JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. 1. Learned Special Judge, Kullu vide judgment dated 7.8.2014 passed in Session Trial No. 128/2013 (294 of 2013) while arriving at a conclusion that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence produced by the prosecution has acquitted the respondent (hereinafter referred as to the ‘accused’) of the charge under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NDPS Act’ in short). 2. The legality and validity of the impugned judgment has been questioned on the grounds inter-alia that cogent and reliable evidence produced by the prosecution has been appreciated by learned trial Judge in a slip shod and perfunctory manner and as a result thereof, based its findings on hypothesis, surmises and conjectures. The reasoning given by learned trial Court while acquitting the accused of the charge is manifestly unrealistic, unreasonable and also unsustainable, as there was no occasion to the Court below to have discarded the well reasoned and consistent testimony of prosecution witnesses without any rhyme or reason and for untenable reasons. The acquittal of the accused in the case in hand is stated to be in utter disregard of the cogent and reliable evidence available on record. There being no material contradictions nor any omissions in the investigation conducted, learned trial Court has erroneously given undue weightage to the so called contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. The quantity of charas recovered from the accused being 510 grams, it cannot be said that the same was foisted upon the accused by the police falsely, particularly when nothing has come on record that the I.O. and the official witnesses he associated to witness the search and seizure were inimical to the accused or having any grudge against him. The impugned judgment is, therefore, stated to be legally and factually unsustainable. The same, as such, has been sought to be quashed and set aside. 3. Now if coming to the record, HC Brij Bhushan, I.O. Police Post, Jari accompanied by Constable Ashok Kumar PW-2, Constable Bhim Sen and Home Guard Anil Kumar left for patrolling towards Chharod nalla early in the morning i.e. at 4.00 a.m. Rapat in this regard in daily diary Ext. PW-1/A was entered. The police party while at Kenchimor had seen the accused coming from Manikaran side. He was having green coloured bag Ext. P-2 in his hand. PW-1/A was entered. The police party while at Kenchimor had seen the accused coming from Manikaran side. He was having green coloured bag Ext. P-2 in his hand. On noticing the presence of police party, he had thrown the said bag Ext. P-2 towards valley side and started walking briskly towards Bhunter side. Such an act on the part of the accused raised suspicion in the mind of the police officials, therefore, he was intercepted by PW-7, who is I.O. of the case. The I.O. has verified the antecedents of accused and the reason qua throwing the bag Ext. P-2 by him. He, however, failed to give satisfactory reply and rather became nervous. On this, the accused was directed by PW-7 to pick up the bag and to get the same checked. He in compliance to the directions of PW-7 picked up the bag from the place where it was thrown and shown the same to PW-7. The place an isolated one having no population, therefore, Constable Ashok Kumar PW-2 and HC Bhim Sen accompanying the I.O. were associated to witness the search and seizure. On checking the bag Ext. P-2 six ‘Chaparnuma’ (rectangle) shaped pieces wrapped with brown coloured cello tape were recovered. On removal of cello tape three pieces were found ‘Aayatakkar’ (rectangular) in shape, whereas, remaining ‘Golinuma’ (ball) shaped wrapped with transparent polythene Ext. P-3. The same was weighed with electronic scale with the I.O. and found to be 510 grams in weight. The recovered charas was again put in the same bag Ext. P-2 and sealed with three impressions of seal ‘O’ in parcel Ext. P-1. The sample of seal ‘O’ Ext. PW-2/A was separately obtained over a piece of cloth and seal after its use was handed over to Constable Ashok Kumar. The NCB forms Ext. PW-4/A were filled in triplicate and thereafter the contraband allegedly charas recovered from the possession of the accused was taken in possession vide seizure memo Ext. PW-2/B. Therefore, rukka Ext. PW-6/A was prepared and sent to the police station, Kullu through Constable Ashok Kumar, on the basis whereof FIR Ext. PW-6/B was registered against the accused by the Inspector/Station House Officer Sher Singh. PW-6 has prepared the file and same was handed over to PW-2 Constable Ashok Kumar for being taken to the I.O. PW-7 at the spot. The I.O. had prepared the site plan Ext. PW-6/B was registered against the accused by the Inspector/Station House Officer Sher Singh. PW-6 has prepared the file and same was handed over to PW-2 Constable Ashok Kumar for being taken to the I.O. PW-7 