Judgment ( 1. ) BY this appeal, the appellants have challenged their conviction under sections 8/21 (c) and 21 (c) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic Substances Act (for short the NDPS Act) and sentence of R. I. for 13 years and fine of Rs. 1,50,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to suffer additional R. I. for four years, passed by the learned Special Judge (under NDPS act), Indore in Special Case No. 29/2001 by judgment dated 14-10-2003. ( 2. ) ACCORDING to the prosecution case on 26-7-01 the complainant Smt. Sabia Khan (P. W. 8) was posted as Inspector and Ravindrasingh Negi as sub- Inspector in the Central Narcotics Bureau, Indore. On this day, ravindrasingh received information from Mukhbir that two persons namely; raghunathsingh resident of Village Dabla and Dwarkalal of Village Misroli will be proceeding from Indore to Dhulia with heroin between 6. 00 and 8. 00 p. m. Ravindrasingh prepared a Panchnama (Exh. P-1) of this information in presence of Constables Suresh and Ramesh. Since, Superintendent of Police, indore was on tour, a telephonic information to this effect was sent to the superintendent and on instruction from the Superintendent, to proceed with the case, Ravindrasingh called two independent witnesses namely, Premchand (P. W. 2) and Ashok Kumar (P. W. 1) and appraised them about the secret information at 2. 30 p. m. and to witness the proceedings. After obtaining consent of the witnesses, he constituted a team consisting of Smt. Sabia Khan (P. W. 8), m. D. Senpal, Ravindrasingh, Surendra, both the Constables and driver Dilip reached at Mhow Naka No. 8. At 8. 00 p. m. a bus of M. P. State Road Transport bearing registration No. MP-09-S-8003 going to Pune was stopped and Smt. Sabia Khan informed the conductor of the bus about transportation of illicit contraband article to Dhuliya and, therefore, they wanted to search the luggage of the accused. Thereafter, Smt. Sabia Khan and Ravindrasingh along with panch witnesses and conductor entered inside the bus and found two persons sitting on seat Nos. 15 and 16 in suspicious condition. This fact was apprised to the panch witnesses. On asking by Smt. Sabia Khan they disclosed their names as dwarkalal and Raghunathsingh together with their addresses. At that time, accused Dwarkalal was keeping a sleety colour attachi in his lap and admitted that it was his attachi. 15 and 16 in suspicious condition. This fact was apprised to the panch witnesses. On asking by Smt. Sabia Khan they disclosed their names as dwarkalal and Raghunathsingh together with their addresses. At that time, accused Dwarkalal was keeping a sleety colour attachi in his lap and admitted that it was his attachi. Smt. Sabia Khan asked them whether in the chamber of the attachi any heroin was kept, the accused Dwarkalal admitted that it was containing illicit heroin which was being transported to Dhuliya in association with Raghunathsingh. Thereafter, both the accused persons were got alighted from the bus along with the said attachi and came near the Government vehicle and Smt. Khan disclosed about taking search of the luggage of both the accused persons and that accused persons had right under Section 50 of the Act to give search before a possible nearest Magistrate or the Gazetted Officer. Both the accused persons gave their consent for search of their persons and luggage by ravindra Singh (P. W. 7 ). A Panchnama to this effect was prepared on which the accused persons put their signatures. On opening of the attachi in presence of conductor and panch witnesses it was found to contain one pant, one underwear, one baniyan and one towel. On search of secret chamber of the attachi, in presence of panch witnesses, two transparent plastic bags containing gray colour powder were found. On weigh ment, 3. 420 kgs. powder including the weight of bag was found. On examination with the help of testing kit, it was confirmed that the powder was heroin. From the said bag also, two samples of 5 grams each were taken for chemical examination and kept in a separate plastic bag inside an envelope which was sealed. On opening the second bag, it was found to contain 2. 780 kgs gray colour powder. On examination with the help of test kit, it was found that the said powder was heroin. From this bag also two samples of 5 grams each were taken and sealed. The two packets of heroin as also the four packets of samples were seized and sealed on which the panch witnesses and ravindrasingh put their signatures. The envelops of sample taken from first bag were marked as A-l and A-2 and the envelops of sample taken from second bag were marked as B-l and B-2. The two packets of heroin as also the four packets of samples were seized and sealed on which the panch witnesses and ravindrasingh put their signatures. The envelops of sample taken from first bag were marked as A-l and A-2 and the envelops of sample taken from second bag were marked as B-l and B-2. The attachi and the clothes were also seized and sealed on which the panch witnesses and Ravindrasingh put their signatures. ( 3. ) PERSONAL search