NAGHA MAHBATSINH ZALA v. STATE — 1999 DIGILAW 714 (GUJ)

M. S. PARIKH, H. K. RATHOD, J. ( 1 ) THIS conviction appeal arises from the impugned judgment and order dated 18/8/1990 rendered by the Ld. 2nd Joint District Judge and Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Sessions Case No. 148/1988. The accused Nagbha Mahobatsinh Zala has been convicted of the offence punishable u/s. 17 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ndps Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Muddamal has been directed to be confiscated and sent to Excise and Prohibition Department. ( 2 ) AS per the prosecution case, Mr. B. N. Thumar, Police Sub Inspector, Dhandhuka Police Station had received information on or around 22/10/1988 that the accused, inhabitant of village Sarval was to carry with him opium at the Dhandhuka S. T. Bus Stand. He, therefore, called two panch witnesses and in their company as also in the company of the policemen, who were present at the police station, proceeded to the Dhandhuka S. T. Bus Stand after explaining the substance of the information received by him to the Panch witnesses. He saw to the S. T. Bus Stand to be cordoned at 13. 05 hours for keeping a watch in respect of the person for whom information was received as aforesaid. Upon the accused reaching the entrance of the S. T. Bus Stand, P. S. I. Mr. Thumar stopped him asking him his name. The accused disclosed his name as aforesaid. Mr. Thumar searched him in the present of the Panch witnesses and found black substance from the jacket which the accused had put on. Upon opening of the black substance, it was found to be smelling opium, which substance was around 450 grams in weight and valued at Rs. 1350. 00. Upon being asked, the accused revealed that he did not have any pass or permit. Mr. Thumar thereafter took a sample of 25 Grams of opium in a small plastic bag. Both the bags thereafter were sealed after affixing slips bearing the signatures of the Panch witnesses and the P. S. I. , Dhandhuka. The Panchnama was drawn between 14 to 15 hours on that day. Mr. Thumar then gave complaint u/s. 66 A of the Bombay Prohibition Act and section 17 of the NDPS Act. Both the bags thereafter were sealed after affixing slips bearing the signatures of the Panch witnesses and the P. S. I. , Dhandhuka. The Panchnama was drawn between 14 to 15 hours on that day. Mr. Thumar then gave complaint u/s. 66 A of the Bombay Prohibition Act and section 17 of the NDPS Act. He had taken the accused and the Muddamal to the Dhandhuka Police Station and handed them over to the Writer head. Forwarding letter exh. 33 was also handed over alongwith Muddamal which was sent through S. D. P. O. Dholka Division to the Forensic Science Laboratory (for short fsl ). Upon receipt of the report from the FSL charge-sheet was filed and the accused was committed to the Sessions Court. Upon transfer of the matter to the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge the accused came to be charged for the offences punishable under sections 17 and 20 B of the NDPS Act. ( 3 ) THE prosecution examined following witnesses :- (I) Prabhubhai Popatbhai Patel, P. W. 1 exh. 10 (II) Ramanlal Manilal Bhatia, P. W. 2, exh. 11 (III) Hargovindbhai Jivabhai, P. W. 3 exh. 14 (IV) Smt. Rajnikanta Narendrakumar Shah, PW. 4, exh. 16 (V) Jagdishbhai Mulchandbhai, P. W. 5 exh. 21 (VI) Jamnadas Kanjibhai Vaishnani, P. W. 6, exh. 22 (VII) Pratapsinh Dashrathsinh, P. W. 7, exh. 26 (VIII) Bhikhulal Nathalal Thumar, P. W. 8, exh. 31. The prosecution also placed on record respective Panchnama at exh. 13 and reports of the Chemical Analysis and Public Analysis respectively at exh. 18 and 20. After the prosecution adduced evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per his written reply exh. 34 the accused cited Bapubha Umedsang Zala and Motibhai Harijan as defence witnesses, but only Bapubha Umedsang has been examined as such. 18 and 20. After the prosecution adduced evidence, statement of the accused was recorded u/s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per his written reply exh. 34 the accused cited Bapubha Umedsang Zala and Motibhai Harijan as defence witnesses, but only Bapubha Umedsang has been examined as such. While denying the allegations contained in the prosecution case the accused asserted that he was an agriculturist and Sarpanch of the village for five years, that he was also working as the social worker, that he was aged 65 years, that he was attending to the problems of the people as a social worker and, therefore, he had occasions to go to Mamlatdar office as well as police station at Dhandhuka, that police constable Mahobatsinh knew him, that Sarpanch Jorubha Nathubha and his brother ex-Sarpanch Ramjibhai Nathubha were against him and they had good relations with constable Mahobatsinh, that police constables of Dhandhuka police station were not hearing complaints of the people and were harassing people, that there was ill-feeling on the part of the local people for the officers of Dhandhuka Police Station, that P. S. I. Mr. Jadeja