JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. The State has come in appeal against the judgment dated 9.8.2010, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Mandi, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 40/2007, whereby the respondent-accused (hereinafter referred to as the accused), who was charged with and tried for offence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), has been acquitted. 2. The case of the prosecution, in a nut shell, is that on 24.5.2007, Insp. Shamsher Singh, Insp. Balbir Singh, HC Desh Raj and others were present at Thalaut. At about 7:00 PM, Insp. Shamsher Singh received telephonic information that accused, owner of tea shop at Aut was indulging in trade of charas at his shop and that if raid was conducted immediately, charas in large quantity could be recovered. Insp. Shamsher Singh recorded the information and sent the same through Const. Sanjay Kumar to DSP Vigilance, Mandi. Rest of the police party came in their vehicle to Aut. They reached Aut at 7:17 PM. Devender Kumar and Bhushan Kumar were associated as independent witnesses. At about 7:30 PM, the party reached the shop of the accused. He was found all alone in his shop. His shop was searched. Behind the fridge, a plastic bag was found in which another plastic bag and inside that bag, charas in the form of sticks and discs was found. It weighed 1 kg. 500 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated. The sample parcels and bulk parcel were sealed with seal “T” and taken into possession. One of the samples was sent for chemical analysis. It was found to be charas. The investigation was completed and the challan was put up before the Court after completing all the codal formalities. 3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, has examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. According to him, he was falsely implicated. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. M.A.Khan, Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Hardeep Verma, Advocate, has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 9.8.2010. 5. The learned trial Court acquitted the accused, as noticed hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. M.A.Khan, Addl. Advocate General has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. On the other hand, Mr. Hardeep Verma, Advocate, has supported the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 9.8.2010. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also gone through the judgment and records of the case carefully. 6. PW-1 Const. Lal Singh testified that on 24.5.2007 he was driving government vehicle No. HP-33A-0405 from Mandi to Thalaut and was accompanied by Insp. Shamsher Singh, Insp. Balbir Singh and other police party of vigilance. Insp. Shamsher Singh received information at about 7:00 PM on his mobile about the possessing and sale of narcotic by accused at his tea shop at Aut bazaar. As the place was far away from the Court, Insp. Shamsher Singh sent letter Ext. PW-1/A to DSP Vigilance, Mandi through Const. Sanjay Kumar. Thereafter, all the vigilance officials went towards Aut at the shop of accused. After reaching Aut, Insp. Shamsher Singh constituted the raiding party and local witnesses Devinder Kumar and Bhushan Kumar along with him were associated in the raiding party. The shop of the accused was gheraoed. The accused was present at the spot. He was informed by Insp. Shamsher Singh about the search of his shop and one written notice Ext. PW-1/B was prepared and read over to the accused. Accused gave his written consent Ext. PW-1/C on Ext. PW-1/B that he wanted to get the search of his shop conducted by the police party present on the spot. The search of the shop of the accused was conducted and during search one fridge was found lying in the shop. One polythene bag was found hidden behind this fridge and the same was found tied at its top. Its colour was white and “Bhola Crockery House” was written on that bag. The knot of the poly bag was opened and another polythene bag was found in it over which “Exclusive Dhoti” was written. This bag was also tied with knot at its top. The knot was opened and charas in the shape of sticks and coins was recovered. It weighed 1 kg. 500 grams. The knot of the poly bag was opened and another polythene bag was found in it over which “Exclusive Dhoti” was written. This bag was also tied with knot at its top. The knot was opened and charas in the shape of sticks and coins was recovered. It weighed 1 kg. 500 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated and each sample was put in poly packets and both these packets were sealed with seal impression of “T” at 6 places each. NCB form in triplicate was filled in at the spot by Insp. Shamsher Singh. The remaining charas weighed 1400 grams which was put in same poly bag and covered by cloth piece and also sealed with seal impression “T” at 9 places. In his cross-examination, he admitted that there were about 150-200 shops at Aut bazaar and many shops remained opened up till 9-9:30 PM. Insp. Shamsher Singh received secret information at 7:00 PM. A raiding party immediately proceeded towards Aut bazaar. The offices of Naib Tehsildar and Range Forest Officer are situated at Aut. 7. PW-2 Devender Kumar deposed that he was private transporter at Aut. He did not go to the shop of the accused along with the police officials. Nothing was recovered from the shop of the accused in his presence. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he admitted his signatures on Ext. PW-1/C, PW-1/D, PW-1/E, PW-1/H and PW-1/L. All these documents were written in Hindi. The outer cover of parcels Ext. P- 2 and P-9 were also signed by him. He admitted categorically that he has signed all the seizure memos and parcels. He denied the suggestion that the contraband Ext. P-10 was kept behind the fridge by the accused in his shop. He denied that charas Ext. P-9 was found in bag Ext. P-10 in the shop of the accused in his presence. Volunteered that charas was produced before him in the Rest House. 8. PW-3 Bhushan Kumar deposed that he was also transporter at Aut. All the proceedings were conducted at Rest House, Aut. Nothing was recovered in his presence from the shop of the accused. He was declared also hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he admitted his signatures on memos Ext. PW-1/B, PW-1/C, PW-1/E, PW-1/H, PW-1/L and parcels Ext. P-1, P-2 and P-8. 9. All the proceedings were conducted at Rest House, Aut. Nothing was recovered in his presence from the shop of the accused. He was declared also hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. In his cross-examination, he admitted his signatures on memos Ext. PW-1/B, PW-1/C, PW-1/E, PW-1/H, PW-1/L and parcels Ext. P-1, P-2 and P-8. 9. PW-4 Hem Raj deposed that he was owner of shop No. 13. Shop No. 11 and 12 belonged to accused. The shops were allotted to them by the Deputy Commissioner, Mandi. 10. PW-5 LHC Gian Chand deposed the manner in which the shop of the accused was searched after receiving secret information. Insp. Shamsher Singh reduced it into writing under Section 42 (2) of the Act and sent the same through Const. Sanjay Kumar to DSP Vigilance, Mandi. In his cross-examination, he deposed that the police party had reached the Aut bazaar at 7:15 PM sharp. There were many people, the number of which he could not tell who were taking tea and snacks in the shop of accused. 11. PW-7 Const. Sanjay Kumar deposed that on 24.5.2007, he along with Insp. Shamsher Singh, Insp. Balbir and others had gone for traffic duty. When they reached at Thalaut, secret information was received on the mobile of Insp. Shamsher Singh that accused running a tea stall at Aut bazaar was indulging in procuring and selling of charas. Raiding party was constituted and information was handed over to him for giving it to DSP Vigilance, Mandi. He handed over the same to DSP Vigilance, Mandi. On 31.5.2007, one sealed parcel sealed with seal “T” at six places marked as A-1 along with sample seals “S” & “T”, NCB form in triplicate and other related documents were handed over to him for depositing in FSL Junga vide RC No. 9/2007. He deposited the same with FSL, Junga on 1.6.2007. 12. PW-8 HC Kuldeep Singh, deposed that on 25.5.2007, Insp. Shamsher Singh deposited with him the case property. It was sent to FSL Junga through Const. Sanjay Kumar. 13. PW-9 DSP Gurdev Sharma, deposed that on 24.5.2007 he received report under Section 42(2) of the Act written by Insp. Shamsher Singh through LHC Gian Chand, over which he made endorsement Ext. PW-9/A. On the basis of this information, FIR Ext. PW-9/B was registered. Insp. It was sent to FSL Junga through Const. Sanjay Kumar. 13. PW-9 DSP Gurdev Sharma, deposed that on 24.5.2007 he received report under Section 42(2) of the Act written by Insp. Shamsher Singh through LHC Gian Chand, over which he made endorsement Ext. PW-9/A. On the basis of this information, FIR Ext. PW-9/B was registered. Insp. Shamsher Singh handed over to him three parcels containing sample charas and one bulk parcel, sample parcels marked as A-1 and A-2 sealed with seal “T” at 6 places and bulk parcel sealed with seal “T” at 9 places along with NCB form in triplicate, attachment form, search and seizure memos. He resealed the sample parcels with seal “S” at two places and the bulk parcel with seal “S” at 9 places. He handed over the case property to Insp. Shamsher Singh who deposited it with MHC of the Police Station in his presence. 14. PW-10 Insp. Shamsher Singh deposed that he received secret information on his mobile that accused was indulged in trading of charas at his tea stall. This information was reduced into writing and sent to DSP Vigilance, Mandi through Const. Sanjay Kumar. He along with other officials reached at Aut at about 7:15 PM when they met Devender Kumar and Bhushan Kumar. They reached at the shop of the accused. Accused was present in his shop. The shop was searched. The contraband was recovered. It weighed 1 kg. 500 grams. Two samples of 25 grams each were separated. All the codal formalities were completed on the spot. In his cross-examination, he deposed that they reached Thalot at about 4:14 PM. They laid nakka at Thalout from 4:14 PM to 7:15 PM. He denied the suggestion that no information was received by him. He reached Aut at about 7:15 PM. Independent witnesses met him there. In his further cross-examination, he admitted that when the raiding party reached, there was huge rush in the shop of the accused and 10-15 persons were taking snacks in his shop. 15. What emerges from the appraisal of the statements of the witnesses discussed hereinabove is that PW-10 Insp. Shamsher Singh received secret information. It was reduced into writing and sent to DSP Vigilance, Mandi through Const. Sanjay Kumar. Thereafter, raiding party was constituted. The shop of the accused was searched. Charas was recovered from the shop of the accused. 15. What emerges from the appraisal of the statements of the witnesses discussed hereinabove is that PW-10 Insp. Shamsher Singh received secret information. It was reduced into writing and sent to DSP Vigilance, Mandi through Const. Sanjay Kumar. Thereafter, raiding party was constituted. The shop of the accused was searched. Charas was recovered from the shop of the accused. All the codal formalities were completed at the spot. The case property was produced before PW-9 DSP Gurdev Sharma. He resealed the same. The same was deposited with the MHC of the Police Station. The MHC of the Police Station sent the same to FSL Junga through Const. Sanjay Kumar. 