M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) has stood the test of cross examination because no anomaly, omission or contradictions has emerged in his detailed cross- examination on this point, which further stands corroborated by testimony of Badri Lal Medha (P.W.4), who was part of the police party.
22. From the aforesaid, it clearly transpires that the appellant was apprised in so many words abut his legal right to be searched in presence of nearest Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. It is further found that vide Ex.P/4 the appellant in writing stated that he is prepared to be searched by M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2).
23. Thus, in the instant case, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 50 of "the Act", were not complied with in the manner ordained by the apex Court. Therefore, the Cr.A. No.1665/2015 12 identical finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard, cannot be said to be erroneous.
24. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the pronouncement of the apex Court in Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab and another, 2008 Cr.L.R. (SC) 655, and has contended that the Section 52-A of the Act was not complied with in this case. As regards compliance of Section 52-A of "the Act", the prosecution has examined Bihari Singh (P.W.7), Executive Magistrate/Tehsildar, who has deposed that on 15.06.2011, Muddemaal in Crime No.218/2011, Police Station
- Aerodrome was produced before him by Badri Lal Medha (P.W.4) at the police station, which was examined by him and was re-sealed after drawing two samples of 25 gms. each. Photographs were also taken of these proceedings, being Ex.H/1 to Ex.H/12. The testimony of Bihari Singh (P.W.7) stands corroborated by Badri Lal Medha (P.W.4), who was present at the relevant time. Both these witnesses have no axe to grind against the appellant, nor their testimony suffers from any serious anomaly, hence the same deserves to be accepted, which further stands corroborated by contemporaneous documents Ex.P/38 and Ex.P/39, prepared by Bihari Singh (P.W.7) on verification of Muddemaal. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial Court has committed any error in arriving at the conclusion that Section 52-A of "the Act" was complied with properly.
25. It has further been contended that the prosecution has not complied with Section 52 of "the Act". However, from the testimony of M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2), it is found that the Cr.A. No.1665/2015 13 samples of the alleged contraband as well as remaining contraband were produced before the Court and marked as Articles during examination of M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2), (para 21, 22, 23 and 24). Thus, it is not a case where either the samples or remaining contraband was not produced before the Court. Therefore, no fault can be found with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court as regards compliance of Section 52-A and Section 52 of "the Act".
26. From the testimony of M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2), which stands corroborated by Kishan Lal (P.W.5) and Hemant Tiwari (P.W.6), it is further found that report Ex.P/22 regarding seizure and arrest was sent by him on the next day through constable Jitendra Jain (P.W.9) to C.S.P., Malharganj, Indore, which was received by his Reader Hemant Tiwari (P.W.6).
27. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P/22 is not a complete report, therefore, it cannot be said that Section 57 of "the Act" was complied with as required by law. In this connection, reference can be made to para 11 of the Court statement of M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) wherein, he has stated that complete report with regard to the proceedings was sent per messenger Jitendra Jain (P.W.9) to C.S.P., Malharganj, Indore. This witness has further deposed in para 12 that a copy of FIR, seizure memo and arrest memo was also sent to the concerned Court next day i.e. on 08.04.2011 and receipt in this connection was obtained as Ex.P/25. The statement of M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2) on this point has been corroborated not only by Kishan Lal (P.W.5), Cr.A. No.1665/2015 14 who delivered the report in the office of C.S.P., Malharganj, Indore but also by Hemant Tiwari (P.W.6), who at the relevant time was working as a Reader to C.S.P., Malharganj, Indore.
28. Apart this, relevant entries with regard to sending of the report have been made in Ex.P/23, which is copy of daily diary. It appears that due to negligence of the Reader of the trial Court, the second page of Ex.P/2 has not been annexed with the record, therefore, no benefit can be derived by the appellant for this error on the part of the clerical staff of trial Court, because, from the evidence available on record, substantial compliance of provisions of Section 57 of "the Act", which are directory in nature, is established.
29. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that a false case has been foisted against the appellant on account of previous enmity. Attention of this Court in this regard has been drawn to the testimony of Alam Khan (D.W.1) and Usman Khan (D.W.2), respectively, the father and brother of the accused. The defence put-forth by the appellant has been that the appellant alongwith his brother Usman Khan (D.W.2) was lifted away from their house at Jaora on 05.04.2011 regarding which their father Alam Khan (D.W.1) had sent telegram (Ex.D/5 and Ex.D/6) to the National Human Rights commission and State Human Rights Commission. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly examined the evidence in this behalf.
