K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE Cri. As 1388/01,1389/ 01 and 1502/01 arise out of the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered in Spl. Case No. 10/97. The accused No. l is convicted for an offence under Section 22, the accused 2, 4 to 7 are convicted for an offence under Section 29 of the N. D. P. S. Act. The accused 3 and 8 have been acquitted. The State has filed the appeal in Cri. A. 481/2002 against the acquittal. The accused no. 1 is sentenced to R. I. for a period of 12 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 125000/- in default to suffer S. I. for a period of two years. The accused Nos. 2, 4 to 7 sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs. 100000/- in default to suffer S. I. for a period of one year. ( 2 ) THE Intelligence Officer of D. R. I. , mumbai, P. W. 10 receives a credible information about the manufacture of methaqualone powder in a building in basava Colony of Belgaum and manufacture of Mandrax tablets in a new Patan building situate in Kakti village of Belgaum. P. W. 1 after conferring with superior officers visits belgaum keeps watch of the place finds that the information received is true and shares the information with the Asst. Director D. R. I. , Bangalore. The raid on Patan building and the farm house belonging to accused no. 1 is conducted on 7-11-1996. In Patan building 225 Kgs. of Methaqualone granules and 803 Kgs. of Mandjrax tablets were found and seized. P. W. I to 4, P. W. 7 along with the local Central Excise Officers conduct the raid accompanied by panch witness and a photographer examined as P. W. 5. In Patan building the raid party finds with several machines installed in the premises manufacture of the Mandrax tablets was going on. The Mandrax tablets were being manufactured. P. W. 1 tested the incriminating material with the test kit, the result proved positive for methaqualone. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were present at the time of search. The samples of the powder and tablets was collected and seized. The photographs of the incriminating objects in the building were taken. The contraband articles were seized under mahazar. The farmhouse of accused no. 1 was also searched. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were present at the time of search. The samples of the powder and tablets was collected and seized. The photographs of the incriminating objects in the building were taken. The contraband articles were seized under mahazar. The farmhouse of accused no. 1 was also searched. The Methaqualone powder was spread out on the terrace for drying. The powder was tested with test kit, the result proved the presence of mothaqualone. The samples were collected separately. Bulk was seized under mahazars. The voluntary statements of accused persons were recorded. The samples were sent to Chemical Examiner. The report of the Chemical Examiner at Ex. P. 14, Ex. P. 13, Ex. P. 13 (1) to (26) supports the presence of Methaqualone. The machinery in the patan building at M. Os. 28 to 32 and other fixtures at M, Os. 35 to 79 were seized under the mahazars. ( 3 ) THE trial Court sura up its findings on material circumstances involved in the case in para 154 of the judgment in the following manner : 154. Conchiasion based on the foregoing discussion : (a) Noorjhan during the relevant period was the owner of the premises mentioned in Ex. P. 3. We may refer to Ex. P. 10 (d) and exs. P. 16 to P. 18. (b) Accused No. 1 being the son of said noorjahan was in possession of New Pathan building referred to in Ex. P. 3. (c) Machineries, fixtures, purported prohibited substances in huge quantity were found in the premises mentioned in Ex. P. 3. (d) Raid was conducted on the said premises reierred to in Ex. P. 3. Search was conducted. Machinery, fixtures and purported prohibited substances were seized thereunder. (e) Accused No. 1 in particular and accused Nos. 2 to 8 together are incidentally do not dispute the facts of raid, search and seizure. Personal search of accused No. 1, consequent seizure of properties mentioned in Annexure-D at Ex. P. 40 not effectively proved. (f) Prosecution claims that accused No. 1 was the owner/possessor of farmhouse, purportedly comprised in Sy. No. 57 situate in Basava Colony at Belgaum. It further claims that the. properties mentioned in the annexure-B [ex. P. 7 (a)] were found in the said farmhouse which stood seized. Some of them are the exhibited material objects during the trial. (f) Prosecution claims that accused No. 1 was the owner/possessor of farmhouse, purportedly comprised in Sy. No. 57 situate in Basava Colony at Belgaum. It further claims that the. properties mentioned in the annexure-B [ex. P. 7 (a)] were found in the said farmhouse which stood seized. Some of them are the exhibited material objects during the trial. (g) Safe custody of the seized articles was not fully ensured by P. W. 1 in particular. (h) Discrepancies between the weights of the sample. sezed and scaled on the spot (M. Os. 1 to 26) and the weights of the samples received in the office of the C. E. (i) C. E. report Ex: P. 14 not satisfactorily proved. (j) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 had made statements before the respective officers, they are not shown to be involuntary. (k) Purported voluntary statement of accused No. 8 is prima facie shown to have been retracted. Consequence of retraction is kept open to, be considered at relevant stage, of this judgment. (1) Belated production of Ex. P. 1 before the Court though needs to be taken serious note of, but is not shown to have prejudiced the accused, factually and legally. (m) Non-production of the photographs before the Court though needs to be taken serious note of, but is not shown to have prejudiced the accused, factually. ( 4 ) THE Court finds that