Judgment Rajnesh Oswal, J.-The appellant, after having been convicted by court of learned Sessions Judge Kathua (hereinafter to be referred as trial court) for commission of offence under section 8(c) of the NDPS Act read with sections 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act (for short the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 20 years and payment of fine of Rs. 2 lacs, has challenged the judgment dated 08.01.2015 (hereinafter to be referred as the judgment impugned) and order dated 10.01.2015 through the medium of present appeal on the various grounds legal as well as factual, as narrated in the memo of appeal. Case of prosecution: 2. Briefly stated, the complaint was filed against the appellant for commission of offences under sections 8, 20 and 60 of the Act in which it was stated that the secret information was received from the source that Drug Trafficking from Kashmir Valley to Delhi in Truck No. JK05-6906 dated 13.03.2013 is going on and the supply of drug may be in Transport Nagar, Delhi. The above said information was given in writing by Shri Maneet Kumar, Intelligence Officer (IO) to the Superintendent NCB Jammu i.e., Ms. Mehak Jain, who constituted the team under her supervision and Naka was laid on 13.03.2013 at night along with police on Lakhanpur road, opposite to Lakhanpur Police Station. At around 22:45hrs on 13.03.2013 two persons, namely, Shri Ajay Sharma and Shri Darshan Singh were crossing that area. Shri Maneet Kumar Intelligence Officer requested them to accompany the NCB team to the place of naka to witness the whole procedure of seizure, if any. At about 23.15hrs Shri Maneet Kumar Intelligence Officer stopped Truck No. JK05-6906 which was coming from Jammu.. Sh. Maneet Kumar, IO introduced himself and rest of the NCB team members to driver and asked him for his introduction. He introduced himself as Mohd. Maqbool Lone. Shri Maneet Kumar intimated him their purpose of searching the vehicle. Before search notice under section 50 of the Act was given to the driver by Shri Maneet Kumar but he declined search before Magistrate and Gazetted Officer and in reply stated that “He does not require any gazetted Officer or Magistrate, He can take his search”. Then Shri Maneet Kumar instructed his sepoy Shri Naveen Kumar to search the vehicle. Then the sepoy started searching the vehicle in presence of above said witnesses. Then Shri Maneet Kumar instructed his sepoy Shri Naveen Kumar to search the vehicle. Then the sepoy started searching the vehicle in presence of above said witnesses. While searching Shri Naveen Kumar saw Apple box carrying packets. After that Shri Naveen Kumar pulled out that Apple Box. Shri Maneet Kumar asked Mohd. Maqbool Lone to take out all the packets from the Apple Box. The packets were taken out of the Apple Box by Mohd. Maqbool Lone in the vehicle itself and counted, 08 packets were found. All the 08 packets were wrapped with Brown coloured packing tape. After removing the tape, it was found to have been covered by newspaper. On removing the News Paper, the transparent polythene containing total no. of 32 small black coloured balls, was found. Then Shri Maneet Kumar extracted a small quantity of material from the black colored balls, mixed them thoroughly and tested with the DD KIT and found the result positive for Charas. Then Shri Maneet Kumar weighed all the 32 black coloured Balls with the weighing machine and found the weight of all the Black coloured balls as 14.978 kgs. Shri Maneet Kumar prepared the recovery cum seizure memo on the spot and was signed by the accused and the witnesses. All the black coloured balls were mixed together and two samples of 24 grams each were taken. These samples were put into 2 plastic transparent envelopes and were heat sealed. Then the same were packed into two white paper envelopes. A white paper slip was pasted at the opening place of these envelopes so that they could not be opened without tearing. These samples were marked as S-1 and S-2. The remaining charas i.e. 14.930 Kgs was put into a big transparent polythene and was heat sealed. After heat sealing, it was put into a white marking cloth bag and was stitched. It was marked as Lot-A. After that, the packing material and Apple Box were put into a white marking cloth bag and was stitched and it was marked as Lot-P. After that the stitched places of Lot-A and Lot-P were sealed with seal of Narcotics Control Bureau, JMM-03 four and seven seals respectively. Similarly all the 4 corners of samples S-1 and S-2 were also sealed with Narcotics Control Bureau JMM-03 seals. When he was asked about the vehicle Mohd. Similarly all the 4 corners of samples S-1 and S-2 were also sealed with Narcotics Control Bureau JMM-03 seals. When he was asked about the vehicle Mohd. Maqbool Lone told that the Truck was registered in the name of his father. Panchnama, test memo, recovery cum seizure memo were prepared on the spot. After that, Truck no. JK05 6906 was taken into custody by Shri Maneet Kumar. All legal formalities were completed in the presence of two independent witnesses. Notice under section 67 of the Act was given to the accused and voluntary