16. Independent witnesses, PW-2 Devender Kumar and PW-3 Bhushan Kumar, though were declared hostile, but they have admitted their signatures on various seizure memos and parcels. The statements of PW-2 Devender Kumar and PW-3 Bhushan Kumar cannot be discarded in their entirety. The statements of the official witnesses inspire confidence. Section 50 of the Act was also not required to be complied with for the simple reason that the contraband was recovered from the shop of the accused and not from his person. 17. The learned trial Court has given undue importance as to whether Baldev was also member of the raiding party at the time when the shop of the accused was searched or not. The minor contradictions, whether the police party has reached Aut at 7:15 PM or 7:30 PM has not in any manner prejudiced the case of the accused. All the witnesses cannot be expected to narrate the facts in a parrot like manner. There is bound to be some discrepancy in the timings due to passage of time. 15. The learned trial Court has also given undue weightage that PW-5 LHC Gian Chand and PW-10 Insp. Shamsher Singh in their examination-in-chief have deposed that accused was all alone in his shop but in their cross-examination they have deposed that 10-15 persons were present in his shop. It is also a minor contradiction. 16. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 , have held that normal discrepancies are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, errors of memory due to lapse of time and due to mental disposition. 16. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Naresh and others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 324 , have held that normal discrepancies are bound to occur due to normal errors of observation, errors of memory due to lapse of time and due to mental disposition. Trivial matters which do not affect core of prosecution case should not be made a ground on which evidence is rejected in its entirety. Their lordships have held as follows: “18. The High Court has given undue importance to the minor contradictions in the statement of Subedar (PW.1) and Balak Ram (PW.5) as one of them had stated that the I.O. reached the place of occurrence at 10.15 p.m. and another has stated that he reached about mid night. The incident occurred in mid October 1979. This is the time when the winter starts and in such a fact-situation no person is supposed to keep record of exact time particularly in a rural area. Everybody deposes according to his estimate. More so, the statement had been recorded after a long lapse of time. Therefore, a margin of 1-1/2 hours remained merely a trivial issue. 30. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. "Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility." Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited. [Vide: State Represented by Inspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152 ; Arumugam v. State, AIR 2009 SC 331 ; Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 SCC 334 ; and Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287]. 31. The High Court has also fallen into error in giving significance to a trivial issue, namely, that in respect of the morning incident all the accused had not been named in the complaint/NCR.” 17. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gangabhavani vs. Rayapati Venkat Reddy and others, reported in (2013) 15 SCC 298 , have held that in case there are minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. Their lordships have held as follows: “12. In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence. Their lordships have held as follows: “12. Thus, the position of law in cases where there is a contradiction between medical evidence and ocular evidence stands crystallised to the effect that though the ocular testimony of a witness has greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence, when medical evidence makes the ocular testimony improbable, that becomes a relevant factor in the process of the evaluation of evidence. However, where the medical evidence goes so far that it completely rules out all possibility of the ocular evidence being true, the ocular evidence may be disbelieved. CONTRADICTIONS IN EVIDENCE: 13. In State of U.P. v. Naresh, (2011) 4 SCC 324 , this Court after considering a large number of its earlier judgments held: “In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence. Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility.” Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.” A similar view has been re-iterated by this Court in Tehsildar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 1012 ; Pudhu Raja & Anr. v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, JT 2012 (9) SC 252; and Lal Bahadur v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2013) 4 SCC 557 ). 14. Thus, it is evident that in case there are minor contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses the same are bound to be ignored as the same cannot be dubbed as improvements and it is likely to be so as the statement in the court is recorded after an inordinate delay. In case the contradictions are so material that the same go to the root of the case, materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution case, the court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and find out as to whether their depositions inspire confidence.” 