Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 852 (PAT)

Raju Bharati v. State Of Bihar

2006-09-15

NAVIN SINHA

body2006
Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 18.12.2004 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram in N.D.P.S., Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 20 of 1997. 2. The appellant, who was the sole accused, stands convicted under sec. 20 (b) (i) read with section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the N.D.P.S. Act) for a period of ten years along with a fine of Rs. One lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one year, for recovery of 5 Kgs. of Ganja from him. 3. The fardbeyan of the Officer Incharge Sanjhauli P.S., Syed Ahmed Khan, P.W. 5, was recorded by himself on 27.5.1997 at about 10 : 00 p.m. at the Police Station. It stated that the informant was on routine patrol duty on the Vikramganj-Sasaram Road near Village Beri along with P.W. 3 Surendra Pathak, A.S.I, P.W. 4 Pramod Kumar Singh, Constable, and other police officials carrying out surprise inspection of vehicles travelling on the highway. A jeep bearing number B.R. 17-A-479 approached from Vikramganj side. The vehicle was checked near the Snacks shop of Vishwanath Sah son of Ram Chandar Sah. On the left of the driver sat a young man wiht a blue coloured school bag on his legs. There was smell of Ganja emanating. The bag was checked in the presence of the jeep driver Jwala Prasad Singh (P.W. 2), son of Chandrama Singh and P.W. 1 Dhanji Singh son of Nagina Singh. The owner of the bag disclosed his name as Raju Bharti (appellant) son of Vidya Sagar Bharti resident of Village Sakardih, Bharti tola, District Chapra. Two plastic packets wrapped in threads were recovered from the bag, inside which Ganja was found. One packet weighed 2 Kilos. The other packet weighed 3 Kilos. Raju Bharti stated that he had no licence to sell Ganja and that he was carrying it for sale to Village Baraon, P.S. Nokha to one Gosaiji of Mahapur. The seizure list was prepared in presence of Dhanji Singh (P.W. 1) and Jwala Prasad Singh (P.W. 2), Driver, who signed upon the same. Accused Raju Bharti was given a copy of the seizure list after he had also signed on the same. The appellant Raju Bharti was then charged under sec. The seizure list was prepared in presence of Dhanji Singh (P.W. 1) and Jwala Prasad Singh (P.W. 2), Driver, who signed upon the same. Accused Raju Bharti was given a copy of the seizure list after he had also signed on the same. The appellant Raju Bharti was then charged under sec. 20 (b) (i) read with section 8 (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act. The formal First Information Report has been marked as Ext. 5. 4. One Mukhtar Singh, Sub-Inspector was directed by P.W. 5 to investigate the case. The Police proceeded with the investigation and charge-sheet came to be submitted. 5. The prosecution has examined five witnesses. The defence has examined two witnesses. The signatures on the seizure list of P.Ws. 1 and 2 have been marked as Ext. 1 and 1/1. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report confirming the nature of the material seized as Ganja is Ext. 2. The seizure list is marked as Ext. 4 and the Formal First Information Report is marked as Ext. 5. The charges were framed against the appellant under sections 20 (b) (i) read with 8 (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act on 9.9.1997. 6. The accused Raju Bharti was then put on trial. The Trial Court was satisfied of his guilt for reason of his signature on the seizure list coupled with the absence of any protest by the accused of his signature having been obtained by force when he was first produced on 29.5.1997 before the Court. The Trial Court was further satisfied that the appellant having been faken into custody on 27.5.1997 there was inordinate delay in his production on 29.5.1997 before the Court which was not explained by the Police Officials, but the same was not sufficient ground to disbelieve the prosecution story. The contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 5, though present, were not material. The chemical examiners report confirmed that what was seized from the appellant was Ganja. On basis of the aforesaid reasoning the Trial Court convicted the appellant by the aforesaid judgment dated 18.12.2004 holding him guilty and sentencing him for ten years as aforesaid along with fine. 7. The evidence of the prosecution, during trial, succinctly, is that P.W. 1 the seizure list witness Dhanji Singh is stated to be the Khalasl of the jeep.in question. 7. The evidence of the prosecution, during trial, succinctly, is that P.W. 1 the seizure list witness Dhanji Singh is stated to be the Khalasl of the jeep.in question. He has stated that nothing was recovered from the appellant In his presence, he had signed on the seizure list at the request of the Daroga, he did not know what the papers were. The witness stated that he was illiterate. The witness has been declared hostile. P.W. 2 is the Driver of the vehicle in question, Jwala Prasad Singh. He has also denied any search of any occupants of the vehicle in his presence or any recovery from such alleged persons, P.W. 2 has further stated that the Daroga (P.W. 5) took him to the Sanjhauli P.S. and obtained his signature on a paper. He does not know what the paper was and signed on the asking of the Daroga. This witness has also been declared hostile. In his cross-examination he denied that the seizure list was prepared in his presence. There was no other person at the Police Station except the police personnel when he was brought to the Police Station by the Daroga. P.W. 3 is the A.S.I. Surendra Pathak, a member of the Raiding Party. He acknowledges that there were eight to nine passengers in the jeep. The bag in question was lying in between the legs of the appellant. P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the