30. The aforesaid defence has not been found proved by the learned trial Court and rightly so because while the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the Code Cr.A. No.1665/2015 15 has stated that Usman Khan (D.W.2) was allowed to go away from the police custody on 06.04.2011 on his assurance that he will come back with Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2); Usman Khan (D.W.2) has deposed that he was allowed to leave the police station on 07.04.2011, when he promised to arrange Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid to M.K. Bhargava (P.W.2). Thus, there is an apparent anomaly in the statement made by the appellant in examination under Section 313 of the Code and the version put forth by Usman Khan (D.W.2) as to when he was allowed to go leave the police station and how much money was required to be arranged.
31. Here it is noticeable that as per Alam Khan (D.W.1) telegrams-Ex.D/5 and Ex.D/6 were sent by him on 06.04.2016 however, as per appellant, on that very day, Usman Khan (D.W.2) was allowed to leave the police station. Thus, the story that the appellant alongwith his brother was lifted away by police and kept in illegal custody and the Usman Khan was allowed to leave the police station, does not appear at all to be trustworthy. Hence, the same has rightly been rejected by the trial Court.
32. Learned counsel for the appellant has further drawn the attention of this Court to Ex.D/4, which is said to be photo copy of an agreement to sell of the vehicle, which allegedly was recovered from the possession of the appellant during raid.
33. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.D/3 has been certified by the Notary on 11.04.2011 while it was seized by the Police on 07.04.2011, Cr.A. No.1665/2015 16 which is quite contradictory in terms, therefore, a serious doubt arises about the truthfulness of the prosecution case. The plea raised in this behalf is liable to be rejected for the simple reason that Ex.D/3, a photo copy of a true copy of alleged sale agreement of vehicle, has not been formally proved, it cannot be said with certainty that it bears the signatures of the Notary. Though, certain seals and signatures have been put on it, however, the concerned Notary was not examined in the defence to prove the same. Apart this, Ex.D/3 has been seized from the possession of the appellant, therefore, it was for the appellant to explain regarding any anomaly in the document and not for the prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said that learned trial Court has erred in not accepting the plea raised in this behalf.
34. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Panch witnesses Rajendra Sharma (P.W.1) and Sanjay Chauhan (P.W.10) have not supported the prosecution case, therefore, the learned trial Court ought to have rejected the testimony of Police officers. However, this plea is devoid of merit. Time and again, it has been held by the apex Court that testimony of police officer, if otherwise, found to be trustworthy, cannot be rejected on the ground that it is not corroborated by independent evidence.
35. It is not uncommon to find that Panch witnesses relating to various steps taken during investigation like seizure, etc. do turn hostile; not always because they were not associated with that particular proceeding. In such a case the uncorroborated testimony of police officer should be Cr.A. No.1665/2015 17 examined and evaluated to find out whether it is trustworthy. In Nathu Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1973 SC 2783, a case from M.P. relating to seizure of 59 live cartridges, wherein the accused was convicted u/s 25 (1) (a) of the Arms Act, the defence challenged the evidence of two police officers because the panch witnesses turned hostile. Repelling the plea the apex Court held that the mere fact that these two witnesses are police officers was not enough to discard their evidence.
36. Elaborating the principle in Karamjit Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2003) 5 SCC 291 the apex Court observed that the testimony of police personnel should be treated in the same manner as testimony of any other witness and there is no principle of law that without corroboration by independent witnesses their testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a police personnel as of other persons and it is not a proper judicial approach to distrust and suspect them without good grounds. It will all depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no principle of general application can be laid down.
37. Similar view has been expressed by our own High Court in Babulal v. State of M.P., 2004 (2) JLJ 425. Therefore, what can be concluded is that mechanical rejection of the testimony of the police witness cannot be said to be a judicial approach, rather such evidence should be scanned and examined by applying the same parameters, which are applicable to an ordinary witness.
38. Further it is noticeable that both the Panch Cr.A. No.1665/2015 18 witnesses have not denied their signatures on contemporaneous documents. Though, they have deposed that they had signed on blank papers, however, the same is not creditworthy because it is not their case that they were threatened by police to put signatures on blank papers. Apart this, they have not complained to any senior police officer that they were made to put their signatures on blank papers.
39. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the learned trial Court has committed any error in recording conviction against the appellant for offence under Section 8/21(c) of "the Act". Therefore, this appeal being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge soumya