at the spot. The I.O. had prepared the site plan Ext. PW-7/A and also photographed the spot vide photographs Ext. PW-7/B-1 to Ext. PW-7/B-10. He also prepared the CD Ext. PW-7/B- 11 and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. The accused was interrogated and thereafter arrested and grounds of arrest were disclosed to him vide memo Ext. PW-7/G. He thereafter was got medically examined in CHC Jari. The accused along with the case property was produced before the Station House Officer, PW-6 in Police Station, Kullu who re-sealed the parcel Ext. P-1 with three impressions of seal ‘I’ and after filling up the relevant columns of NCB forms Ext. PW- 4/B handed over the case property with all documents to PW-4, HC Ram Krishan, Police Station, Kullu. Rapat qua re-sealing the case property and entrustment thereof Ext. PW-6/D was also entered in the daily diary. 4. On the same day, special report Ext. PW-3/A was prepared and delivered to the Additional S.P. Kullu Shri Nihal Chand. The Additional S.P. had made the endorsement Ext. PW-3/B thereon and handed over the same to his Reader Balbir Singh PW-3. PW-4, the MHC had forwarded the parcel Ext. P-1 along with NCB-1 forms, seizure memo and samples of seal to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga vide RC No. 78/13 Ext. PW-4/C through Constable Chet Ram PW-5. This witness has also filled entries in Column No. 12 of NCB forms Ext. PW- 4/B. PW-5 had deposited the case property and the documents as well as sample of seals handed over to him in the laboratory and not allowed the same to be tampered with in any manner whatsoever. On the receipt of report of chemical examiner Ext. P-A and completion of investigation, prepared the challan and filed in the Court. 5. Learned Special Judge on consideration of the challan and documents annexed thereto has found a prima-facie case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act made out against the accused and charge against him was framed accordingly. He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Therefore, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. 5. Learned Special Judge on consideration of the challan and documents annexed thereto has found a prima-facie case under Section 20 of the NDPS Act made out against the accused and charge against him was framed accordingly. He, however, pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. Therefore, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses in all. The material prosecution witnesses, however, are PW-2 Constable Ashok Kumar and the I.O. PW-7 Brij Bhushan. 6. On the other hand, accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution evidence being wrong and pleaded that the prosecution witnesses being police officials have falsely deposed against him. He, however, opted for not producing any evidence in his defence. 7. Learned trial Judge on appreciation of the facts of the case and also the evidence available on record has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution evidence is not consistent and rather contradictory in nature and also that the contradictions/omissions appeared on record goes to the root of the prosecution case. The accused was, therefore, acquitted of the charge framed against him. 8. On careful perusal of the impugned judgment, we could notice the following contradictions/inconsistencies/omissions taken into consideration by learned trial Judge while recording the findings of acquittal in this case: (i) The testimony of PW-2 that accused picked up the bag Ext. P-2 from the place where it was thrown by him opened and got the same checked from the I.O. PW-7, whereas, according to the I.O. he picked up and shown the bag to him and then it was checked. (ii) As per rukka Ext. PW-2/B and FIR Ext. PW-6/B, six ‘Chaparnuma’ (rectangle) shaped pieces out of which three ‘Aayatakaar (rectangular) in shape, whereas, three ‘Golinuma (ball) shaped were recovered from the bag Ext. P-2, whereas, according to PW-2 six recovered packets were ‘Chappati’ shaped and as per the testimony of PW-7, six pieces of rectangular in shape, whereas, six in round shape. (iii) According to PW-2, he took lift from the spot up to Bhunter and therefrom he travelled to Kullu by bus when deputed to deliver rukka in the police station there. P-2, whereas, according to PW-2 six recovered packets were ‘Chappati’ shaped and as per the testimony of PW-7, six pieces of rectangular in shape, whereas, six in round shape. (iii) According to PW-2, he took lift from the spot up to Bhunter and therefrom he travelled to Kullu by bus when deputed to deliver rukka in the police station there. In view of this, trial court has concluded that the vehicles were coming and as such the version of PW-2 and PW-7 that the spot was an isolated and secluded place, independent witnesses were not associated is deliberate and the evidence to the contrary is false. (iv) The