Khalasi and Driver respectively. A smell of Ganja was emanating. The bag revealed Ganja in two packets which were both opened. P.W. 5 weighed the Ganja which was approximately 2 Kgs. and 3 Kgs. respectively. In his cross-examination he stated that he was not aware of the weight of the seized ganja. He was also not aware of the name of the owner of the Kiosk near which recovery was effected. The witness admitted that the raiding team did not check the papers of the jeep bearing No. B.R. 17-A-0479. He did not know the names of other passengers of the vehicle. He admitted that local people were also present at the time of checking. He then stated that the Ganja was sealed. The Ganja was kept in the Malkhana in his presence when the Malkhana Incharge had also opened the packet and seen the Ganja. The Investigating officer Mukhtar Singh was also present. He admitted that local people were also present at the time of checking. He then stated that the Ganja was sealed. The Ganja was kept in the Malkhana in his presence when the Malkhana Incharge had also opened the packet and seen the Ganja. The Investigating officer Mukhtar Singh was also present. P.W. 4, Pramod Kumar Singh, Constable, also was a member of the Raiding Party. He stated that the appellant was sitting next to the Driver on the front seat. The blue bag was kept near him in front. The weight of the seized Ganja in the two packets was 2 Kilos and 1 Kilo respectively. The appellant was brought to the Police Station. The concerned papers relating to the seizure of the Ganja were prepared at the Police Station. The weight of the Ganja was recorded by approximation only. The Raiding Party which had gone out from the Police Station at 60 clock and carried out the raid approximately at 6.45 P.M. returned to the Police Station at 10 P.M. In between they did not stop anywhere. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 5 K.M. He was not in a position to disclose the name of the Driver and Khalasi to Jeep from which the passenger carrying the Ganja was apprehended. P.W. 5, Syed Ahmad Khan, Officer Incharge, Sanjhauli P.S., is the informant. He has proved the First Information Report and also has prepared the seizure list. The witness stated that there were eight to nine passengers in the jeep. The appellant had a school bag on his thigh. A weighing scale was brought from the neighbouring shopkeeper. The seized Ganja was weighed and was found to be 2 Kilos and 1 Kilo respectively. The seizure list was prepared on the spot in the prescribed printed format which the witness was carrying. The signatures of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the accused were obtained on the same. The Formal First Information Report in the prescribed format was prepared by the I.O. Mukhtar Singh at the Police Station. A copy of the seizure list was given to the appellant. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 7-8 K.M. The checking in question leading to the recovery was carried out between 6-6.45 P.M. No papers of the vehicle in question was demanded. A copy of the seizure list was given to the appellant. The distance between the place of occurrence and the Police Station was 7-8 K.M. The checking in question leading to the recovery was carried out between 6-6.45 P.M. No papers of the vehicle in question was demanded. Later he said that he has seen the papers of the vehicle. He did not know from where the jeep was coming and where It was going and from where the appellant was coming. The bag was deposited in the Malkhana along with the Ganja. The appellant was produced before the Court on 29.5.1997 along with the F.I.R. and the seizure list. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri Mahesh Narayan Parbat, assailed the judgment of conviction passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge against the appellant. Learned Counsel contended that the institution of the prosecution, the investigation, were not in accordance with the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 as it stood before amendment by Act 9 of 2001 with effect from 2.10.2001. The search of the appellant was not in accordance with sec. 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. There were vital contradictions in the depositions of the P.Ws. 3 to 5. Shri Parbat submitted that the informant was a Sub-Inspector of Police, he was therefore not an officer of the Gazetted rank who alone was out the raid in terms of sec. 41,42 and 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act. P.W. 5 was only competent to effect the seizure and then immediately inform his Superiors Officers. Beyond that the matter had to proceed for investigation at the behest of the officers competent under sections 41,42 and 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The investigation could not have been done by a Sub-Inspector who was not a Gazetted Officer or Officer Incharge of a Police Station as required by sec. 53 of the N.D.P.S. Act. No weight of the Ganja sample was available on record. