JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ifaqat Ali Khan, J.—This Criminal Appeal No. 4710 of 2014 (Ram Narayan Pandey v. State of U.P.) is preferred by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 31.10.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Sessions Judge District Sant Kabir Nagar in Special Case No. 31 of 2007 (State v. Ram Naryan Pandey) arsing out of Case Crime No. 2253 of 2007, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar convicting the appellant under Section 8/22 (C) of NDPS Act and sentencing him with rigorous imprisonment of 10 years alongwith fine of Rs. 1 lac and in default of payment the appellant is to suffer the additional imprisonment for 6 months. 2. In nutshell the prosecution case is that on 21.10.2007 at 10:30 a.m. complainant Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police District Sant Kabir Nagar got the information from the informer that in tin shed room situated in compound in-front of Junior High School Banjariya of west town Khalilabad some persons are having heroin and they are going to sell it, if prompt action is taken they can be arrested. 3. On this information complainant alongwith Inspector S.N. Singh Police Station Khalilabad, S.I. Gopal Das Patel, S.I. Surendra Tiwari, S.I. Chedi Prasad Yadav, Head Constables Mani Ram Yadav, Omkar Yadav, Hanuman Yadav and S.I. Indrajeet Singh police out post G.R.P Khalilabad and his Gunner Vakeel Pathak reached at the above mentioned spot at about 12:05 p.m.. He tried to make some public witnesses but no public person became ready to become the witness, then the police party pushed the door of tin shed room which opened and police found that 2 persons were sitting there when their names were asked one person told his name Surendra Kumar Chaudhory and another person told his name Ram Narayan Pandey. Ram Narayan Pandey told that they alongwith Surendra Chaudhory @ Pappu brings the heroin from Nepal and sell it here. After taking the consent from accuseds by search the search was made. One packet was recovered from the possession of Ram Narayan Pandey which was strapped beneath the pant on waist. DENGER TIGER HEAD BRAND made in Thailand HEROIN 33,000/- 100% Poison 2005-2008 was written in english on this pocket. 4. Nothing was recovered from the search of room, on being controverted both the accused stated that substance in recovered packet is heroin and there is 448 gram heroin in the packet. DENGER TIGER HEAD BRAND made in Thailand HEROIN 33,000/- 100% Poison 2005-2008 was written in english on this pocket. 4. Nothing was recovered from the search of room, on being controverted both the accused stated that substance in recovered packet is heroin and there is 448 gram heroin in the packet. When the packet was opened it was seen that it was containing the powder of white colour which was smelling out like heroin. 5. Both the accused were taken into custody S.I. Gopal Das Patel brought the balance. Recovered substance was weighed in and it was found 448 gram in weight. On the spot recovered substance was sealed and stitched in white cloth and the specimen seal was prepared. On the spot recovery memo was written by Head Constable Mani Ram Yadav on dictation of complainant. The matter of recovery memo was read over then the police employees/officers and accuseds signed on recovery memo. 6. On the basis of this recovery memo FIR was lodged and the case was registered at police station Khalilabad District Sant Kabir Nagar, the matter was investigated and I.O. after completing the investigation submitted the charge-sheet against accused Surendra Kumar Chaudhory and Ram Narayan Pandey under Section 8/22 (C) NDPS Act and the charge-sheet was submitted in Court. The trial of accused Surendra Kumar Chaudhory was separated and charge under Section 8/22 (C) NDPS Act was framed against accused Ram Narayan Pandey which he denied and demanded trial. 7. To prove his case prosecution examined 4 witnesses PW-1 Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police, PW-2 Inspector Shyam Narayan Singh, PW-3 Constable Rajendra Prasad and PW-4 Chauthi Ram retired Circle Officer. Besides above oral evidence the prosecution also submitted the documentary evidence, Recovery Memo Ex. Ka-1, Memo of information Ex. Ka-2, Consent Memo Ex. Ka-3, Chik FIR Ex. Ka-4, Kayami G.D. Ex. Ka-5, Site Plan Ex. Ka-6 and Charge-sheet Ex. Ka-7, Forensic Science Laboratory Ex.-Ka -8. 8. Prosecution has examined 4 witnesses to prove his case out of them P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 are the witnesses of the fact and P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are the formal witnesses. 9. P.W.-1 Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police is examined as complainant as well as the witness of the occurrence, in his statement he has supported the prosecution version about the occurrence. 9. P.W.-1 Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police is examined as complainant as well as the witness of the occurrence, in his statement he has supported the prosecution version about the occurrence. He has also proved the recovery memo Ex.-Ka-1, information memo Ex.-Ka-2, and memo of consent for search Ex.-Ka-3 and he has also proved the case property physical Ex.-Ka-1. 10. P.W.-2 S.I. Shyam Narayan Singh is also examined as the witness of the fact by the prosecution in his statement he also supported the version of the prosecution regarding the occurrence. He also proved recovery memo and information memo. 11. P.W.-3 constable/Clerk Rajendra Prasad is a formal witness he has recorded Chik. On the basis of recovery memo he has proved original Chik Ex.-Ka-4 which is his own hand writing and its bear his signature. On the basis of acquaintance of hand writing and signature of S.H.O. Shyam Narayan Singh he also proved the case registering G.D. Ex.-Ka-5. 12. P.W.-4 Chauthi Ram has concluded the investigation in this case, in his statement he has submitted that he recorded the statement of witnesses, prepared site plan and then submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. He also proved site plan Ex.