of the accused persons were also taken by ravindrasingh through a separate panchnama. Their statements were also recorded on the spot itself. Both the accused persons admitted to carry the aforesaid heroin to Dhuliya. They were arrested. A panchnama of Fascimile seal (Exh. P-7) and spot map (Exh. P-8) were also prepared. On personal search raghunathsingh was found in possession of a common bus ticket of seat Nos. 15 and 16 which was seized vide Exh. P-9. After reaching to the Office of Central bureau of Narcotics, S. I. Ravindrasingh submitted a detailed report of the proceeding under Section 57 of the Act vide Exh. P-19 to Superintendent Shri s. K. Bajpayee who put his comments thereon and instructed Smt. Sabia Khan for further investigation into the matter. ( 4. ) THE seized heroin and samples were deposited in the Malkhana of the Bureau. On 27-7-01, the samples along with fascimile seal were sent for chemical examination to Government Opium Factory, Neemuch with constable Dinesh Chandrawat (P. W. 6) who handed over the same to Neemuch opium Factory and obtained acknowledgment thereof. As per Chemical examiners report, the sample powder was found to be heroin. During the course of investigation, both the accused persons admitted that they were going to sell the heroin to one Hatir at Dhuliya. They also admitted that the said heroin was purchased by them from one Parvez Khan of Bhawani Mandi. After due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for commission of the aforesaid offences. ( 5. ) THE appellants denied the charges and pleaded false implication. In defence, Raghunathsingh stated that he had come to Sanghi Company for payment of bill and from Sarvate Bus Stand CBN personnel took him to CBN office and obtained his signatures on blank papers. In defence Dwarkalal stated that he was asked his name and address and was taken to CBN Office from railway Station. In defence, Raghunathsingh stated that he had come to Sanghi Company for payment of bill and from Sarvate Bus Stand CBN personnel took him to CBN office and obtained his signatures on blank papers. In defence Dwarkalal stated that he was asked his name and address and was taken to CBN Office from railway Station. Both the accused persons stated that they do not know about other two accused persons. They did not examine any witness in their defence. The learned Trial Court after trial, finding the appellants guilty convicted and sentenced them as mentioned herein above. ( 6. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants have submitted that there is no compliance of the provisions of Section 57 of the Act and independent panch witnesses Ashok Kumar (P. W. 1) and Premchand (P. W. 2) have not supported the prosecution case; seized brief-case/attachi was not produced in the Court and there are contradictions regarding weight of sample in the statements of vimal Mohan Goyal (P. W. 5), Assistant Chemical Examiner, and Seizing officer, S. I. Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7 ). Therefore, it is not established by the prosecution that same samples were sent for analysis; Chandramani (P. W. 3)and Ramesh (P. W. 4), Bagwan conductor and driver of the bus have also not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile and that the conviction on the basis of the statements of Ravindra Singh Negi (P. W. 7) and inspector Smt. Sabia Khan is not sustainable because they are interested witnesses. Learned Counsel has invited attention of this Court at Paras 25 and 40 of the impugned judgment and submitted that Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7), Sub inspector has admitted that it was his first case under NDPS Act after joining of service and the learned Trial Court extended benefit to the prosecution regarding lapses committed by him. It is also argued that the contents of statements of the appellants recorded vide Exh. P-17, P-18, P-21 and P-22 by ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) and Smt. Sabia Khan (P. W. 8) could not have been used for basing conviction by the learned Trial Court, because the contents therein have not been stated by both the witnesses in Court and mere marking exhibit on the statements would not be sufficient. In seizure memo (Exh. P-4), there is no mention of bus ticket which is pasted on seizure memo (Exh. In seizure memo (Exh. P-4), there is no mention of bus ticket which is pasted on seizure memo (Exh. P-9) and this shows that the ticket was managed by the Investigating Agency later on and on seizure memo of ticket (Exh. P-9), time, place and date are not mentioned. It is also highlighted that from possession of appellant No. 2 Raghunathsingh, there was no seizure of any contraband drug and there is no evidence to establish about his knowledge that appellant Dwarkalal was carrying the seized heroin in his attachi. ( 7. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the entire record, this Court is of the view that there is no substance in this appeal and the learned Trial Court has dealt with each and every aspect of the case and recorded the judgment and finding of conviction of the appellants. ( 8. ) IT is not correct to say that the provision of Section 57 of the Act was not complied with by Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) and Inspector Mrs. Sabia Khan. Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) has specifically stated that on the date of incident, superintendent Shri J. C. Shrivastava was not present at the Head Quarters in indore, therefore, he intimated about the case to In -charge Superintendent, jaora, Shri Bajpayee on telephone and in the night Shri Bajpayee reached at indore Office to whom, he submitted detailed report (Exh. P-19) as per provision under Section 57 of the Act. On perusal of this report, it is crystal clear that there is sufficient compliance of provision of Section 57 with regard to arrest and seizure to immediate official superior. Smt. Sabia Khan (P. W. 8) has also stated that on the report (Exh. P-19) Superintendent Shri Bajpayee wrote portion B to B thereby appointing her as Investigating Officer for further investigation and put his signature at place C to C. She also signed at place D to d in regard to noting of the instruction. (In the impugned judgment Para 26, it appears that because of typing mistake in place of report Exh. P-19, Exh. P-37 is typed ). It is well settled legal position that the provision of Section 57 of the Act is not mandatory. [see: Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 8 SCC 725 ]. ( 9. (In the impugned judgment Para 26, it appears that because of typing mistake in place of report Exh. P-19, Exh. P-37 is typed ). It is well settled legal position that the provision of Section 57 of the Act is not mandatory. [see: Babubhai Vs. State of Gujarat, (2005) 8 SCC 725 ]. ( 9. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants have vehemently argued that the independent panch witnesses Ashok Kumar (P. W. 1) and Premchand (P. W. 2) have not supported the prosecution case regarding search and seizure, therefore, the statements of only official witnesses should have not been relied upon. On this aspect the legal position is very settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Ravindran Vs. Superintendent of Customs has held that non-examination of independent witnesses of search and seizure is not fatal to the prosecution case, but where such witness is not examined in the course of trial, the evidence of officials witnesses may be approached with due care and caution and corroboration may be insisted upon. In the instant case, witnesses have been examined and they have admitted about signing on the documents of search and seizure, arrest and proceedings in this regard vide Exh. P-l to Exh. P-9 and ashok Kumar (P. W. 1) has explained his signature by saying that his signatures were obtained by Madam Inspector of the Bureau and two other persons on blank papers at Shivaji Vatika Square. In cross-examination by the prosecutor he denied the contents of his statement (Exh. P-10 ). Premchand (P. W. 2) has also admitted his signatures on the documents (Exh. P-l to Exh. P-9) and stated that the same were taken in the office of the Bureau, but he was not knowing about the documents. He was confronted with his statement (Exh. P-ll) and he denied the contents mentioned therein. In this view of the matter it is not a case of non-examination of independent witnesses. The witnesses have been examined, but they have not supported the prosecution case. He was confronted with his statement (Exh. P-ll) and he denied the contents mentioned therein. In this view of the matter it is not a case of non-examination of independent witnesses. The witnesses have been examined, but they have not supported the prosecution case. Under these circumstances, this Court has visualized the statement of Ravindrasingh Negi sub- Inspector (P. W. 7) and Smt. Sabia Khan and found that their version does not suffer from any inherent weakness and finds corroboration from the statements of independent witness Chandramani Tiwari (P. W. 3), conductor of the bus who has deposed that the bus was stopped by the officials of Narcotics department at Mhow Naka and they interrogated about attachi lying on a wrack above the seats of the passengers. The said attachi was lying near seat Nos. 15 and 16. The passengers sitting at seat Nos. 15 and 16 were interrogated and they were got alighted from the bus along with the attachi and thereafter, the officials were taken to both the persons. This witness failed to identify the appellants in court, but stated clearly in Para 4 that the attachi was opened before him and in the said attachi powder was found in polythene packets. He also identified the ticket (Exh. P-9) (pasted on a paper) and stated that it was the ticket of the said bus which was taken by him from Indore to Pune. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution, because he declined to identify the appellants and was confronted with his case diary statement (Exh. P-l2 ). It is trite law that merely because, the witness has been declared hostile, his whole statement cannot be treated as washed off the record altogether. A part of the statement can be acted upon if the Court is satisfied. [see: Satpal Vs. Delhi Administration, air 1976 SC 294 , Para 51]. ( 10. ) IN the case at hand, the version of the conductor Chandramani tiwari can be acted upon for the purposes of taking of the bus, interrogation from two passengers and finding of attachi near seat Nos. 15 and 16, where two passengers were sitting, they were interrogated and in the attachi a polythene packet containing powder was found. The statement of Chandramani Tiwari is clearly establishing and corroborating the version of both the official witnesses accept the identification of the appellants. 15 and 16, where two passengers were sitting, they were interrogated and in the attachi a polythene packet containing powder was found. The statement of Chandramani Tiwari is clearly establishing and corroborating the version of both the official witnesses accept the identification of the appellants. The defence of the appellants that they were not travelling in the bus and appellant Dwarka was caught on Railway station and appellant No. 2 Raghunathsingh was caught at Sarvate Bus Stand and taken to the office is belied by the statement of Tiwari. The driver of the bus ramesh Bagwan (P. W. 4) has also admitted about stopping of the bus at Mhow naka, checking of the bus and taking out two persons therefrom. He was declared hostile and he denied his statement (Exh. P-13 ). Statement of this witness is also supporting the version of both the official witnesses regarding stopping of bus at Mhow Naka and getting down two passengers out of the bus. ( 11. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants relying on the judgment rendered by the Bombay, Rajasthan and M. P. High Courts in the case of Abdul rashid Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1999 (2) Crimes 362 , Bhaiyan Shivmurty Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 (1) EFR 98 passed by the Rajasthan High Court and nazma Bano alias Khurshid Vs. State of M. P. , 1998 (1) EFR Page 339, has argued that according to Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7), Sub-Inspector, from each packets, two samples of 5 grams each were taken for sending to Government opium Alkalite Factory, Neemuch, but Assistant Chemical Examiner, Vimal mohan Goyal (P. W. 5) has in cross-examination Para 8, deposed that after breaking the seal of the packet, the weight of the powder was 8 grams, therefore, the sample sent by Investigating Officer was not the same sample which was taken from the appellant Dwarkalal. This Court has given anxious consideration to this aspect and is in full agreement with the finding of the learned Trial Court on this aspect that Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7), Sub-Inspector in examination-in-chief has deposed that out of each packets, two samples each of about 5 grams were taken and he has given the exact weight of the sample and also in examination-in-chief, stated that the samples were weighed. His this version finds support from the seizure memo (Exh. His this version finds support from the seizure memo (Exh. P-4) wherein he has also mentioned that two samples from each packet each of about five grams were taken for chemical analysis. ( 12. ) IT is pertinent to mention here that in examination- in-chief as well as in the seizure document (Exh. P-4), nowhere it is available that samples were weighed. This witness was examined and cross-examined after more than one year and that too in instalments and in cross-examination, he admitted that the samples of five grams each were weighed. His this version does not find support from the document (Exh. P-4) whereas his version in examination-in-chief in regard to taking of sample of about five grams and he did not mention that same were weighed, is fully supported by the seizure document prepared on the spot (Exh. P-4 ). ( 13. ) ASSISTANT Chemical Analyst, Vimal Mohan Goyal has stated about weigh ment of the packets of samples in examination-in-chief, but in cross-examination, he deposed that the packets were weighed after breaking of seals, but he failed to say about net weight and stated that weight of the powder was 8 grams. He has also stated in Para 14 that when the sample was received and receipt was given to the concerned Constable, the sample was not weighed. His version about 8 grams weight of powder, is not corroborated by the document, i. e. , analysis report (Exh. P-l4 ). He admitted that the seal of samples were tallying with the seal sent separately and he received fascimile seal along with letter dated 27-7-01 with two sealed packets sent by the Superintendent, preventive CBN Indore in Cr. No. 4/01. This shows that the samples which were taken in this case and sent to Analyst were the same samples and Sub Inspector, ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) in Court identified the packets of remaining two samples having his own seal containing slip bearing signatures of the appellants. Both were marked as articles A-2 and B-2. Learned Trial Court has discussed this issue in Paras 41 to 44 and held that the property