the voluntary statement of accused No. 3 at Ex. P. 30 does not contain any incriminating material to show the mens rea to abet the commission of the offence. The statement of accused No. 8 at Ex. P. 16 held to be not proved as voluntary. The trial Court accepts the version of retraction of accused No. 8 thus finds that the voluntary statements of accused No. 3 and accused No. 8 is not proved. However, the voluntary statements of other accused persons is held to be valid and genuine. The trial Court on the whole accepts the prosecution theory of conduct of raid, search and seizure of incriminating articles from the patan building. Despite the finding that the chemical Examiner's report is disbelieved the trial Court finds that P. W. 1 is adequately trained to conduct the test with test kit, therefore, accepts his evidence regarding conduct of test with the test kit and its result. Despite the finding that the chemical Examiner's report is disbelieved the trial Court finds that P. W. 1 is adequately trained to conduct the test with test kit, therefore, accepts his evidence regarding conduct of test with the test kit and its result. Coupled with voluntary statements and in the light of ruling of the Supreme court in Jagdish Budhroji Purohit v. State of Maharashtra (1998 Cri LJ 4626) :. ( AIR 1998 SC 3328 ) convicts the accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 to 7. The relevant observations at para 3 of the judgment are extracted here- under for convenient reference. The learned counsel for the appellant has again challenged before us the finding regarding admissibility of reports Exhibits 61 to 67 and in the alternative submitted that no weight should be attached to them as they do not contain any data regarding the test applied by the Chemical Examiner for finding out the contents of the samples examined by him. The reports Exhibits 61 to 67 do show that qualitative test was followed by the Chemical Analyser. As a result of that test he found Methaqualone in the samples examined by him. Moreover, in this case the prosecution had led evidence of P. W. 1 Vijay kumar Shahasane and P. W. 3 Sidram dhange, members of the raiding party, to prove that the powder which was found from the factory was Methaqualone and that the tablets which were found from the factory was Methaqualone tablets. Both of them have stated that they have received sufficient training and thus have sufficient knowledge about narcotic substance and the methods of testing them. They had carried with them a kit for the purpose of testing when they had raided the factory. On analysis by them the powder was found to be methaqualone and tablets were found containing Methaqualone. Therefore, even if exhibits 61 to 67 are ignored that is sufficient evidence on record to show the methaqualone powder and tablets were found from the appellant's factory. Thus the appellant's conviction under Section 22 of the NDPS Act is quite proper. Both the witnesses have further stated that on analysis the green substance which was found from one of the cabins was hashish. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act is also quite proper. Thus the appellant's conviction under Section 22 of the NDPS Act is quite proper. Both the witnesses have further stated that on analysis the green substance which was found from one of the cabins was hashish. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 20 (b) (ii) of the NDPS Act is also quite proper. " ( 5 ) THE item No. 20 of Schedule-I describes the chemical composition of methaqualone in the following manner: "20. Methaqualone : 2-Methyl-3-O tolyl- 4 (3h) quinazolinone ( 6 ) THE Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that according to pharmacology there are seven versions of methaqualone described in the following manner: (i) 2-Methyl-3-O-tolyl-4- (3h) - quinazolinone. (ii) 2-Methyl-3- (2-methylphenyl)-4- (3h)- quinazolinone. (iii) 3, 4-dihydro-2-methyl-4-oxo-3-O- tolyl quinazolinone. (iv) QZ-2 (v) Metholquizolone (vi) RIC-272 {vii) TR-Qualalude. ( 7 ) THEREFORE, argued that the chemical composition as envisaged at item 20 of the schedule is alone the prohibited version within the definition. The other chemical compositions of Methaqualone are not narcotic and psychotropic substance. The expert's report does not disclose the precise chemical formulation of the objects seized. Therefore, they are not proved to be methaqualone as defined in item 20. ( 8 ) PER contra the Counsel for the State argued that the different versions of methaqualone approved in Pharmacology are only synonymous and all of them are identical and conform with the scheduled definition of Methaqualone. ( 9 ) THE Counsel for the accused and as well the State relied on the authoritative works on the subject to prove their viewpoint. I find that without necessary expert's oral evidence, it is not proper to express any opinion on this aspect. The question whether item 20 of the Schedule is the only prohibited version or whether other synonymous versions of the Methaqualone quoted in the medical test also come within the purview of item 20 is kept open and not necessary to answer the same for the purpose of the case. ( 10 ) P. W. 1 has testified to the fact that he tested the incriminating material with the test kit and the result was positive for methaqualone. The credibility of the fact of test with the test kit conducted by P. W. 1 is a material circumstance to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard the panchnama Ex. The credibility of the fact of test with the test kit conducted by P. W. 1 is a material circumstance to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. In this regard the panchnama Ex. P. 3 makes the following recitals :"two of the said Mandrax tablet were taken out from the said plastic container and so also small quantity of