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated anything about the mode of taking of sample of the ganja and sealing of the same. The signature of the appellant had not been obtained on any sample of the seized Ganja subsequently sent for examination to the Chemical Laboratory. The Analyst who submitted the chemical report had not been examined. The allegedly seized Ganja kept in the Malkhana was never produced physically in the Court. The signature of the appellant had not been obtained on any sample of the seized Ganja subsequently sent for examination to the Chemical Laboratory. The Analyst who submitted the chemical report had not been examined. The allegedly seized Ganja kept in the Malkhana was never produced physically in the Court. The packet of ganja was opened more than once at the place of occurrence and then again at Malkhana. Shri Mukhtar Singh, the Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined. The seizure list is stated to have been prepared in the prescribed format on the place of occurrence. The First Information Report is stated to have been prepared subsequently in the prescribed format at the Police Station. Yet the seizure list bears the case number Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 20/97 even before it was registered. Learned Counsel has relied upon the depositions of P.Ws. 1 and 2 and 4 to submit that all papers regarding seizure of Ganja were actually prepared at the Police Station. There is no independent witness despite their availability at the time of alleged seizure. P.W. 4 who was a part of the raiding team in his deposition has stated that he did know names of the Driver and Khalasi of the jeep in question. It was thus submitted that the conviction was contrary to the evidence and materials on record. The same was therefore not sustainable in law. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab V/s. Balblr Singh1. 9. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State relied heavily on the signature of the appellant on the seizure list which was not disputed by the appellant any time to support the judgment of conviction. The chemical report confirmed that the sample seized was Ganja. 10. The N.D.P.S. Act seeks to achieve control of illegal trade in Narcotics which have a detrimental effect on Society, and therefore contains stringent provisions. Under the normal Criminal Jurisprudence a person is presumed innocent unless proved guilty. Sec.35 of the N.D.P.S. Act presumes a culpable mental state on part of the accused. The onus lies on the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state. The Courts have therefore leaned heavily in favour of a strict interpretation of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. Sec.35 of the N.D.P.S. Act presumes a culpable mental state on part of the accused. The onus lies on the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state. The Courts have therefore leaned heavily in favour of a strict interpretation of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. Even such provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act which have been held to be directory by the Courts, have been held to have their own relevance in the given facts and evidence available in a case, to the extent of vitiating the prosecution also. 11. Chapter V of the N.D.P.S. Act deals with search and seizure. In the present case, the search and seizure has not been effected with prior information in a building, conveyance or enclosed place. It was in the course of routine checking of vehicles in a public place that a person was apprehended carrying narcotics in transit. The relevant provision of law applicable in the circumstances will be sec. 43 of the N.D.P.S. Act. If an authority be needed for the same, reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Haryana V/s. Jarnail Singh2. A tanker was intercepted on the highway. A chance inspection on suspicion revealed poppy husk. Considering the submission of the appellant that the search and seizure was not made in a private enclosed place, but was made in a public place, namely the highway, their Lordships held at paragraph 9 as follows: "9. Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Sec. 42 contemplates entry in to and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place, while sec. 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If seizure is made under sec. 42 between sunset and sunrise, the requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There is no such proviso in sec. 43 of the Act, and therefore, it is obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place the officer making the search is not required to record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to sec. 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act for searching the vehicle between the sunset and the sunrise." 12. In the present case, the search and seizure has been made by a Sub-Inspector of Police. 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act for searching the vehicle between the sunset and the sunrise." 12. In the present case, the search and seizure has been made by a Sub-Inspector of Police. The distinction lies there with regard to the procedure to be followed by a person other than an empowered officer under the N.D.P.S. Act, after such search and seizure. In State of Punjab V/s. Balbir Singh (supra) relied upon by the appellant, the Supreme Court at Paragraph 26(1) and (6) held as follows : "26. The questions considered above arise frequently before the Trial Courts. Therefore we find it necessary to set out our conclusions which are as follows: (1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence as provided under the provisions of Cr. P.C. and when such search is completed at that stage sec. 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requirements thereunder would not arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance (of) recovery of any Narcotic Drug or Psychotropic Substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. (6) The provisions of sections 52 and 57 which deal with the steps to be taken by the officer after making arrest or seizure under sections 41 to 44 are by themselves not mandatory. If there is non-compliance or if there are lapses like delay etc., then the same has to be examined to see whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and such failure will have a bearing on the appreciation of evidence regarding arrest or seizure as well as on merits of the case." 13. A similar question arose in the case of Mohindar Kumar V/s. State, Pana]i, Goa. A similar question arose in the case of Mohindar Kumar V/s. State, Pana]i, Goa. Relying on the Balbir Singh case (supra) their