was seized and samples were taken on 26-7-01 and on the very next day,i. e. , 27-7-01, two samples were sent with D. K. Chandrawat (P. W. 6) along with letter (Exh. P-16) to Neemuch factory and on 28-7-01 samples were deposited, receipt whereof Exh. P-16) to Neemuch factory and on 28-7-01 samples were deposited, receipt whereof Exh. P-15 was issued by Vimal Mohan Goyal (P. W. 5), who has stated that on each samples there were seven seals and sample was intact. Seals were tallying with fascimile seals sent separately. This Court is in full agreement with the finding of the learned Trial Court that the samples were not taken after weighing and the same were taken only on assessment basis. Therefore, the difference in weight would not attach any vulnerability to the prosecution case. ( 14. ) THERE was absolutely no delay in sending the samples. After taking the samples, the same were deposited in the Malkhana as stated in Paras 21 and 23, by Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7 ). ( 15. ) AMONGST the aforementioned judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants, in the case of Bhaiyan alias Shivmurty (supra), the acquittal was based on the ground of non-procurement of independent witnesses at the time of search and seizure of the house and discrepancy in weight of two samples, same were not explained and Forensic Science laboratory Report was not produced in evidence before the Court. The discrepancy in weight was not explained by the prosecution whereas in the instant case, independent witnesses were secured and examined, Forensic science Laboratory report was also filed and proved in evidence and the discrepancy in weight has also been found and reasonably explained by the prosecution, as discussed by the learned Trial Court as well as this Court hereinabove. The acquittal of accused in other two judgments (supra) is also based on several infirmities and prosecution failed to explain the difference in weight of sample. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the above mentioned judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants are not at all applicable and helpful to the appellants. ( 16. ) THE Supreme Court in the case of Prrbha Shankar Dubey Vs. State of M. P. , (2004) 2 SCC 56 has observed regarding use of judgments as per provision under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (The precedent) that line or a word in a judgment cannot be read in isolation or for interpreting a statutory provision, to impute a different meaning to the observation. State of M. P. , (2004) 2 SCC 56 has observed regarding use of judgments as per provision under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. (The precedent) that line or a word in a judgment cannot be read in isolation or for interpreting a statutory provision, to impute a different meaning to the observation. In the case at hand, on going through the statement of all the prosecution witnesses and documents, it cannot be said that there was change of sample and same sample was not sent to the laboratory which were seized from the possession of the appellants. ( 17. ) LASTLY, the learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that the statement (Exh. P-18) of Dwarkalal recorded by Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) and exh. P-17 written in his own handwriting by Raghunathsingh, cannot be relied upon, because the contents thereof were not proved by the prosecution in court. It is also submitted that apart from the statement of Raghunathsingh (Exh. P-17), there is no other evidence against him to base conviction. On consideration, this Court is of the view that Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) has specifically stated that he recorded the statement of appellant Dwarkalal (Exh. P-18 ). At A to A place he signed and appellant Dwarkalal signed at Portion B to b. Both these statements of the accused persons were recorded as per provision under Section 67 of the Act and contents thereof are admissible in evidence as extra-judicial confession of the accused persons made before the officials of the narcotics Bureau who are not the police officers. The Supreme Court in the case of Gagan Kanojiya Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 13 SCC 516 has held that "extra-judicial confession cannot ipso facto be termed to be tainted and if made voluntarily and proved, can be relied upon by the Courts". Complete statement of appellant Dwarkalal (Exh. P-18) was written by himself and in accused statement recorded under Section 313, Cr. PC in answer to question No. 65, he stated that he was taken to the office from Servate Bus Stand where his signature was taken on blank paper as well as written paper after beating. In answer to question No. 41 regarding his statement (Exh. P-17), Raghunathsingh replied "galathai". The statement (Exh. PC in answer to question No. 65, he stated that he was taken to the office from Servate Bus Stand where his signature was taken on blank paper as well as written paper after beating. In answer to question No. 41 regarding his statement (Exh. P-17), Raghunathsingh replied "galathai". The statement (Exh. P-17) is proved by Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) in accordance with the provisions of Section 59 of the Evidence Act which says that "all facts except the contents of the document, may be proved by oral evidence" read with Sections 61 and 67 of the Evidence Act. Both these sections read as under:- "61. Proof of contents of document.