of Dhandhuka Police Station, the predecessor of P. S. I. Mr. Thumar came to be trapped in anti-corrpution case and was suspended, that head constable Mahobatsinh was also suspended on account of that case, that it was alleged against the accused, that he got false anti-corruption case filed against Mr. Jadeja, that head constable Mahobatsinh rebuked the accused and asked him why he took interest against the police in that case and that his life would be spoiled, that on account of such enmity, P. S. I. Mr. Thumar and head constable Mahobatsinh at the instance of P. S. I. Mr. Jadeja called him from his house and falsely implicated him in the present case of opium. It has further been asserted by the accused that P. S. I. Mr. Thumar and head constable Mahobatsinh were allso trapped in another anti-corruption case and were suspended pending that case. ( 4 ) DEALING with the prosecution evidence and the defence version, the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that although the Panch witnesses did not support the prosecution, police witnesses inspired confidence and the defence of the accused was not acceptable. He, therefore, rendered conviction and imposed sentence as aforesaid against the accused. ( 4 ) DEALING with the prosecution evidence and the defence version, the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that although the Panch witnesses did not support the prosecution, police witnesses inspired confidence and the defence of the accused was not acceptable. He, therefore, rendered conviction and imposed sentence as aforesaid against the accused. That is how the accused is before this Court. ( 5 ) THIS appeal has been placed for final hearing before this Court. Mr. K. J. Panchal, learned advocate appearing for Mr. J. M. Panchal for the accused sought to assail the conviction of the accused broadly on three grounds. On a commendable scrutiny of facts he submitted that the provision of section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with by the prosecution and, therefore, the accuseds conviction would deserve to be set aside, since presumption u/s. 54 of the NDPS Act would not be available to the prosecution. He secondly submitted that identity of the Muddamal opium has not been established. His final submission has been against placing reliance upon the prosecution evidence on account of material contradictions thereof. Mr. V. M. Pancholi, Ld. A. P. P. for the State sought to support the conviction by replying the aforesaid broad propositions while reading the evidence of the concerned police witnesses. We would therefore, proceed to deal with the submissions so made before us. ( 6 ) IT is not that the non-compliance of provision of section 50 of the NDPS Act has been canvassed before us for the first time. It was pressed into service even before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge who while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in the case of Surajmal Kanaiyalal Soni v. State of Gujarat reported in 1990 (1) G. L. H. 122, concluded that since the accused did not express his desire to be searched in presence of a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate, it was not necessary for the searching officer to inform the accused about his right flowing from section 50 of the NDPS Act. The Ld. Judge has quoted para. 31 of the citation in support of his conclusion. The Ld. Judge has quoted para. 31 of the citation in support of his conclusion. A Division bench of this Court has observed that the provision of section 50 provides for the additional safeguard in respect of personal search probably with a view that authorised officer may not misuse the power and that the person who is to be searched has, however to require the authorised officer to make him search in the presence of the nearest Gazette officer of the Department mentioned in section 42 of the NDPS Act or in the presence of the nearest Magistrate and if no such requisition is made, it would not be necessary for the authorised officer to subject a person to the Gazette officer or the nearest Magistrate. It has fairly been conceded on behalf of the State that the law in respect of the interpretation of section 50 of the NDPS Act has undergone a change. A Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh reported in (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 172 has in no uncertain terms laid down that the person who is sought to be searched by the concerned officer or the concerned police person as stated in section 50 of the NDPS Act has a right to be informed by such officer or police person about whether he would like to be searched in presence of a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate. This Court had an occasion to consider the decision in Baldev Singhs case (supra) in Ravishankar Bhagvatiprasad v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 774 of 1995 decided on 5/10/1999 (Coram : M. S. Parikh and H. R. Shelat, JJ. ). It is no-doubt true that this Court had an occasion to observe that it would be sufficient if the