statement was recorded. In his voluntary statement, the accused person admitted the recovery of 14.978 kgs Charas from his possession/Truck. After completion of all the legal formalities, the said person was arrested at 12:30 hours on 14.03.2013 and personal search was taken. The arrest memo and memo of personal search were prepared. The seized goods Lot-A, packing material Lot-P and duplicate samples S-1 & S-2 were deposited in the Malkhana for safe custody and Godown Receipt was obtained after making proper entry in Malkhana/Godown Register. The information for arrest, search and seizure was sent to the higher authority under section 57 of the Act i.e., jurisdictional police station and relatives of the accused persons. Test-Memo was prepared and one sample marked as S-1 along with test memo was sent to the CRCL, New Delhi on 14.03.2013 for chemical analysis through Shri Tilak Raj, Driver vide letter No.JZU/NCB/Cr. No.1/2013 dated 14.03.2013 and said Shri Tilak Raj driver deposited the sample in CRCL, New Delhi, and obtained the receipt from CRCL, New Delhi. The Chemical Analysis Report received from CRCL New Delhi on 04.06.2013 vide their Letter F.No 1/ND/R/2013-|CLD-1062(N) dated 24.05.2013 stated the sample found positive test for Charas. 3. The charges for commission of offence under sections 8 and 20 of the Act were framed against the appellant vide order dated 11.11.2013. As the appellant did not plead guilty, the complainant was directed to lead evidence. The complainant has examined CW No. 1 Maneet Kumar, CW No. 2 Mehak Jain, CW No. 3 Rakesh Singh, CW No. 4 Naveen Kumar, CW No. 5 Tilak Raj, CW No. 7 Ajay Kumar, CW No. 8 namely Darshan Singh and CW Pawan Dev, as witnesses in support of the charge but the appellant has not examined any witness in his defence. Prosecution Evidence: 4. Prosecution Evidence: 4. The brief resume of the prosecution evidence is as under: (a) CW-1 Maneet Kumar Intelligence Officer, NCB Jammu in his examination in chief stated that he was posted in Jammu Unit of Narcotic Control Bureau as Intelligence Officer. On 13.03.2013, they got secret information about accused that he was in the process of transporting contraband in his Truck No. JK05-6906 from Srinagar to Delhi. He recorded the information and conveyed it to Superintendent NCB that bears his signature and is exhibited as EXT-P/I. The Superintendent conveyed the information to Zonal Director NCB who was in Delhi on that day. The Zonal Director directed the Superintendent to constitute a team of five people including him. Then he received a seal from NCB Office Jammu for use in the search operation against receipt (EXT-P/1/II). The team headed by him reached Lakhanpur to ensure that accused is apprehended before he crosses over the Lakhanpur border. They sought logistic support from SHO Lakhanpur through a written request. They laid a Naka at Lakhanpur opposite Police Station. At about 10.45 PM, they found two civilians moving around. They sought their association in the process of search through a notice. The contents of the notices EXT-P/III and EXT-P/1/IV are correct. At about 11.45 PM, they found truck No. JK05/6906 coming towards Naka The truck was driven by accused. They disclosed their identity to the accused and accused stated that he was Mohd. Maqbool Lone. He was told that they suspected that there was some contraband in truck and so they wanted to search his truck. The accused did not exercise the option of being searched in presence of a Magistrate or a gazette officer. He gave in writing that he does not want to be searched before a magistrate or a gazette officer. The contents of the notice marked as EXT-PI/V are correct. After personal search of the accused, his truck was searched. His official Naveen Kumar during the search of the truck found an apple box in the truck. After the box was opened by the accused there were eight brown coloured packets. Each packet was having a brown tape around. The tape was removed and four balls were recovered from each packet which were wrapped in News Paper and polythene. In all 32 balls of brown coloured substance were recovered from that apple box. After the box was opened by the accused there were eight brown coloured packets. Each packet was having a brown tape around. The tape was removed and four balls were recovered from each packet which were wrapped in News Paper and polythene. In all 32 balls of brown coloured substance were recovered from that apple box. They separated small quantity of samples from each ball and it was chemically examined on spot with drug detention kit and it was found to be positive for charas. They broke all the balls and wrapped in blue coloured polythene bag and its weight was 14.978 Kgs. They separated two samples of 24 gms each. The samples were sealed separately. They put their seals on each of the packet (four on each packet). The remaining contraband was also sealed in blue coloured polythene. The recovery memo, test memo were prepared on spot. Recovery-cum- seizure memo (EXT-P I/VI) bears his signature. Test memo (EXT-PI/VII) dated 14th of March 2013 bears his signature. After conclusion of investigation, they went