-Ka-6, charge-sheet Ex.-Ka-7 and Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.-Ka-8. 13. After concluding the evidence of the prosecution statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution case and prosecution version. He also submitted that he has falsely implicated in this case and the witnesses have given the false statement against him due to enmity. He also submitted that he will produce the evidence in his defence. 14. Accused produced D.W.-1 Ram Nath in his defence evidence. D.W.-1 Ram Nath stated in his statement that in South of Junior High School Khalilabad and in the north of Railway Station there is a compound of Parmatma Chaudhory, on the eastern side of this compound there is plank shop of Guddu Pal and on the western side of the compound there are two tin shed rooms and out of these two tin shed rooms one is in possession of Parmatma Chaudhory who kept its lock and is the another tin shed room he runs a tractor repairing shop for the last 4 years. He opens his shop at 7.00 a.m. in the morning and remains open up to 8.00 or 9.00 O’clock in the night. He opens his shop at 7.00 a.m. in the morning and remains open up to 8.00 or 9.00 O’clock in the night. In last 4 years police neither came there for search nor any article was recovered nor any accused was arrested. Even in the night one person remains in shop. 15. After hearing the argument of A.D.C. Criminal and the learned counsel for the accused and perusal of file learned Lower Court convicted the accused/appellant Ram Narayan Pandey under Section 8/22 (C) N.D.P.S. Act and awarded the punishment of 10 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith the fine of Rs. 1 Lack and in default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to suffer additional imprisonment for 6 months, by the impugned judgment and order dated 31-10-2014. 16. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 31-10-2014 this present appeal is preferred by the appellant on the ground that the Learned Lower Court has not considered the material evidence available on the record, there is an error of law in passing the impugned order of conviction. Impugned judgment and order is bad in eyes of law. The sentence awarded to accused/appellant is against weight of evidence on record. 17. Heard Sri P.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A Sri Vijay Bahadur Yadav, assisted by Sri Avnish Kumar Shukla, brief holder. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that as per prosecution case the contraband article Heroin was recovered by the police from accused/appellant, after prior information even then provisions of Section 50 (1) of N.D.P.S Act are not complied with by the police party. They have not informed the accused/appellant about his right to get himself searched before Gazetted Officer/Magistrate. 19. In this respect learned A.G.A submitted that the police party which arrested and searched the accused/appellant was headed by Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendence of Police who himself is a Gazetted Officer, therefore, there was no need to tell the accused/appellant that whether he will like to get himself searched before any Gazetted Officer/Magistrate. In support of his version learned A.G.A placed the reliance on the 2 rulings viz Gyasuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, LAWS (ALL) 1997 3 157 of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Ibrahim Ansari v. State of Bihar, 2001 LawSuit (Pat) 24 decided on 19.1.2001 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court. 20. In support of his version learned A.G.A placed the reliance on the 2 rulings viz Gyasuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, LAWS (ALL) 1997 3 157 of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and Ibrahim Ansari v. State of Bihar, 2001 LawSuit (Pat) 24 decided on 19.1.2001 by the Division Bench of Hon’ble Patna High Court. 20. Hon’ble Allahabad High Court while disposing of Bail Application in Gyasuddin v. State of Uttar Pradesh, LAWS (ALL) 1997 3 157, has held that “The search made in presence of a Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 of the Act would not be vitiated merely because it was not made before a Magistrate as desired by the suspect/accused for no such right is conferred upon the suspect/accused under Section 50 of the Act.” and Hon’ble Division Bench of Patna High Court in Ibrahim Ansari v. State of Bihar, 2001 LawSuit (Pat) 24, has held that “where on receiving the confidential information Superintendent Narcotics Control Bureau a Gazetted Officer constituted a raiding party and intercepts the accused/appellant at Ghandhi Maidan in his presence and he disclosed his identity to the accused and asked him that he being himself a Gazetted Officer the accused may be searched in his presence thereafter, accused volunteered to be searched by him and accordingly he was searched with, admittedly the accused was not searched before any other Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, then there has been material compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.” 21. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even if the search is made out by the Gazetted Officer who is the member of raiding party, even then it shall not be treated that the provisions of Section 50 (1) of NDPS Act is complied with and in support of his argument he place the reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and another, 2014 Law Suit (SC) 141, decided on 28th February 2014 Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “Where the search of accused/appellant is made by the Superintendent who was a part of the raiding party is the breach of Section 50 (1) of NDPS Act, the idea behind taking an accused to the nearest Magistrate or a nearest Gazetted Officer, if he so requires, is to give him a chance of being searched in the presence of an independent officer. The Officer who is a member of raiding party cannot be called an independent officer.” 