accused was informed about he being searched and examined in presence of senior officer such as Gazette Officer or a Magistrate. In the present case, the Investigating Officer, who happens to be the Searching Officer, Mr. Thumar, did not ask the accused as to whether he wanted to be searched in presence of a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate. A faint effort was made on behalf of the prosecution to point out from the evidence of Mr. Thumar P. W. 8, exh. Thumar, did not ask the accused as to whether he wanted to be searched in presence of a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate. A faint effort was made on behalf of the prosecution to point out from the evidence of Mr. Thumar P. W. 8, exh. 31 that he did question the accused about whether he would like to be searched in presence of a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate. However, upon scrutiny of the evidence as well as the F. I. R. it clearly transpired that such a question was never asked by the Searching Officer. It was submitted on behalf of the prosecution that the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge placed reliance upon the evidence of P. S. I. Mr. Thumar and if his testimony is believed, non-obervance of section 50 of the NDPS Act can hardly be canvassed. However, he gracefully conceded that neither the F. I. R. nor the Panchnama disclosed this precise fact with regard to whether PSI Mr. Thumar offered the accused for being examined/searched in presence of the aforesaid officers. If that is so, the prosecution has to be held as having failed to establish that there was compliance of section 50 of the NDPS Act. In T. P. Razak alias Nagappan Razak v/s. State of Kerala reported in 1996 S. C. C. (Cri.) 57, dealing with similar drawback, the Supreme Court has observed as under :-"7. HAVING regard to the fact that the FIR and Seizure Mahazar do not mention about the appellant having been asked before the search was conducted as to whether he would like to be produced before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and the further fact that PW 1, the other independent witness, also does not state about this we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to establish that there was compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act before conducting the search of the appellant. In view of the non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act no reliance can be placed on the alleged search of the person of the appellant and the alleged recovery of four small packets containing 370 mg. of brown sugar from his possession. The conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant cannot, therefore, be upheld and has to be set aside. of brown sugar from his possession. The conviction and the sentence imposed on the appellant cannot, therefore, be upheld and has to be set aside. "it has, therefore, to be taken that procedure as prescribed in section 50 of the NDPS Act about informing the accused as to whether he would like to be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate has not been complied with in the present case. It is now a settled proposition of law that such non-compliance would obviously result into acquittal although the question whether compliance of the provision of Sec. 50 is mandatory has been left open by the Constitution Bench in Baldevsinghs case (supra ). We would not have strained any further in this matter and would have over turned the impugned conviction and sentenced only on this ground. However, the second submission made on behalf of the accused, in our opinion, would merit consideration in order to make it known to the police management about the rough manner in which the Muddamal article has been dealt with in the present case. ( 7 ) IT is no-doubt true that the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed the question at length. However, we find from the discussion that the importance of weighing Muddamal article at the relevant point of time has been overlooked. It has appeared in the prosecution evidence as also in the reasoning part of the impugned judgment that what was seized was approximately 450 grams of opium. It has also appeared in the prosecution evidence as well as in the reasoning part of the impugned judgment that sample of approximately 25 grams of opium was made. It might be noted from the various provisions of the NDPS Act that the quantity (weight) of the illicit article prohibited under the NDPS Act would assume a great deal of importance. Under such circumstances, absence of weighing the Muddamal article searched and seized under the relevant provisions of the NDPS Act might in a given case go at the root of the matter. This is the first basic flaw in the prosecution case in so far as the present matter is concerned. It has also appeared in the prosecution evidence that the alleged offence is stated to have occurred on 22/10/1988. The sample taken out from the Muddamal opium has reached Local Crime Branch 27 days thereafter i. e. on 19/11/1988. This is the first basic