to Jammu office and deposited the seal and seized material in the office at Jammu and obtained the receipt from the office. Then the statement of accused was recorded at Jammu office and the same is marked as P-1. The arrest memo (EXT-PI/VIII) of the accused was prepared at Jammu office. The memo of personal search (EXT-PI/X) of the accused was also prepared. The witnesses also accompanied with us at 4 a.m to Jammu and their statements were also recorded at Jammu office those are on the file. The seized goods and samples and packing material were deposited in the Malkhana of NCB. The one sample was sent to CRCL New Delhi alongwith the authority letter of Tilak Raj driver and the receipt of the sample was given by the said driver in the department. The Panchnama (EXT-P1/X) was prepared by him. The statement of Abdul Jabbar Lone, the father of the accused was recorded by him. The intimation of arrest of the accused was given to his father Ab. Jabar Lone and SHO concerned. The remnant of sample sent to CRCL was received back in NCB Jammu which is properly sealed in a packet S-1 and duplicate sample S-2 which is also duly packed. The contraband Lot-A duly packed in white cloth and properly sealed was produced before the court for identification of the seized contraband. Jabar Lone and SHO concerned. The remnant of sample sent to CRCL was received back in NCB Jammu which is properly sealed in a packet S-1 and duplicate sample S-2 which is also duly packed. The contraband Lot-A duly packed in white cloth and properly sealed was produced before the court for identification of the seized contraband. Seals were opened in the court and the contraband was identified by the witness as the same that was recovered from the accused. In cross examination by learned defence counsel, the witness stated that he got the information personally on mobile telephone. He did not remember on whose Mobile phone the information was received but the call was attended by him. He did not remember the cell number of the phone on which the call was received. The secret information was received telephonically at 6.30 p.m. He moved towards Lakhanpurat around 7.30 PM. The informant did not reveal the location of the accused but stated that he was on way to Delhi and was about to cross Lakhanpur. The informer did not tell him whether the accused had crossed Jammu or not. He did not inform any police station about the movement of the truck in question. They had the information that accused was coming from Srinagar. There was no information about the time at which accused left Srinagar. It was his first case. He has read the NDPS ACT. Itis the legal right of any accused to get the search conducted in front of a Magistrate or a gazette officer. They had sufficient time to make arrangement of a gazette officer and Magistrate before conducting the search. Mehak Jain was present at the time of search. It is correct that she was an officer of their department. No independent gazetted officer of any other department was called on spot before conducting the search of the said truck. He did not know whether at Lakhanpur, the officials of Excise and Sales Tax work round the clock and Deputy Commissioner Excise and Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax are the gazetted officers posted at Lakhanpur but despite that they did not make any arrangement to arrange the presence of said officers on spot before and while conducting the search of the said truck. It is correct that Ajay Kumar and Darshan Kumar were not called from their house but they incidentally came there. It is correct that Ajay Kumar and Darshan Kumar were not called from their house but they incidentally came there. He did not know the antecedents of the said persons. He did not know their educational qualification. They did not lay any naka on Jammu Lakhanpur National High way except Lakhanpur. Hewas not aware of the link roads connecting Jammu Lakhanpur Highway at various places. They reached Lakhanpur at 10.15 p.m though they started the journey at 7.30 p.m. They travelled in departmental vehicle from Jammu towards Lakhanpur. From Jammu to Lakhanpur the distance is 100 kilometers and it took them three hours to reach Lakhanpur without any break in journey. They completed the entire process at Lakhanpur at 4 O’ clock in the morning. All the documents other than the statement of the accused in terms of section 67 of NDPS Act were prepared at Lakhanpur. The signature of the witnesses on the seizure memos and other documents were obtained at Lakhanpur. He prepared all the documents at Lakhanpur. The accused was not arrested at Lakhanpur though the contraband was recovered. The arrest memo was only prepared at Jammu. Lakhanpur is a crowded town and there is heavy vehicular traffic round the clock at Jammu Lakhanpur National Highway. At the time of conducting the search of the truck about six police persons were present on the spot. No nearby civilian person was present and nor called though there is market, hotels and Dhabas.He had not seen any person sitting on the hotels and Dhabba or in the petrol pump. Truck was loaded with apple boxes. They did not count the