- The contents of documents may be proved either by primary or by secondary evidence. " "67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.- If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature of the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person s handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting. " ( 18. ) RAVINDRASINGH (P. W. 7) has specifically stated that both the appellants disclosed before him at the time of search and seizure, that in a polythene bag, there was heroin. In cross-examination, no suggestion was given to this witness that he procured the statements of both appellants by adopting coercive method. The appellants were taken to the Bureau Office in Indore where the Superintendent Shri Bajpayee was present and they could have disclosed before him about any ill-treatment, if practiced upon them by ravindrasingh (P. W. 7 ). They were produced before the Court, but there also they have not made any complaint immediately against Ravindrasingh and they have also not retracted their confessional statements. The suggestion was given to Ravindrasingh that the statement of Raghunathsingh was not in his handwriting. If it was so and he was sure, he could have sent the statement for examination by a Handwriting Expert, in defence. On perusal by naked eye, his signature on several documents and handwriting on Exh. P-17 are tallying properly. He is a literate person serving as "shiksha Karmi". Both the statements of the appellants have been properly proved by Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) as per provisions of the Evidence Act. On perusal by naked eye, his signature on several documents and handwriting on Exh. P-17 are tallying properly. He is a literate person serving as "shiksha Karmi". Both the statements of the appellants have been properly proved by Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7) as per provisions of the Evidence Act. This Court can usefully refer the observation made in the judgment of Shrawan Nathu Kannuar Vs. Smt. Anjanabai Shrawan Kannuar and another, 1997 Cri. LJ 491, in which it has been observed thus:- "needless to say that if anybody wants to prove the contents of the documents other than the public document, it should be proved by through the author of the document viz. , person who has written that document. However, mere production of the documents kept in the police custody will not be a proof of as a public document, as rightly pointed out by the learned Sessions Judge. Unless the officer who recorded the statement is called for and examined, documents cannot be said to be proved, particularly when the person who recorded the statement was very much alive. " ( 19. ) THE appellant Dwarkalal has not levelled any allegation that his statement (Exh. P-18) was recorded after his beating and both the appellants have assigned reasons for speaking against them by Ravindrasingh (P. W. 7), because he is a Police Officer. In answer to question in accused statement, almost all they have replied as "malum Nahin" (not known) or "galat Hai" (incorrect ). It is also clear from the evidence that both the appellants gave statements voluntarily admitting their possession of heroin and gave statements prior to their arrest. This Court does not find any infirmity in both the statements as well as admission of possession of heroin by both the appellants before ravindrasingh which may fragile the prosecution case. ( 20. ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants have placed reliance on the supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Frances Stanly alias Stalin Vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram, 2007 2 SCC (Cri.) 618, and argued that retracted confession should not be relied upon. This court has perused the entire judgment. The Supreme Court has specifically mentioned in Para 17 as under:- "we make it clear that we are not laying down any general principle in this case, and are deciding it only on the particular facts and circumstances of this case. This court has perused the entire judgment. The Supreme Court has specifically mentioned in Para 17 as under:- "we make it clear that we are not laying down any general principle in this case, and are deciding it only on the particular facts and circumstances of this case. Hence, this case cannot be a precedent for other cases which may be on their own facts. " [also see : Supreme Court judgment passed in the case of Narmadadevi gupta Vs. Virendra Kumar, (2003.) 8 SCC 748 Para 16]. ( 21. ) FOR the foregoing legal and factual discussion, this Court does not find any force in this appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.