version of PW-2 that the police party went to the spot in the private vehicle of the I.O. PW-7, however, the I.O. has not stated so nor is there any mention in the rapat Ext. PW- 1/A in this regard. (v) According to PW-2 he handed over the rukka to PW-4 HC Ram Krishan and it is he who prepared the case file as well as handed over to him, however, according to PW-6, the Station House Officer, it is he who recorded the FIR on the basis of rukka as well as prepared the case file and handed over the same to PW-2. PW-4 Ram Krishan has not said that it is he who received the rukka and registered the FIR as well as prepared the case file and delivered the same to PW-2. Thus in view of the findings recorded, the testimony of PW-2 is not reliable. (vi) According to PW-2 he delivered the rukka in the police station at 8.30 a.m. and the FIR was handed over to him at 8.50 a.m., however, as per the testimony of PW-6, the Station House Officer, it took 45 minutes to prepare the file. Therefore, the Court below has suspected the manner in which as per prosecution case the FIR was registered and the case file prepared. (vii) According to PW2 and PW-7, six pieces wrapped with ‘khaki’ (brown) coloured cello tape were recovered from the bag Ext. P-2 and when the cello tape removed recovered substance was found wrapped in transparent polythene, however, as per report Ext. P-X, the wrapper on the substance being zip polythene, therefore, the trial Court has doubted the authenticity and genuineness of samples sent for analysis. 9. P-2 and when the cello tape removed recovered substance was found wrapped in transparent polythene, however, as per report Ext. P-X, the wrapper on the substance being zip polythene, therefore, the trial Court has doubted the authenticity and genuineness of samples sent for analysis. 9. In our considered opinion, the contradictions/omissions hereinabove noticed by learned trial Judge were not of such a nature so as to have gone to the very root of the prosecution case and in the light of overwhelming cogent and reliable evidence to belie the recovery of contraband i.e. charas from the bag Ext. P-2, which the accused was holding in his hand and on seeing the police thrown the same in hill side. 10. No contradiction as at Serial No. (i) hereinabove is there in the prosecution evidence for the reason that both PW-2 and PW-7 have said in one voice that bag Ext. P-2 was picked up by the accused on the direction of I.O. PW-7. He got the same checked from the I.O. opened and shown the same to the I.O. and then it was checked is one and the same thing because the same checked by the accused or shown the same first and thereafter checked by the I.O. does not make any difference nor version of PW-2 and PW-7 could have been treated as contradictory in nature. 11. Now if coming to the so called contradiction in the testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 and also rukka Ext. PW-2/B as well as FIR Ext. PW6/B, the opinion formed by learned trial Judge is again far fetched for the reason that ‘Chaparnuma’ (rectangle) shaped pieces out of which three pieces were found ‘Aayatakkar’ (rectangular) in shape, whereas, remaining ‘Golinuma’ (ball) shaped were recovered from the bag Ext. P-2. True it is that as per the version of PW-2 six ‘Chapatti’ shaped pieces were recovered from the bag, whereas, as per that of I.O. six rectangular pieces were found kept therein. True it is that there is inconsistency in the testimony of said witnesses qua this aspect of the matter because there is difference between ‘Chapatti’ shaped substance and rectangular shaped substance. The facts, however, remains that six pieces were recovered from the bag. The same as per rukka were rectangular and balls shaped. It is well said that a man may tell lie but not the documents. The facts, however, remains that six pieces were recovered from the bag. The same as per rukka were rectangular and balls shaped. It is well said that a man may tell lie but not the documents. As a matter of fact, recovered charas was in the form of six pieces, out of which three pieces were rectangular, whereas, three ball shaped. The same can be seen in the photographs Ext. PW-7/B-7 and Ext. PW-7/B-8. Therefore, on this score also, no contradiction and inconsistency of such a nature so as to go to the root of the prosecution case should have been inferred by learned trial Judge. 