number of apple boxes loaded in the truck. He did not remember how many apple boxes were there. The truck was semi loaded with apple boxes. He cannot say whether the truck was loaded with 100, 200, 300 apple boxes. The truck was not unloaded. He did not go inside the truck as such he cannot tell from which place and from which side the apple box containing charas was recovered. He did not prepare the seizure memo of the apple boxes. He did not know the name of SHO Police Station Lakhanpur but Rakesh Singh PSI Lakhanpur was present and he was the SHO at that time. He handed the letter for laying naka at Lakhanpur to the SHO P/S Lakhanpur personally. He did not prepare the seizure memo of the apple boxes. He did not know the name of SHO Police Station Lakhanpur but Rakesh Singh PSI Lakhanpur was present and he was the SHO at that time. He handed the letter for laying naka at Lakhanpur to the SHO P/S Lakhanpur personally. He and his five police officials were present at the time of conducting search of the truck. The accused was not known to him earlier. He saw him for the first time on that day. The documents of the vehicle were in the pocket of the accused. He did not conduct any investigation about the source from where the truck was loaded by accused with apple boxes. He did not conduct any investigation about the ownership of the apple boxes. He did not go to Srinagar to find out the places from where the truck was loaded though he got the information that the truck had come from Srinagar. It is wrong to say that secret information was received by him in the morning of 13.3.2013. The seal used for sealing the samples and contraband was lying in his office and it belonged to our office. The samples as well as the seal were in his office and the remaining contraband also remained in his office. The samples were not got resealed from a Magistrate or a gazetted officer. It is not necessary for him to get the samples resealed from a Magistrate. He prepared the complaint himself with the help of the special Public Prosecutor. Complaint was signed by him. He had got the complaint vetted from his supervising officer, who did not point out the correction of date of information. He had seized the challan of the consignment loaded in the truck and the consignment was meant to be delivered at Delhi to Pawan Kumar-Rajesh Kumar New Sabzi Mandi. He did not conduct any investigation from the said firm. He has not seized any other contraband though it was loaded with Dhoop and apple boxes. He has not conducted any investigation from Vishal Kumar and Romesh Kumar Tilak Bazar Delhi to whom the consignment of Dhoop loaded in the truck, was to be delivered as per the bill dated 12.3.2013 of Ronak Spices Srinagar. It is not correct to say that no search was conducted at Lakhanpur and no contraband was recovered from accused. He has not conducted any investigation from Vishal Kumar and Romesh Kumar Tilak Bazar Delhi to whom the consignment of Dhoop loaded in the truck, was to be delivered as per the bill dated 12.3.2013 of Ronak Spices Srinagar. It is not correct to say that no search was conducted at Lakhanpur and no contraband was recovered from accused. He has not placed any authority which empowered him to conduct the investigation of the case on the file. Mehak Jan reached at Lakhanpur at 11 PM and till then truck had not reached Lakhanpur. Superintendent NCB also came on spot at Lakhanpur on her own. Truck came after 15 minutes of her arrival. He did not remember how much time she remained on spot. (b) CW No: 2 Mehak Jain has stated that on 13.03.2013, she was posted as Superintendent, NCB Jammu and a secret information was conveyed to her by Intelligence Officer, Maneet Kumar on 13.03.2013 that accused-Mohd. Maqbool was about to cross Lakhanpur by truck bearing registration No. JK05 6906 and was smuggling charas. The said information was conveyed by her to Zonal Director at Delhi on telephone. The Zonal Director asked her to direct Intelligence Officer to constitute a team and take necessary action under law. She recorded the directions of the Zonal Director under her signatures which stands exhibited as Exp P 1/1. In the evening on the same day, she rushed to Lakhanpur and found her team of officers working, therefore, she returned back. On 14.03.2013, Intelligence Officer Maneet Kumar Lakhanpur produced two packets marked as Lot A and Lot P and two sealed samples packets marked as S-1 and S-2. The seals were intact. She made necessary entries and issued godown receipt that bears her signatures. She has also seen the godown register and the receipt on record is in conformity with the register entry at Page Nos. 18 to 21. The contents of godown receipt are correct. Sample mark S-1 was handed over to driver Tilak Raj for its delivery to CRCL for chemical analysis. The letter dated 14.03.2013 bears her seal and signatures. On 14.03.2013 Maneet Kumar submitted a report in terms of section 57 of the NDPS Act and the said report also bears her signatures. The contents of godown receipt are correct. Sample mark S-1 was handed over to driver Tilak Raj for its delivery to CRCL for chemical analysis. The letter dated 