Methaqualone granules were taken out from the said funnel of the tableting machine and the same were tested separately with the aid of field test kit. After conducting of the said test with the aid of test kit that was carried by the said officer it was informed that both the said tablet as well as granule put to test were answering positive to Methaqualone. " ( 11 ) IT is mandatory that the mahazar proceedings have to be drawn accurately and faithfully in presence of respectable independent panch witnesses. In the instant case the panch witnesses chosen are with vulnerable antecedents. It is necessary that panch witness should be informed of the purpose of scientific methods and tests employed in the investigation, enabling them to appreciate the result of the tests before the raid by practical rehearsal demonstration like in the investigation of trap cases under Prevention of Corruption Act. If so done the panch witnesses would be in a position to understand the purpose and consequences of tests independently and they would be able to testify to the facts about conduct of test and the result noticed. The panchnama should reflect the independent factual perceptions of the panch witnesses at the scene of offence. ( 12 ) IN the present case the panchnama recitals are vague. It appears that the witnesses do not know the basic aspects of the test and its result. It appears that as told by the Investigation Officer, the panch witnesses accept that the result proved positive for the Methaqualone. Such a perfunctory version of the mahazar does not satisfy the requirement of law. The self-serving evidence of P. W. 1 uncorroborated by the mahazar proceedings cannot be relied on. The distinguishing facts stated above makes the decision of the Supreme Court 1998 Cri lj 4626 : ( AIR 1998 SC 3328 ) inapplicable to the facts of the case. Such a perfunctory version of the mahazar does not satisfy the requirement of law. The self-serving evidence of P. W. 1 uncorroborated by the mahazar proceedings cannot be relied on. The distinguishing facts stated above makes the decision of the Supreme Court 1998 Cri lj 4626 : ( AIR 1998 SC 3328 ) inapplicable to the facts of the case. When the objects seized is not proved as Methaqualone, the voluntary statements made by accused admitting guilt would be of no consequence in law. In that view the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. ( 13 ) SECTION 53 of the N. D. P. S. Act empowers the Central and the State governments to invest powers of the police under cr. P. C. on the officers of the department of central Excise, Narcotics, Customs, Revenue Intelligence etc. and the Officers of department of drugs control, revenue or excise etc. , respectively to investigate the offences under the N. D. P. S. Act. The Section 53-A of the N. D. P. S. Act makes a departure from the rule in Section 162 of Cr. P. C. The statements recorded by the I. O. u/s. 53-A are relevant and admissible. The provisions of Section 53-A are extracted here for convenient reference :"53-A. Relevancy of statements under certain circumstances. (1) A statement made and signed by a person before any officer empowered under section 53 for the investigation of offences, during the course of any inquiry or proceedings by such officer shall be relevant for the purpose of proving, in any prosecution for an offence under this Act, the truth of the facts which it contains, (a) When the person who made the statement is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or whose presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable; or (b) When the person who made the statement is examined as a witness in the case before the Court and the Court is of the opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, the statement should be admitted in evidence in the interest of justice. (2) the provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceedings under this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder, other than a proceeding before a Court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a Court. " ( 14 ) SUB-CLAUSE (b) of Section 53-A is specially intended to make the statement of a witness admissible if proved to be genuinely recorded, and could be used as a substantive evidence for corroboration, ( 15 ) THE source for the admissibility of the voluntary statement of an accused is under S. 66 of the N. D. P. S. Act as follows : "66. Presumption as to documents in certain cases : Where any document (i) is produced or furnished by any person or has been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or (if) has been received from any place outside India (duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government) in the course of investigation of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by a person; and such document is tendered in any prosecution under this Act in evidence against him, or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall (a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the Court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person's handwriting; and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested; (b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence; (c) in a case falling under clause (i), also presume, unless the contrary is proved, the truth of the contents of such document. (Underlining emphasized by me) ( 16 ) THE voluntary statement of an accused signed by the accused and proved to be voluntary is admissible evidence and could be used against the accused and also against the co-accused. (Underlining emphasized by me) ( 16 ) THE voluntary statement of an accused signed by the accused and proved to be voluntary is admissible evidence and could be used against the accused and also against the co-accused. The I. O. under Section 67 can summon any person