12. Now if coming to the so called inconsistency in the prosecution evidence as noticed at Serial No. (iii) hereinabove, the same is again uncalled for because it was 7.35 a.m. when the rukka Ext. PW-2/A was prepared and handed over to PW-2 for being taken to Police Station, Kullu for registration of the case, whereas, the accused was nabbed at 5.40 a.m. early in the morning, it can reasonably be believed that by the time i.e. 7.35 a.m. when the rukka was handed over to PW-2, the vehicular traffic would have commenced on the road and PW-2 who as per his version walked few steps towards Kullu from the spot took lift in some vehicle available by that time. Therefore, there was no occasion for learned trial Judge to have discarded the evidence as has come on record by way of the testimony of PW-2 and PW-7 that spot being isolated and secluded place, independent persons were not present there to witness the search and seizure. True it is that PW-1 and PW-2 admit existence of liquor vend nearby the spot and few other shops at a distance of 200 meters therefrom. However, in early hours, it was not possible to have called someone if sleeping at that time in the said shops. True it is that PW-1 and PW-2 admit existence of liquor vend nearby the spot and few other shops at a distance of 200 meters therefrom. However, in early hours, it was not possible to have called someone if sleeping at that time in the said shops. The apex Court has held in Makhan Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 247 , that it is not always possible to join independent persons to witness the search and seizure at all places and at every time and that at occasions, the independent person even show their reluctance for being associated as witness to witness the search and seizure and also that official witnesses, if associated, in such an eventuality if close scrutiny of their testimony reveals that the same is consistent and not contradictory in nature, they are as much good as any other independent person. The relevant extract of the judgment in Makhan Singh’ case (supra) reads as follows: “……In peculiar circumstances of the case, it may not be possible to find out independent witnesses at all places and at all times. Independent witnesses who live in the same village or nearby villages of the accused are at times afraid of to come and depose in favour of the prosecution. Though it is well settled that a conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses, condition precedent is that the evidence of such official witnesses must inspire confidence. In the present case, it is not as if independent witnesses were not available…..” Therefore, learned trial Judge should have not recorded the findings of acquittal on this score also. 13. The so called inconsistency at Serial No. (iv) that as per testimony of PW-2, the police party went to the spot in private vehicle of the I.O. PW-7, whereas, PW- 7 has not stated so while in the witness box nor is there any mention in this regard in the rapat Ext. PW-1/A, is again without any basis for the reason firstly, that PW-2 has not been cross-examined qua this part of his statement in examination-in-chief nor any suggestion given to PW-7 that the police party had gone to the spot in his vehicle or otherwise. Otherwise also, how the mode by which the police party reached on the spot was relevant for the reason that the evidence in the shape of photographs Ext. Otherwise also, how the mode by which the police party reached on the spot was relevant for the reason that the evidence in the shape of photographs Ext. PW-7/B-1 to Ext. PW-7/B-8 reveals that the accused can be seen on the spot along with green coloured bag Ext. P-2 after being thrown in the valley side below the road. It is significant to note that the accused has not questioned the authenticity and genuineness of the photographs nor is it his case that the same are not of the spot. The conclusion drawn by learned trial Judge as such is far fetched and beyond the evidence available on record. 14. If coming to the contradiction as at Serial No. (v) hereinabove, it is pertinent to mention here that PW-6 is very specific in stating that when rukka was brought to the police station by PW-2, FIR was registered and endorsement Ext. PW-6/C thereon was made by him. Also that it is he who has prepared the file and handed over the same to PW-2. Therefore, it cannot be believed that PW-2 had handed over the rukka to MHC Ram Krishan PW-4 and it is the said witness who had prepared the case file as well as handed over the same to PW-2, more particularly when Ram Krishan has not said anything while in the witness box that rukka was received by him or that after registration of FIR he prepared the case file as well as handed over the same to PW-2. Meaning thereby that the statement of PW-4 that he handed over the rukka to PW-4 and that it is the said witness who had prepared the case file and handed over the same to him for being taken to the I.O. on the spot came to be made inadvertently and may be on account of fading of memory with the passage of time. Above all, parrot like version of the matter cannot be expected from a witness. Learned trial Judge, therefore, should have not influenced from such inconsistency in the prosecution evidence to such an extent so as to record the findings of acquittal, irrespective of recovery of charas weighing 510 grams from the accused. 