14.03.2013 bears her seal and signatures. On 14.03.2013 Maneet Kumar submitted a report in terms of section 57 of the NDPS Act and the said report also bears her signatures. In cross examination, stated that she stayed at Lakhanpur for about 5 to 10 minutes only and she did not come out of her vehicle during that period and returned back from there to Jammu. The source information was received by Maneet Kumar and not by her. Maneet Kumar did not inform her about the source and also did not inform about the time of receipt of information. The team of officers left for Lakhanpur from Jammu at 7.30 PM and the team of officers was constituted by Maneet Kumar. She does not remember the names of members of team. On 14.03.2013, she reached in her office at 7.30 AM and the team of officers had already arrived in her office. She was the Incharge of godown as well. She did not get the sample packets resealed through any magistrate/gazette officer nor did she give any direction to Maneet Kumar in this regard. She did not weigh the seized contraband again to verify its weight. (c) CW No: 3 Rakesh Singh has stated that in March, 2013, he was posted as Incharge of Police Station, Lakhanpur and he knows the accused. On 13.03.2013, at about 10.30 PM, NCB team came to Police Station, Lakhanpur and told him that they have some information that contraband is to be transported in a vehicle, as such he deputed four police men with NCB. At 11.15 PM, a truck bearing No. JK05-6906 reached there and was stopped. The accused was driving the vehicle all alone. The NCB told the driver that they want to search the truck as they suspect some contraband in it. There were apple boxes in the truck and during search 8 packets were recovered from one box that contained charas like substance. The recovered substance was examined with the help of kit and it was found to be charas. Four round shaped material charas were recovered from the each packet making total of 32. The same was weighed and it was found to be 14 Kg 978 grams. The recovered substance was examined with the help of kit and it was found to be charas. Four round shaped material charas were recovered from the each packet making total of 32. The same was weighed and it was found to be 14 Kg 978 grams. They mixed the round pieces and two samples of 24 grams each were extracted. Witness Ajay Sharma and Darshan Singh were also there and NCB team prepared a panchnama regarding the recovery and continued their job till 4 AM in the morning and one lady officer of NCB team was also there. In cross examination, he stated that he did not sign the documents those were prepared and he also not seen any document to show that he and his officers had gone on spot for investigation. His statement was not recorded during investigation. The truck was not carrying any other material except apple boxes and he does not remember the number of apple boxes. Apple boxes were not unloaded from the truck. Truck was having 50/100 boxes. Proceedings were conducted on road and they did not go inside the Police Station during that time. He did not call any civil witness on spot. They were standing there. The two civilian witnesses met him but he does not know whether they have been cited as witnesses in any other case. He had no prior information about the arrival of the NCB team. (d) CW-4 Naveen Kumar deposed that in March 2013 he was posted as constable with NCB Jammu and on 13.03.2013 at around 7.30 to 7.45, we left office at Jammu for Lakhanpur and we reached Lakhanpur at round 10.15 P.M. Investigating Officer Maneet Kumar informed the concerned Police Station and we laid Naka at around 11.15 P.M. One truck came that was driven by accused present in the court namely Mohd. Maqbool Lone. We were instructed to search the truck and we conducted the search and truck was loaded with 117 apple boxes and one box was having charas and eight bags of Dhoop were also recovered. Box containing charas was opened that was having eight packets in it. After opening eight packets, in each packet four round pieces were found. They were 32 in number and were brown in colour. Box containing charas was opened that was having eight packets in it. After opening eight packets, in each packet four round pieces were found. They were 32 in number and were brown in colour. They were examined on spot by the Investigating Officer and they were found to be containing Charas and their weight was 14.978 kg out of which two samples of 24 gms each were taken. The investigating Officer conducted the proceedings and thereafter came to their office at Jammu. In cross examination it was stated that Maneet Kumar is his officer and he was working under him. He had acted as per the directions of Maneet Kumar. Whatsoever documents were prepared on spot were not signed by him nor he was cited as witness. After completion of all the formalities, we reached our office at NCB Jammu at about 6.30.a.m. In Jammu also whatever proceedings were conducted by I.O. his signatures were not obtained and also his statement as witness was not recorded. He did not open any of the apple box out of the total 117 and also he did not open the bags containing