including the accused for purpose of enquiry and can record the statement. ( 17 ) IT is contended that the summons issued to the accused by the investigating agency under Ex. P. 33 is in a threatening language and coercive tenor, therefore, argued that the statement recorded pursuant to the summons at Ex. P. 33 is bad in law. The following is the extract of the summons at Ex. P. 33 : summons to, shri Mohammed Abdul Rab, mohammed Abdul Haq Ilyas Bablu, new Pathan building, P. B. Road, Kakti, belgaum sub : NDPS Seizure of Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances on 7-11-1996 Reg. Whereas in connection with enquiry proceedings in the above-mentioned case registered under N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 you are hereby summoned under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act, 1985 to appear before me on 8th day of November, 1996 to give evidence truthfully on such matters concerned to the enquiry as you may be asked. If you fail to comply with this summons without lawful excuses, you will be liable to be punished under Sections 174 and 175 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Given under my hand and seal of office today the 8th day of November, 1996. Sd/- R. Kiran Gaikwad i/o S. I. O. D. R. I. B'lore zonal Unit. ( 18 ) THE threat of legal prosecution for failure to attend pursuant to summons at rx. P. 33 is neither coercive nor illegal. The disobedience of summons would legally expose the person to a prosecution u/ss. 174 and 175 of IPC. Hence informing the legal consequences of disobedience is not an unlawful threat. The I. O. of D. R. I. , Bangalore is entitled to interrogate the accused u/s. 67 but cannot insist accused to give evidence as called upon under Ex. P. 33. Therefore, the summons issued under Ex. P. 33 is illegal and bad in law. ( 19 ) SECTION 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act and section 108 of the Customs Act are not analogous and there is no comparison between them. P. 33. Therefore, the summons issued under Ex. P. 33 is illegal and bad in law. ( 19 ) SECTION 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act and section 108 of the Customs Act are not analogous and there is no comparison between them. Under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act, there is no quasi-judicial enquiry but it is only an interrogation similar to the provision under Section 161 of Cr. P. C. In S. M. A. Sudath Aloysius v. Narcotics Control bureau, 2003 All MR (Crl) 455 (Bombay) it is argued for the prosecution that the statement recorded under Section 67 does not assume character of an evidence. The provisions of Section 66 are not brought to the notice of the Court in the decision cited and it appears to be not well argued case for the prosecution. ( 20 ) THE procedures of search and seizure are dealt in Section 52 of the N. D. P. S. Act. It is argued by the counsel for the accused that the deposit of the seized articles in the nearest police station is not complied. The provisions of Section 52 readsthus :"52. Disposal of persons arrested and articles seized : (1) Any officer arresting a person under section 41, Section 42, Section 43 or Section 44 shall, as soon as may be, inform him of the grounds for such arrest. (2) Every person arrested and articles seized under warrant issued under sub-section (1) of Section 41 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the Magistrate by whom the warrant was issued. (3) Every person arrested and the article seized under sub-section (2) of Section 41, section 42, Section 43, or Section 44 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to (a) the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, or (b) the officer empowered under Section 53. (4) The authority or officer to whom any person or article is forwarded under subsection (2) or sub-section (3) shall, with all convenient despatch take such measures as may be necessary for the disposal according to law of such person or article. " ( 21 ) IT is not necessary that articles seized have to be always forwarded to the S. H. O. of the nearest police station. " ( 21 ) IT is not necessary that articles seized have to be always forwarded to the S. H. O. of the nearest police station. Under clause (b) of sub-section (3), the properties could be forwarded to the Officers empowered under Section 53 other than the police empowered to conduct investigation under the Act. In the instant case, the officers who conducted the investigation are the empowered officers under Section 53 invested with the powers of the S. H. O. of the police station. The deposit of the articles seized with themselves does not amount to violation of section 52 but the evidence on record disclose the non-compliance of proper sealing and proper custody of the articles to allay the doubts about tampering. ( 22 ) THE counsel for the accused argued that there is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 50 that the accused were not informed of their right to be searched in presence of a gazetted officer. In order to understand the provisions of section 50, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of sub-sees. (2) and (3) of Section 41 and sub-section (1) of Section 42 and Section 50 which are reproduced here-under :"41. In order to understand the provisions of section 50, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of sub-sees. (2) and (3) of Section 41 and sub-section (1) of Section 42 and Section 50 which are reproduced here-under :"41. Power to issue warrant and authorisation: (1) xxxxxxxx (2) Any such Officer of gazetted rank of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or the armed forces as is empowered In this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or any such officer 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 personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken in writing that any person has committed an offence punishable under this Act or that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which any 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 forefeiture under Chapter-VA of this Act is kept of concealed in any building, convey ance or place may authorise arty officer subordinate to him but superior in rank to a peon, sepoy, or a constable, to arrest such a person or search a building conveyance or place whether by day or night or himself arrest a person or search a building conveyance or place. (3) The Officer to whom a warrant under sub-section (1) is addressed and the officer who authorised the arrest or search or the officer who is so authorised under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of an officer acting under Section 42. 