Lordships at paragraph 3 in its relevant extract held that: "3........It was, therefore, not on any prior information but he purely accidentally stumbled upon the offending articles and not being the empowered person, on coming to know about the accused persons being in custody of the offending articles, he sent for the panchas and on their arrival drew up the panchnama. In the circumstances, from the stage he had reasons to believe that the accused persons were in custody of narcotic drugs and sent for panchas, he was under an obligation to proceed further in the matter in accordance with the provisions of the Act................In Balbir Singh case, it has been further stated that the provisions of sections 52 and 57 of the Act, which deal with the steps to be taken by the officer after making arrest or seizure are not (sic) mandatory in character. In that view of the matter, the learned Counsel for the State was not able to show for want of material on record, that the mandatory requirements pointed out above had been adhered to. The accused is, therefore, entitled to be acquitted." 14. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court while holding that the prosecution cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own wrongs, in the case of State of Punjab v.Baldeo Singh, held that a fair trial to an accused is the cornerstone of a democractlc society. The Courts cannot allow evidence to the prejudice of the accused, obtained contrary to law and base conviction upon the same. Their Lordships at paragraph 14 reiterated the view of the Balbir Singh case (supra) and Mohlndar Kumar case (supra), with regard to the procedure to be followed when the search and seizure is effected by chance by an officer not empowered to investigate under the N.D.P.S. Act. Their Lordships further held that sec. 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act had no application where the search was not of the person, as in the present case, but of the bag carried by the accused. 15. The relevant provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, governing the procedure to be followed by the Police after seizure are to be found in sections 52, 53, 55 and 57. 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act had no application where the search was not of the person, as in the present case, but of the bag carried by the accused. 15. The relevant provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, governing the procedure to be followed by the Police after seizure are to be found in sections 52, 53, 55 and 57. Considering the scope of the same and acquitting the appellant in the case of Gurubax Singh V/s. State of Haryana, their Lordships at paragraph 9 in the relevant extract held: ".......However, I.O. cannot totally ignore those provisions and such failure will have bearing on appreciation of evidence regarding the arrest of the accused on seizure of the article....." 16. In the case of Bahadur Singh V/s. State o/M.P.6, the narcotics were apprehended from a truck. Noticing that there were serious discrepancies In respect of recovery and seizure their Lordships held that It was unsafe to convict the appellant on the singular testimony of police witnesses and that there were serious discrepancies with regard to recovery, seizure and deposit in the Malkhana. The prosecution had thus failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant who was accordingly entitled to the benefit of doubt. To the same effect is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdlsh V/s. State o/Madhya Pradesh, where narcotics were alleged to be recovered from a person travelling in a bus, The manner In which the Police Officer alleged recovery from one passenger only of the many present in a bus led the Court to opine that the story sounded unnatural. There was no explanation why he did not search or question any other passengers. Noticing that the panch witnesses and the Driver and Conductor of the bus have not supported the prosecution case and had turned hostile, and considering the infirmities and discrepancies in the statement of Sub-Inspector who carried out the raid their Lordships opined that It did not inspire confidence. The panch witnesses had denied that any search or seizure took place In their presence and stated that they put their thumb impression on a piece of paper after being summoned, it was not safe to conclude that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. 17. The panch witnesses had denied that any search or seizure took place In their presence and stated that they put their thumb impression on a piece of paper after being summoned, it was not safe to conclude that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. 17. The Court has considered the submissions on behalf of the parties and the evidence and materials on record. P.Ws. 1 and 2 have denied any search and recovery in their presence. Both have acknowledged signing on the seizure list at the asking of the Daroga, and that they were not aware of its contents. P.W. 1 stated he was Illiterate. P.W.2 denied that the seizure list was prepared in his presence. P.W. 4 stated that the papers regarding seizure of the ganja were prepared at the Police Station. While P.W. 3 states that the bag was lying between the legs of the appellant. P.W. 4 states that it was kept in front portion of the vehicle. P.W. 5 states that it rested on the thigh of the appellant. P.Ws. 3 and 5 who were part of the raiding party and stopped a vehicle on the highway in furtherance of Law and Order duties have stated that they did not even check the papers of the vehicle in question, a very normal procedure and conduct when a vehicle is stopped on the highway by the police for checking. P.W. 4 subsequently contradicts himself by saying in his cross-examination that he checked the papers of the vehicle but gives no details of the