dhoop. He was accompanied by Constable P.C.Thusoo of NCB and two constables of Police Station Lakhanpur were also accompanying him, when they entered the truck and we all jointly conducted the search of the truck. Shops and dhabas were situated where they had laid Naka. There was also office of Forest department at that place and Dhabas were open at that time. When they conducted the search people had assembled there and were watching from distance. He has not seen any contraband and other articles in the court today. (e) C-W No. 5 Tilak Raj stated that he was posted as Driver in NCB in March 2013. On 13.03.2013, Superintendent NCB Mehak Jain directed him to accompany I.O Maneet Kumar and his team .They left at 7.30 and reached Lakhanpur at 10.30 PM and at about 11.15 one truck with unknown number reached there from Jammu which was caught by their team. Charas was recovered from it and the driver of the truck told them that the recovered material was Charas and thereafter material was tested with testing kit. The proceedings continued till morning and at 4.a.m they left for Jammu. Charas was recovered from it and the driver of the truck told them that the recovered material was Charas and thereafter material was tested with testing kit. The proceedings continued till morning and at 4.a.m they left for Jammu. On 14.03.2013, he was directed by the Superintendent to go to Delhi with the sample and one packet marked as S-1 alongwith NCB form was handed over to him. He handed over the same to CRCL Delhi and obtained the receipt marked as A. In cross examination, he stated that his statement was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. For the first time today he has made his statement. He had not gone inside the truck. The place where truck was searched, there was a hotel also. Other trucks were also there. He remained inside his Bolero. He had not signed any document. (f) CW No:7 Ajay Kumar stated that accused is not known to him. On 13.03.2013 he was called upon by SHO of Police Station, Lakhanpur and in his presence neither truck nor any charas was seized. He was declared hostile. He admitted his signature on Ext. P-1/III and at that time his signatures were obtained on blank paper. He admitted his signatures but he stated that nothing was written when his signatures were taken. The truck bearing JK05 6906 was parked in front of Police Station and it was dark and accused might have been sleeping inside. He admitted his signatures on other documents but denied the contents there of. He further stated that he signed all the documents on same day and went to his home. He did not go either to Police station or at any other place in connection with this case. He was not called again in connection with this case. (g) CW No:8 Darshan Singh has also turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution and when he was cross examined, he stated that on 13.03.2013, SHO called their owner to the Police Station on phone and NCB personnel obtained his signatures on Ext. P1/4 in the Police Station. The witness has admitted his signatures but denied the contents of the documents. He further stated that he did not see any truck bearing No. JK05 6906 at Lakhanpur. P1/4 in the Police Station. The witness has admitted his signatures but denied the contents of the documents. He further stated that he did not see any truck bearing No. JK05 6906 at Lakhanpur. He returned after signing the documents and thereafter did not go to Police Station or Jammu (h) CW Pawan Dev has stated that he was posted in March, 2013 in NCB, Jammu and was the custodian of seal. On 13.03.2013, Maneet Kumar Investigating Officer got the seal issued which is entered in their register and he obtained receipt. The said seal was returned to him on 14.03.2013 by the Investigating Officer. In cross examination, he stated that when he issued the seal, he was at that time working under Mehak Jain and on her directions, he issued the seal and after being used, it was again returned back. 5. The Learned Trial court after hearing both the parties convicted the appellant by virtue of judgment impugned. 6. The Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the judgement impugned, reiterated the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and vehemently argued that the appellant has been denied of his right of having fair investigation as the complainant has himself received the secret report and has himself conducted the investigation in an unfair manner without there being any authorization in his favour by the Zonal Director or Superintendent NCB, that has caused prejudice to the appellant. It is further contended that the Learned Trial Court has not determined the issue of conscious possession despite the fact that it was raised before the trial Court and further that the independent witnesses had not supported the prosecution case and also that the trial court has wrongly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel laid much stress on the seizure memo as well as panchnama. 