42. (3) The Officer to whom a warrant under sub-section (1) is addressed and the officer who authorised the arrest or search or the officer who is so authorised under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of an officer acting under Section 42. 42. Powers 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 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. 43. Power of seizure and arrest in public places : Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 may - xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted: (1) When any officer duly authorized under the provisions of Section 41. Section 42. or Section 43. he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without un- necessary delay to the nearest gazetted of- ficer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate. " (Emphasis supplied ). ( 23 ) SUB-SECTION (2) of Section 41 con- templates two category of officers, the gazetted rank officers of the named depart- ments of the State and Central Government empowered by a notification in. the Gazette constitute one category and they could be called "empowered officers". The empowered officers are invested with powers of arrest, search and seizure. The sub-section (2) per- mits the empowered gazetted officers to di- rect their subordinate officers who are not below the rank of peons, sepoy or constable to carry out arrest, search and seizure. Such delegated subordinate officers are called "authorised officers" they constitute a sec- ond category. ( 24 ) SECTION 42 (1) authorises the State and Central Government by notification to empower the authorised officers u/s. 41 (2) and similar rank of non-gazetted officers to investigate with powers of arrest, search and seizure. Such delegated subordinate officers are called "authorised officers" they constitute a sec- ond category. ( 24 ) SECTION 42 (1) authorises the State and Central Government by notification to empower the authorised officers u/s. 41 (2) and similar rank of non-gazetted officers to investigate with powers of arrest, search and seizure. The special procedures of arrest, search and seizure u/s. 50 becomes appli- cable only to the officers named in Sec. 42 of the Act. The provision of Sec. 50 does not apply to first category of "empowered" gazetted rank officers contemplated in Sec. 41 (2 ). Further the need to search in pres- ence of gazetted officer u/s. 50 would come into play only when there is a personal search of the accused. When the premises baggage or luggage of the accused is being searched it would not amount to personal search and no need to comply the require- ments of Section 50. In the instant case no personal search is carried out. The officers who effected search are all empowered gazetted officers u/s. 41 (2), therefore the provisions of Section 50 do not apply to the facts of the case. ( 25 ) THE present case prima facie appears to be a good case for prosecution but lost because of bad investigation and bad pres- entation The investigation officers in this case although not guided by any mala fide motives the technical lapses have occurred on account of improper training and lack of guidelines regarding the right knowledge and techniques required for investigation of the offences under the Act. The I. O. to investi- gate under the Act requires a combination of several skills like the knowledge oltue. scientific aspects and also the legal aspects relating to investigation. It is necessary that every investigation officer should be edu- cated about the necessary steps to be taken at the every stage of investigation in accord- ance with law. Therefore I like to impress upon the investigation authorities, more so n. C. B. the co-ordinating agency should in consultation with other authorities draft a protocol of investigation as a uniform guide- line to the investigation officers under the act. Such a course would ensure efficiency and transparency sans imprudent techni- cal lapses. There is also a need to devise a common official seal departmentwise. Fur- ther proper instructions should be given for safe custody as required under the law. Such a course would ensure efficiency and transparency sans imprudent techni- cal lapses. There is also a need to devise a common official seal departmentwise. Fur- ther proper instructions should be given for safe custody as required under the law. ( 26 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I find the view taken by the trial Court holding that the accused No. 1, accused No. 2, accused no. 4 to accused No. 7 are guilty is unten- able. The appeals filed by the convicted accused crl. A. 1388/01, Crl. A. 1389/01 and Crl. A. 1502/01 are allowed. The appeal of the state Crl. A. 481/02 is dismissed. The ac- cused in custody set at liberty forthwith. Registry is directed to send a copy of the judgment to the Director of D. R. I. Bangalore and Director of N. C. B. to take note of the observations and suggestions. Order accordingly. --- *** --- .