flaw in the prosecution case in so far as the present matter is concerned. It has also appeared in the prosecution evidence that the alleged offence is stated to have occurred on 22/10/1988. The sample taken out from the Muddamal opium has reached Local Crime Branch 27 days thereafter i. e. on 19/11/1988. That has remained with the Local Crime Branch from 19/11/1988 to 1/12/1988. It travelled to FSL on 1/12/1988. Once-again the concerned officer of the FSL had an occasion to return the sample article as per forwarding letter exh. 30. We notice from this communication that on the sample packet there was absence of C. R. No. , required Muddamal slip and name of police station. The sample article accordingly went back to the Local Crime Branch, who in turn sent it back to Dhandhuka Police Station. Once-again, the sample article was placed into motion by Dhandhuka Police Station and it accordingly reached Local Crime Branch on 5/12/1988, that in turn reached the FSL on 8/12/1988. We notice the undue passage of time in this procedure. We have also noticed the lapses on the part of the prosecution in communicating the sample article. It has been submitted on behalf of the State that the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has dealt with these lapses at length in para. 29 of the impugned judgment. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has proceeded to examine these lapses in the context of whether the sample taken out from the Muddamal opium has been changed at any of the places or in transit. In the process the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge had to rely upon the basic flaw on the part of the prosecution about the weighment of the Muddamal article. He had to observe that it was approximately 450 grams of opium that was searched and seized and it was approximately 25 grams of opium that was taken out by way of sample. We are unable to countenance this type of reasoning where in a case where weight/quantity of offending article under the NDPS Act would assume importance. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge was required to resort to such type of reasoning since there was a submission before him that even the approximate weight of sample opium did not tally with the actual weight of opium which reached the hands of experts in FSL. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge was required to resort to such type of reasoning since there was a submission before him that even the approximate weight of sample opium did not tally with the actual weight of opium which reached the hands of experts in FSL. It is not in dispute that it was 40 + grams of sample opium which reached FSL. The difference in so far as the sample is concerned cannot be said to be so negligible and in no case it can be explained away by saying that the sample was taken on approximation of weight. We are not in a position to endorse the conclusions and reasonings in support of such conclusions with regard to the passage of time taken in sending the sample opium to the FSL as also the difference in weight of the sample opium appearing at the time of taking of the sample as well as at the time when the sample reached the hands of experts in FSL. Simply because the report exh. 20 and the expert P. W. 6 exh. 22 speak about the sample packet containing the seal of the police station as well as the slip with the signatures of the Panch witnesses Patel Prabhudas and Ramanbhai Manilal Bhatiya, it cannot be assumed that it was the same sample which was alleged to have been taken out from the Muddamal article, which ultimately was passed on to the experts. The prosecution evidence cannot be said to be flawness in this respect. We, therefore, find that this is a classic case where the prosecution has displayed a great deal of inadvertence, if not anything else, in the matter of forwarding of the sample article for examination by the expert in FSL. Reference was made before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge as well as before us to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v/s. Daulat Ram reported in 1980 Cri. L. J. 929 ( AIR 1980 SC 1314 ). Reference was made before the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge as well as before us to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan v/s. Daulat Ram reported in 1980 Cri. L. J. 929 ( AIR 1980 SC 1314 ). It has been observed dealing with the similar lapses, that the inevitable effect of such omission is that the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of the samples being changed or tampered with during the intervening period, which fact has to be proved affirmatively by the prosecution (in contrast with drawing of any inference from the statements appearing in the report of the Public Analyst and his oral evidence ). It has also been observed by the Apex Court that that was the main infirmity relied upon by the High Court in holding that the prosecution failed to prove that right from the stage of the seizure of the opium upto the time the samples were handed over to