same. This Court further finds it intriguing that the raiding party did not bother to ask the driver of the vehicle from where he was coming and to what destination he was proceeding, which are basic questions asked when a vehicle is stopped on a high-way for Law and Order reasons. P.Ws.3 and 5 acknowledge that there were eight-nine passengers in the jeep but were unable to tell their names. While P.W. 3 states that he was not aware of the weight of the seized Ganja and that the Ganja was weighed at the Police Station, P.W. 5 in his deposition states that he brought a weighing scale from a neighbouring shop and weighed the same. While P.W. 3 states that he was not aware of the weight of the seized Ganja and that the Ganja was weighed at the Police Station, P.W. 5 in his deposition states that he brought a weighing scale from a neighbouring shop and weighed the same. It is noteworthy that there is no such statement in the First Information Report prepared prior in time to his deposition in the Court. P.W.4 states that the weight of the Ganja was written by approximation. P.W. 3 next states that he is not aware as to whose Kiosk existed near the place of occurrence when the F.I.R. states the same. P.W. 3 further admits that the two packets of Ganja allegedly seized from the appellant were opened by the raiding party. There is no statement by him or by P.Ws. 4 or 5 with regard to any sample of the same being prepared and sealed and the remaining being also sealed and obtaining of the signature of the appellant on the same. The sample has not been marked and exhibited. P.W. 3 has further deposed that the Ganja was kept in the Malkhana in his presence and that the Malkhana Incharge had also opened and seen the Ganja. P.W. 5 also only states that the bag was deposited in the Malkhana. P.Ws. 4 and 5 acknowledge that the distance from the place of occurrence to the Police Station is approximately 5-8 K.M. yet it took them from 6.45 P.M. to reach the Police Station at 10 P.M. without any halt. P.W.5 states that he was carrying a prescribed format of the seizure list which was drawn up the at place of occurrence. The Format First Information Report was prepared at the Police Station. Yet the number of the Police Case finds mentioned in the Seizure List. While P.Ws. 3 and 5 state that P.Ws. 1 and.2 were the khalasl and driver of the vehicle In question, P.W. 4 a member of the raiding party states that he does not know the name of the driver and khalasl. P.W. 3 states that the I.O. Mukhtar Singh was also present at the time of raid and seizure, P.W. 5 denies the same. 18. This Court finds that there are serious discrepancies in the statements of P.Ws. P.W. 3 states that the I.O. Mukhtar Singh was also present at the time of raid and seizure, P.W. 5 denies the same. 18. This Court finds that there are serious discrepancies in the statements of P.Ws. 3 to 5 with regard to the bag in question, the preparation of the Seizure List at the place of occurrence. The Seizure List witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. This Court finds it difficult to appreciate that there were eight to nine passengers in the jeep, the raiding team did know their names, the papers of the vehicle were not chekced and no queries were made from where the vehicle was coming and proceeding. There has been unusual delay in the Police Team traversing a distance of 5-8 K.Ms, uninterrupted in 3 hours 15 minutes. The ganja seized was not sampled and sealed and signature of the appellant obtained on the sample after the packet was opened. The sample was opened by the Malkhana Incharge again. The sample having changed hands on more than one occasion leaves much to be desired with regard to the chemical examination report of what was seized from the appellant. In the aforesaid background, it cannot be lost sight of that the Investigating Officer has not been examined. His non-examination per se may not be an illegality in law, but assumes significance in the background of the aforesaid discussion. The appellant was appreheneded on 27.5.1997. He has been produced before the Court on 29.5.1997. The distance to be traversed was 32 K.M. There is no explanation whatsoever for this delay. There is no evidence of P.W. 5 having informed his Superior Officer. The investigation has not been done by an officer empowered under the N.D.P.S. Act. 19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that based on the testimony P.Ws. 3 to 5 who are all police witnesses, it will not be safe to uphold the order of conviction. There are serious discrepancies in their evidence. The seizure list witnesses-have not supported the prosecution case. The mandatory provisions with regard to search, seizure and investigation have not been followed. The sample of Ganja stated to have been seized was never sealed, it travelled through more than one hand in open condition. The Chemical Analyst has not been examined. There are serious discrepancies in their evidence. The seizure list witnesses-have not supported the prosecution case. The mandatory provisions with regard to search, seizure and investigation have not been followed. The sample of Ganja stated to have been seized was never sealed, it travelled through more than one hand in open condition. The Chemical Analyst has not been examined. There is unreasonable delay in the production of the appellant in Court from custody, which remains unexplained. There is no explanation for non-compliance of sections 52, 53, 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. This Court is satisfied that there are serious flaws in the case of the prosecution. 20. This appeal has therefore to be allowed. The judgment and order of conviction dated 18.12.2004 passed in N.D.P.S., Sanjhauli P.S. Case No. 20 of 1997 is accordingly set aside. The appellant be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is wanted in any other case.