15. Above all, parrot like version of the matter cannot be expected from a witness. Learned trial Judge, therefore, should have not influenced from such inconsistency in the prosecution evidence to such an extent so as to record the findings of acquittal, irrespective of recovery of charas weighing 510 grams from the accused. 15. True it is that as per testimony of PW-2, he had delivered the rukka in the police station at 8.30 a.m., whereas, FIR was handed over to him at 8.50 a.m. Learned trial Judge has noticed in the impugned judgment that in view of the testimony of Station House Officer, PW-6, the case file could be prepared within 45 minutes. It is, however, not so because as per version of PW-6, it took 30-45 minutes to prepare the file. Meaning thereby that the file was ready by 9.00 or 9.15 a.m. Therefore, the version of PW-2 that the case file was handed over to him at 8.50 a.m. is nearer to 9.00 a.m. and for that matter even 9.15 a.m. also. Therefore, learned trial Judge should have not been influenced by such inconsistency or contradiction to such an extent so as to have recorded the findings of acquittal that too in complete ignorance of other cogent and reliable evidence available on record. Such contradictions, in our considered opinion, is not major and rather minor and even not goes to the very root of the prosecution case also. 16. True it is that as per the rukka Ext. PW-6/A and FIR Ext. PW-6/B as well as testimony of PW-2 and PW-7, six pieces wrapped with brown coloured cello tape were recovered from the bag Ext. P-2. When the cello tape was removed, the same were found wrapped with transparent polythene. In the report Ext. P-X, the parcel Ext. P-1 when opened in the laboratory those six pieces were found wrapped with zip polythene. We made efforts to find out as to what this zip polythene means but unsuccessfully as we could not lay our hand on any such material defining sip polythene. Learned trial Judge has not made any endeavor to make distinction between ‘transparent polythene’ and ‘zip polythene’. We made efforts to find out as to what this zip polythene means but unsuccessfully as we could not lay our hand on any such material defining sip polythene. Learned trial Judge has not made any endeavor to make distinction between ‘transparent polythene’ and ‘zip polythene’. Therefore, we fail to understand as to without making any distinction between transparent polythene and zip polythene, how the learned trial Judge could have doubted the authenticity and genuineness of the samples sent for analysis, particularly when as per report Ext. P-X sealed parcels were received with NCB-1 forms, seizure memo and sample of seals ‘O’ and ‘I’ only but the seals were intact. The findings to the contrary to our mind have been recorded merely to acquit the accused from the charge framed against him. 17. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence made basis by learned trial Judge to acquit the accused from the charge framed against him are absolutely baseless nor can go to the root of the prosecution case so as to render the recovery of charas from the possession of the accused doubtful. 18. On the other hand, while going through the statements of the prosecution witnesses i.e. material witnesses PW-2 and PW-7, we are convinced that they both have supported the prosecution case in one voice except for the above contradictions, which we have considered and found not sufficient to render the recovery of charas weighing 510 grams from the accused doubtful. No other contradiction or inconsistency could be noticed by us in their statements nor brought to our notice during the course of arguments. 19. The link evidence as has come on record by way of testimony of remaining prosecution witnesses noticed by learned trial Judge also, however, without any observations as to whether the same inspire confidence or not, to our mind is cogent and reliable and connects the accused with the commission of offence he committed. 20. In brief, PW-1 Constable Varun of Police Post, Jari has brought the original rojnamcha register. He has proved rapat no. 3 dated 29.4.2013, rapat no. 8 dated 29.04.2013 and rapat no. 16 dated 30.04.2013 Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW-1/B and Ext. PW-1/C respectively as according to him the same are true and correct as per the original record he produced in the Court. Rapat Ext. He has proved rapat no. 3 dated 29.4.2013, rapat no. 8 dated 29.04.2013 and rapat no. 16 dated 30.04.2013 Ext. PW1/A, Ext. PW-1/B and Ext. PW-1/C respectively as according to him the same are true and correct as per the original record he produced in the Court. Rapat Ext. PW-1/A proves the departure of police party from the police post early in the morning at 4.00 a.m. on 29.04.2013. The same corroborates the testimony of PW-1 and PW-7 also in this regard. Rapat Ext. PW-1/B reveals that I.O. PW-7 has