22. The decision of Allahabad High Court in ruling of Gyasuddin v. Sate of Uttar Pradesh is in respect of disposal of the Bail Application not in respect of disposal of an appeal. 23. The ruling of Ibrahim Ansari v. Sate of Bihar is based on the decision of Division Bench of Patna High Court whereas ruling of State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and another is based on Division Bench decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court. The facts of State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and another applies to the present case and obviously the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is to be followed in place of decision of Hon’ble High Court. Following decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand and another. I come to this conclusion that in present case the search of accused/appellant conducted by the complainant Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police who was the member of raiding party is not sufficient for compliance of Section 50 (1) of NDPS Act. 24. Thus, in my opinion the provision of Section 50 (1) of NDPS Act is not complied with the present case. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the raiding party did not comply with the provision of Section 50 (1) of NDPS Act. Secondly on the ground that accused/appellant was not informed about his right under Section 50 (1) of the NDPS Act that it is his right to get himself searched before any Gazetted Officer/Magistrate. The bare reading of recovery memo makes it clear that it was not said to the accused/appellant by the police party that it is his right to get himself searched by any Gazetted Officer/Magistrate. 26. In support of his argument learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Hon’ble Supreme Court in ruling K. Mohanan v. State of Kerala, 1999 LawSuit(SC) 1178, has held that “when an empowered officer or a duly authorized officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concerned of his right under sub-Section (1) of Section 50. If the accused, who was subjected to search was merely asked whether he required to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate it cannot be treated as communicating to him that he had a right under law to the searched. So we, therefore, hold that there was non-compliance with Section 50 of the Act”. 27. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed the reliance on the decision of Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 , in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “There is, thus, unanimity of judicial pronouncements to the effect that it is an obligation of the empowered officer and his duty before conducting the search of the person of a suspect, on the basis of prior information, to inform the suspect that he has the right to require his search being conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that the failure to so inform the suspect of his right, would render the search illegal because the suspect would not be able to avail of the protection which is inbuilt in Section 50. Similarly, if the concerned person requires, on being so informed by the empowered officer or otherwise, that his search be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, the empowered officer is obliged to do so and failure on his part to do so would also render the search illegal and the conviction and sentence of the accused bad. There is, thus, no justification for the empowered officer, who goes to search the person, on prior information, to effect the search, of not informing the concerned person of the existence of his right to have his search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.” 28. There is, thus, no justification for the empowered officer, who goes to search the person, on prior information, to effect the search, of not informing the concerned person of the existence of his right to have his search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.” 28. Learned counsel for the appellant place reliance on the ruling Vijay Singh Chandubha Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 1 SCC 609 , in this ruling Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the “provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 50 make it imperative for the empowered officer to “inform” the person concerned (suspect) about the existence of his right that if he so requires, he shall be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate; failure to “inform” the suspect about the existence of his said right would cause prejudice to him, and in case he so opts, failure to conduct his search before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate, may not vitiate the trial but would render the recovery of the illicit article suspect and vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused, where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of the possession of the illicit article, recovered from the person during a search conducted in violation of the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act.” 29. In Suresh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 541, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “sub-section (1) of Section 50 makes it imperative for the empowered officer to “inform” the person concerned about the existence of his right that if he so requires, he shall be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate. Failure to do so vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of possession of the contraband. We also reiterate that the said provision is mandatory and requires strict compliance.” 30. Failure to do so vitiate the conviction and sentence of an accused where the conviction has been recorded only on the basis of possession of the contraband. We also reiterate that the said provision is mandatory and requires strict compliance.” 