the Public Analyst the seals remained intact. In the present case, when first the sample was returned by the expert from the FSL it was returned on the ground that it even did not contain the seal of the police station as well as the slip with the signatures of the Panch witnesses. The prosecution in the present case has also not examined the witnesses who had occasions to deal with the sample on both the occasions of its transmission and retransmission from and to the FSL. It has further been observed by the Apex Court that even though the labels were not in order it was for the prosecution affirmatively to prove that the seals were still intact. It has further been observed that it cannot be said that the prosecution proved all the links starting from the seizure of the sample till the same reached the hands of the Public Analyst so that the Court could conclude that the seals remained intact throughout. In the background of such lapses the Apex Court concluded that the onus of proof being of prosecution, it could not be allowed to fill up the gaps. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge dealing with this decision has observed that the case before the Supreme Court was distinguishable as in that case several samples were taken and exchanged into several hands before the same reached Public Analyst. The Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge dealing with this decision has observed that the case before the Supreme Court was distinguishable as in that case several samples were taken and exchanged into several hands before the same reached Public Analyst. In the background of such facts, the inevitable effect was that the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of samples being changed or tampered with during the intervening pe6iod. The Ld. Judge has then referred to Surajmals case (supra ). He has then made reference to the evidence of head constable Pratapsinh Dashrathbhai, P. W. 7 exh. 26, who deposed that the Muddamal which was to be sent to the FSL from Taluka Police Station would first go to the office of the witness (LCB) and thereafter it would be transmitted to the FSL. He has stated that on 19/11/1988 the Muddamal sample was received in a sealed condition and the same was sent to FSL on 8/12/1988. Reference has been made to a receipt given by FSL in token of receipt of such sample appearing at exh. 27. Reference has then been made to the forwarding letter exh. 28 and entry exh. 29. This is what the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge has observed "i had called for the original register at the time of writing judgment and in exh. 29 a note is made that the sample was defective and, therefore, it is sent back to Dhandhuka Police Station, exh. 30 is a letter written by the P. S. I. , L. C. Branch, Ahmedabad to P. S. I. Dhandhuka which mentions that the Muddamal sample was taken to Forensic Science Laboratory on 1/12/1988 but the same was not accepted by Forensic Science Laboratory as on the back of the Muddamal, no C. R. No. , Muddamal Pavti No. or name of the police station was mentioned and, therefore, with Form No. 7 of Forensic Science Laboratory, the same was sent back to the Dhandhuka Police Station, which was received in Dhandhuka Police Station on 5/12/1988 and on the same day vide onward no. 2868/88 dated 5/12/1988 same was sent back to L. C. B. , Ahmedabad. The Muddamal was received in L. C. Branch on 19/11/88. Looking to the prohibition sample register, it is seen that several samples of a particular police station are taken by the police constable to the Local Crime Branch, Ahmedabad on one day. 2868/88 dated 5/12/1988 same was sent back to L. C. B. , Ahmedabad. The Muddamal was received in L. C. Branch on 19/11/88. Looking to the prohibition sample register, it is seen that several samples of a particular police station are taken by the police constable to the Local Crime Branch, Ahmedabad on one day. I pursued the sample register to ascertain as to why the Muddamal was lying for a longer time in a police station. I could see from the register that on 17/11/88 nearly 27 samples were taken to the Local Crime Branch, Ahmedabad and this was the reason why the sample remained with the police upto 18/11/88. If we look to the report of Chemical Analyser exh. 20, it is mentioned that a sealed paper bag bearing the seal of police sub-inspector, Dhandhuka was received and it tallied with the specimen seal exh. 24. So, it does not appear that the Muddamal sample was in any way tampered with while it was taken to the Forensic Science Laboratory. " We fail to understand the approach of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge in making reference to the respective registers at the time of the judgment. Even while reading the aforesaid observations of the Ld. Addl. Sessions Judge we are unable to reconcile with the fact that when the sample was returned by the FSL, the same was devoid of identity of the police station as well as required slip. If that was so, it would follow that some overt act with regard to such formalities might have been undertaken by the concerned police authorities during the intervening period when the sample was again sent back to the FSL. We are unable to find any explanation or evidence with regard to what transpired while dealing with the sample second time in the process of re-forwarding the same to the FSL. In our considered opinion, the decision of the Apex Court in Daulat Rams case (supra) will squarely apply to the present case. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the sample taken from the Muddamal article itself has been forwarded and reached the expert in the FSL, otherwise it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt with regard to forwarding of the very sample from the very Muddamal alleged to have been searched and seized from the accused. We, therefore, accept the second submission made on behalf of the accused. ( 8 ) THE third one deals with the evidence in the context of material contradictions appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness no. 5 and prosecution witness no. 3 respectively exhs. 21 and 14 (Jagdish Mulchand and Hargovind Jivanbhai ). [ We feel that we should not deal with the discrepancies with regard to the description of the inner pocket or the outer pocket of the Jawahar jacket put on by the accused at the relevant point of time from which the illicit article was alleged to have been found. In our opinion that would be unnecessary exercise in view of what is stated above. ] We, however, propose to deal with the defence at this stage. It can be seen from the defence version that the accused happened to be a social worker apart from he being an agriculturist and a Sarpanch at some point of time. He had quite a number of occasions to go to the Dhandhuka Police Station for voicing the grievances of the local people. He has made a reference to two trap cases one against P. S. I. Mr. Jadeja, who was the predecessor of P. S. I. Mr. Thumar. Next is the trap case against Mr. Thumar. He has come out with a story of false implication at the threshold. He has also examined a defence witness Mr. Bapubha Umedsang Jala, D. W. No. 1, who has testified that there was a trap case against P. S. I. Mr. Jadeja and after initiation of that case head constable Mahobatsinh had an occasion to see the witness. Mahobatsinh who was one of the members of the raiding party in the present case, addressed the witness that since the accused had taken interest in seeing that Mr. Jadeja got trapped, he would not be spared by the police. The witness informed the accused about what Mahobatsinh told him. He has also referred to a subsequent trap case in which P. S. I. Mr. Thumar and Mahobatsinh were charged for taking illegal gratification. It is true that it has been revealed in evidence that Mr. Jadeja has been acquitted of the charge of having taken illegal gratification. The witness informed the accused about what Mahobatsinh told him. He has also referred to a subsequent trap case in which P. S. I. Mr. Thumar and Mahobatsinh were charged for taking illegal gratification. It is true that it has been revealed in evidence that Mr. Jadeja has been acquitted of the charge of having taken illegal gratification. It is also true that specific fact with regard to what was the role played by the accused in two trap cases has not come on record. However, the defence has not to be viewed from the same standpoint as is the prosecution evidence, particularly when the prosecution has failed to establish the case vis-a-vis observance of the provision of section 50 of the NDPS Act and following of the procedure with regard to sending of the sample article to the FSL. When no presumption can be drawn as contemplated by section 54 of the NDPS Act, it has to be seen whether probability of the defence can be visualised or not. In the present case the fact with regard to launching of two trap cases as stated in the defence has not been disputed and cannot be disputed. The fact that the accused happened to be a social worker also cannot be disputed. If that be so, it has got to be observed that false implication of the accused cannot be totally ruled out. ( 9 ) IN the above view of the matter, the conviction and sentence as per the impugned judgment and order deserve to be set aside. [10. By order dated 4/9/1990 (Coram : N. B. Patel and S. D. Dave,jj. as they then were) sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellant was suspended during the pendency of this appeal, upon the appellant-accused herein executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/and furnishing security bond in the like amount and on the further condition that he would pay up 50% of the fine, namely Rs. 50,000. 00. Hence while allowing this appeal and while acquitting the accused of the offence punishable u/s. 17 of the NDPS Act, for which he was convicted, his bail bonds as aforesaid are hereby cancelled and discharged. The amount of fine paid by him, shall be returned to him forthwith by account payee cheque after due verification. This appeal will stand according allowed. ] .