completed the proceedings on the spot up to the stage of sending rukka and thereafter in view of rush of vehicular traffic on the road, he returned to police post and completed rest of the investigation there including the arrest of the accused and recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses etc. etc. Rapat Ext. PW-1/C pertains to the arrival of I.O. in the police post on 30.04.2013 at 6.00 p.m. after depositing the case property with PW-6 Station House Officer in Police Station, Kullu and obtaining the police remand of the accused from the Court. The evidence so come on record by way of these documents and the testimony of PW-1 substantiates the prosecution case. 21. PW-3 Balbir Singh is the Reader to Additional S.P. Kullu. He has proved the special report Ext. PW-3/A, which as per the version of the I.O. PW-7 was delivered to the then Additional S.P. Nihal Singh on 30.04.2013. This document contains an endorsement in the hands of Additional S.P. that the same was received by him from the I.O., PW-7 on 30.4.2013 at 1.20 p.m. in his office. Therefore, the compliance of Section 57 of the Act also stands made. 22. As noticed supra, the Station House Officer PW-6 has not only proved the prosecution case qua registration of FIR Ext. PW-6/B on the basis of rukka Ext. PW-6/A as well as the endorsement on FIR Ext. PW-6/C but also the sealed parcel with seal ‘O’ containing the recovered charas with his own seal ‘I’. He had drawn the sample of seal ‘I’ which is Ext. PW-6/E. The memo Ext. PW-6/D qua the production of case property before him and its re-sealing as well as deposit thereof in the Malkhana through PW-4 Ram Krishan was also prepared. The compliance of Section 55 of the Act is, therefore, also made out in this case. He had drawn the sample of seal ‘I’ which is Ext. PW-6/E. The memo Ext. PW-6/D qua the production of case property before him and its re-sealing as well as deposit thereof in the Malkhana through PW-4 Ram Krishan was also prepared. The compliance of Section 55 of the Act is, therefore, also made out in this case. 23. Now if coming to the testimony of PW-4 Ram Krishan, on entrustment of sealed parcel containing the recovered charas by the Station House Officer with him, he made entry Ext. PW-4/A in this regard in the Malkhana register and retained the same along with NCB-1 forms in triplicate, copy of seizure memo as well as sample of seals. PW-4 has also proved the prosecution case qua the case property was forwarded to Forensic Science Laboratory, Junga vide RC No. 78/13 Ext. PW-4/C through Constable Chet Ram PW-5. Not only this but as per further testimony of this witness, he had filled entries against Column No. 12 of NCB forms Ext. PW-4/B. He further tells us that PW-5 Chet Ram on his return from FSL had deposited the receipt qua deposit of the case property in the laboratory with him. PW-5 Chet Ram has also proved the prosecution evidence qua the case property was taken by him to the laboratory and deposit thereof along with NCB-1 forms in triplicate and relevant documents as well as sample of seals in same condition there. 24. It is thus seen that the link evidence is also complete in this case. Learned trial Judge has not critically analysed the link evidence so come on record and only observed that the same was not sufficient to prove the liability of the accused, may be on account of influenced with the factum of the material prosecution witnesses PW-1 and PW-7 are police officials and on account of the so called inconsistencies as well as contradictions we discussed hereinabove was not found cogent and reliable. We, however, are not in agreement with the findings of acquittal recorded by learned trial Court on account of being influenced by the contradictions/inconsistencies aforesaid as the same for all the reasons detailed hereinabove do not go to the very root of the prosecution case and rather minor and occurred due to memory of witnesses faded away with the passage of time. 25. 25. In view of what has been said hereinabove, the present is not a case where it can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The reappraisal of the evidence by us rather leads to the only conclusion that the recovery of charas weighing 510 grams from the bag which was being carried by the accused stands satisfactorily explained. The charge under Section 20 of the NDPS Act framed against him is, therefore, fully established on record. Being so, the only inescapable conclusion would be that the accused has committed offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. He, therefore, is convicted accordingly. The impugned judgment as such is quashed and set aside and the accused is convicted for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. Let him to surrender to his bail bonds and produced in this Court on 5.4.2017 for being heard on the quantum of sentence. Production warrant be issued accordingly.