30. In Ashok Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 829, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that “empowered S. 50 to be searched before a gazetted officer or a Magistrate — It is only if suspect/accused does not choose to exercise his said right, can empowered officer conduct search of person of suspect/accused himself — Non-compliance with said mandatory procedure vitiates entire proceedings initiated against accused and entitles him to acquittal if conviction is based solely on recovery of contraband from person of accused.” 31. On the basis of above discussion, I come to this conclusion the raiding party did not inform the accused/appellant about his right to get himself searched before a Gazetted Officer/Magistrate. Hence, provision under Section 50 (1) of the NDPS Act was complied with by the raiding police party which is mandatory and non compliance of Section 50 (1) of the NDPS Act vitiates entire proceedings initiated against the accused and entitled him to acquittal. 32. Learned A.G.A submitted that as the accused/appellant signed the consent memo and gave his consent to get himself searched before the complainant Gazetted Officer Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police therefore, it cannot be said that compliance of Section 50 (1) of the NDPS Act was not made. I do not agree with this argument of the learned A.G.A because the signature on the consent memo and the consent by the consent memo by the accused/appellant is itself meaningless because even if the consent of the accused/appellant is obtain for search by Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police, this consent was obtained without informing him about his right to get himself search by any Gazetted Officer/Magistrate. 33. Secondly learned counsel for the appellant argued that the persecution case does not clarify that where when and by whom the sample for Forensic Science Laboratory report was taken away from the alleged recovered heroin from the accused/appellant. 34. Perusal of recovery memo shows that in recovery memo nowhere it is mentioned that sample was taken away from the recovered contraband heroin from the accused/appellant for testing by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 35. 34. Perusal of recovery memo shows that in recovery memo nowhere it is mentioned that sample was taken away from the recovered contraband heroin from the accused/appellant for testing by the Forensic Science Laboratory. 35. PW-4 Investigating Officer in his statement has stated that he has not stated this fact in the statement of any witness that the specimen was taken away from the recovered contraband article because it was not written in recovery memo and he also did not ask about it from any witness, the important fact is that complainant PW-1 Akhilesh Kumar Nigam has admitted in his cross-examination that on the spot sample was not taken away from the recovered article from the accused. 36. All these facts clear creates doubt about taking away the sample from the alleged recovered heroin. Prosecution has utterly failed to shows that where when and by whom the sample was taken away from the recovered contraband article heroin for the testing by Forensic Science Laboratory. 37. This fact creates a serious doubt on this point that whether sample which was sent for Forensic Science Laboratory for testing was a part of recovered contraband article from the accused/appellant. Which creates the whole prosecution story doubtfully. 38. Thirdly learned counsel for the appellant argued that the members of raiding party did not search each other before the raid. Perusal of the record shows nowhere in the recovery memo it is mentioned that before the raid the members of raiding party made the search of each other. The important fact is that PW-1 complainant Akhilesh Kumar Nigam in his cross-examination has specifically admitted that no search of each other was made by the members of raiding party. This facts also creates the prosecution case doubtful. 39. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced his next argument that prosecution has not proved this fact that from where the balance was brought to weighing contraband recovered article. On perusal of file it reveals that in recovery memo only this fact is mentioned that S.I. Gopal Das Patel was sent to fetch the balance, nowhere it is mentioned from who’s shop or house S.I. Gopal Das Patel brought this balance. It is important that S.I. Gopal Das Patel is not examined in this case and even none other witness produced to state that from his or her house or shop S.I. Gopoal Das Patel brought the balance. 40. It is important that S.I. Gopal Das Patel is not examined in this case and even none other witness produced to state that from his or her house or shop S.I. Gopoal Das Patel brought the balance. 40. Thus, in my opinion prosecution has also failed to prove that balance was brought on spot to weigh in the alleged recovered heroin from the accused/appellant. This fact also makes the prosecution case doubtful. 41. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced his next argument that there is no public witness of recovery. The perusal of file shows that in the recovery memo it is mentioned that on spot few persons were present and some persons were passing on road, they were asked to become the public witness of recovery, but they denied due to fear of enmity. But PW-1 complainant Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police in his statement has admitted that the recovery is made from accused inside of tin shed which is situated in compound and on the north east end of compound there is a thatched shop of Rajendra in which he was selling the tea and in the eastern side of this compound there is a shop of Guddu Pal for selling wooden plank (patra balli) and he was present there but he did not call any person for them to become the witness of occurrence and recovery. It establishes that there was a sufficient opportunity for the complainant and raiding police party to get public witness alongwith them at the time of raid, but no effort was made by the police party to made the public witness of the occurrence. This again makes the prosecution case doubtful. 42. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is a contradiction in the statement of PW-1 which makes the recovery doubtful. Perusal of file shows that PW-1 Akhilesh Kumar Nigam in his examination-in-chief on page No. 7 and 8 of his statement has stated that contraband article heroin recovered from the accused was sealed in a white cloth and in its contrast in his cross-examination PW-1 has admitted that contraband article heroin which was recovered from the accused in his presence was not sealed by them he gave the direction that the recovered article be sealed after taking away of sample from it. 43. 43. He has also admitted that on the spot no sample was taken away from the recovered contraband heroin. Meaning thereby recovered contraband article was not sealed in his presence on the spot. He is the complainant. This contradiction in his statement creates the doubt on the prosecution case and makes the recovery doubtful and it also creates the testimony of PW-1 Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police doubtful. 44. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced his next argument that in this case Sri Akhilesh Kumar Nigam is the complainant who was the Additional Superintendent of Police and investigation is conducted by Chauthi Ram who was the Circle Officer. Investigation conducted by the subordinate officers of the complainant is not reliable. Perusal of record shows that Akhilesh Kumar Nigam who was the Additional Superintendent of Police at the time of occurrence, was the head of the police party which raided and recovered alleged contraband heroin from the accused/appellant. He is also the complainant in this case and the investigation is conducted by Chauthi Ram who is the Circle Officer and subordinate to the complainant. 45. Thus, investigation is done by the subordinate officer of the complainant and Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Raghubir v. State of U.P., 1995 (32) ACC 216, has held that “the investigation done by the subordinate officer of the complainant such an investigation can be termed as tainted and no reliance can be placed upon it. Hence, the investigation conducted in this case is not reliable.” There is one more circumstance in this case which shows that the investigation is not conducted fairly by the Investigation Officer and investigation is conducted under the pressure of his superior officer because in this case FIR was lodged on 21.10.2007 and the charge-sheet is submitted just within 7 days on 28.10.2007. Alleged sample taken by the police from the recovered contraband article heroin was send for testing to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 26.11.2007 as admitted by PW-4. Meaning thereby near about 1 month after the filing of charge-sheet the specimen sample is sent for testing to the Forensic Science Laboratory. PW-4 in his statement has admitted that there was no occasion for him to see the recovered article, he personally does not know that whether the recovered article is heroin or not. Recovered article was neither sealed nor opened before him. PW-4 in his statement has admitted that there was no occasion for him to see the recovered article, he personally does not know that whether the recovered article is heroin or not. Recovered article was neither sealed nor opened before him. Meaning thereby the charge-sheet is submitted by I.O. without waiting for and perusal of report of the Forensic Science Laboratory and even without his personal examination of the recovered article. Then on what ground he has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused/appellant giving his conclusion that heroin is recovered from the possession of accused/appellant. It make its very much clear that the investigation is wrongly conducted under the influence of the Senior Officer. 46. On the basis of above discussion I come to this conclusion that no compliance of Section 50 (1) of NDPS Act is made by the raiding party before the search of accused/appellant. No sample was taken from the alleged recovered contraband article on the spot for the test by the Forensic Science Laboratory. Members of raiding party did not made the search of each other before the raid. It is not proved that from where the balance was brought to weigh in recovered article, contradiction in the statement of PW-1 Akhilesh Kumar Nigam Additional Superintendent of Police makes his evidence non reliable investigation is conducted by the subordinate officer of the complainant which make the investigation tainted and non reliable. There all facts makes the prosecution case doubtful. 47. On the basis of above discussion I come to this conclusion that prosecution has utterly failed in proving the case under Section 8/22 (C) NDPS Act against accused/appellant Ram Narayan Pandey beyond doubt and this appeal deserves to be allowed. 48. Appeal is accordingly allowed. 49. Impugned judgment and order dated 31.10.2014 passed by Additional District Judge/Special Sessions Judge, Sant Kabir Nagar in Special Case No. 31 of 2007 (State v. Ram Narayan Pandey) arising out of Case Crime No. 2253 of 2007, under Section 8/22 (C) NDPS Act, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar is set aside. 50. Accused/appellant Ram Narayan Pandey is acquitted from the charge under Section 8/22 (C) NDPS Act, in Case Crime No. 2253 of 2007, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar. Appellant is on bail he need not to surrender his personal bond and surety bond are canceled and sureties are discharged. 51. 50. Accused/appellant Ram Narayan Pandey is acquitted from the charge under Section 8/22 (C) NDPS Act, in Case Crime No. 2253 of 2007, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar. Appellant is on bail he need not to surrender his personal bond and surety bond are canceled and sureties are discharged. 51. Lower Court record be sent back to the Court concern for compliance. 52. The case property be destroyed as per rules after the expiry of the period for appeal, in case no appeal is preferred.