18. Their lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhu alias Madhuranatha and another vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2014) 12 SCC 419 , have held that minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution must not prompt the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Irrelevant details which do not, in any way, corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. The Court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter. Their lordships have further held that the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution. There can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. Their lordships have held as follows: “15. There can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. Their lordships have held as follows: “15. It has been canvassed on behalf of the appellants that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the depositions of witnesses like the timings when deceased was seen last with the appellants and the distances of places etc. do not tally. Thus, their evidence cannot be relied upon. 16. In Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, JT 2013 (8) SC 181, this Court considered the issue of discrepancies in the depositions. It is a settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution must not prompt the court to reject the evidence in its entirety. Therefore, irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness should be ignored. The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence, more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witnesses and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken, so as to render it unworthy of belief. Thus, the court is not supposed to give undue importance to omissions, contradictions and discrepancies which do not go to the heart of the matter, and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness. A similar view has been re-iterated in State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 ; State rep. byInspector of Police v. Saravanan & Anr., AIR 2009 SC 152 ; and Vijay @ Chinee v. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191 . 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in some of the recoveries, though a large number of people were available, but only police personnel were made recovery witnesses. Thus, the whole prosecution case becomes doubtful. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that in some of the recoveries, though a large number of people were available, but only police personnel were made recovery witnesses. Thus, the whole prosecution case becomes doubtful. 18. The term ‘witness’ means a person who is capable of providing information by way of deposing as regards relevant facts, via an oral statement, or a statement in writing, made or given in Court, or otherwise. In Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1995 SC 1930 , this Court dealt with the issue of the requirement of the examination of an independent witness, and whether the evidence of a police witness requires corroboration. The Court held that though the same must be subject to strict scrutiny, however, the evidence of police officials cannot be discarded merely on the ground that they belong to the police force and are either interested in the investigation or in the prosecution. However, as far as possible the corroboration of their evidence on material particulars should be sought.(See also: Paras Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 1993 SC 1212 ; Balbir Singh v. State, (1996) 11 SCC 139 ; Kalpnath Rai v. State (Through CBI), AIR 1998 SC 201; M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, AIR 2003 SC 4311 ; and Ravinderan v. Superintendent of Customs, AIR 2007 SC 2040 ). 19. Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause to bear such enmity against the accused so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence. 20. This Court in Laxmibai (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Anr. v. Bhagwantbuva (dead) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors., AIR 2013 SC 1204 examined a similar issue and held: “Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See: Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1994 SC 226 ;State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors., AIR 1998 SC 1328 ; Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.), AIR 2001 SC 3207 ; and Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005 SC 1096 )”. 19. PW-9 DSP Gurdev Sharma has categorically deposed that he resealed the sample parcels with seal “S” at two places and the bulk parcel with seal “S” at 9 places. It is evident from Ext. PW-10/G, report of the Forensic Science Laboratory that one parcel bearing six seals of “T” and resealed with two seals of “S” has reached FSL, Junga on 31.5.2007. It was carried to Junga by Const. Sanjay Kumar. The inner and outer seals were found intact and tallied with the seal impression sent by the SHO on form NCB-I. The contraband was found to be charas. The prosecution has proved that the charas was recovered from the shop of the accused and the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The prosecution has proved that the charas was recovered from the shop of the accused and the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial Court in Sessions trial No. 40 of 2007, dated 9.8.2010 is set aside. The accused is convicted under Section 20 of the ND & PS Act. The accused be heard on quantum of sentence on 18.7.2016. The Registry is directed to prepare and sent the production warrant to the quarter concerned. Bail bonds are cancelled.