7. Per Contra, Mr. T. M. Shamsi, learned ASGI, has vehemently argued that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond doubt and all the prosecution witnesses except the civilian witnesses have supported the case against the appellant. He further submitted that the appellant is not entitled to acquittal merely because the independent witnesses have turned hostile. 8. Heard and scanned the trial court record meticulously. Discussion and Appreciation of contentions: 9. He further submitted that the appellant is not entitled to acquittal merely because the independent witnesses have turned hostile. 8. Heard and scanned the trial court record meticulously. Discussion and Appreciation of contentions: 9. It is contended that the complainant has himself been the investigator and he has not conducted the investigation fairly. In order to appreciate this aspect, it would be appropriate to take note of the judgment of Apex Court in case titled “Mukesh Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi)”, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 120 in which it has been held as under: “12.1. At this stage, it is required to be noted and as observed hereinabove, the NDPS Act is a special Act with a special purpose and with special provisions including Section 68 which provides that no officer acting in exercise of powers vested in him under any provision of the NDPS Act or any rule or order made thereunder shall be compelled to say from where he got any information as to the commission of any offence. Therefore, considering the NDPS Act being a special Act with special procedure to be followed under Chapter V, and as observed hereinabove, there is no specific bar against conducting the investigation by the informant himself and in view of the safeguard provided under the Act itself, namely, Section 58, we are of the opinion that there cannot be any general proposition of law to be laid down that in every case where the informant is the investigator, the trial is vitiated and the accused is entitled to acquittal. 12.2. Similarly, even with respect to offences under the IPC, as observed hereinabove, there is no specific bar against the informant/complainant investigating the case. Only in a case where the accused has been able to establish and prove the bias and/or unfair investigation by the informant-cum-investigator and the case of the prosecution is merely based upon the deposition of the informant-cum-investigator, meaning thereby prosecution does not rely upon other witnesses, more particularly the independent witnesses, in that case, where the complainant himself had conducted the investigation, such aspect of the matter can certainly be given due weightage while assessing the evidence on record. Therefore, as rightly observed by this Court in Bhaskar RamappaMadar [Bhaskar RamappaMadar v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 11 SCC 690 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 133], the matter has to be decided on a case-to-case basis without any universal generalisation. 12.3. As rightly held by this Court in V. Jayapaul [State v. V. Jayapaul, (2004) 5 SCC 223 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1607], there is no bar against the informant police officer to investigate the case. As rightly observed, if at all, such investigation could only be assailed on the ground of bias or real likelihood of bias on the part of the investigating officer the question of bias would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and therefore it is not proper to lay down a broad and unqualified proposition that in every case where the police officer who registered the case by lodging the first information, conducts the investigation that itself had caused prejudice to the accused and thereby it vitiates the entire prosecution case and the accused is entitled to acquittal. 13. From the above discussion and for the reasons stated above, we conclude and answer the reference as under: 13.1. (I) That the observations of this Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan [Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1976) 1 SCC 15 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 737] , Megha Singh v. State of Haryana [Megha Singh v. State of Haryana, (1996) 11 SCC 709 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 267] and State v. Rajangam [State v. Rajangam, (2010) 15 SCC 369 : (2012) 4 SCC (Cri) 714] and the acquittal of the accused by this Court on the ground that as the informant and the investigator was the same, it has vitiated the trial and the accused is entitled to acquittal are to be treated to be confined to their own facts. It cannot be said that in the aforesaid decisions, this Court laid down any general proposition of law that in each and every case where the informant is the investigator there is a bias caused to the accused and the entire prosecution case is to be disbelieved and the accused is entitled to acquittal. 13.2. (II) In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. 13.2. (II) In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor. The question of bias or prejudice would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, merely because the informant is the investigator, by that itself the investigation would not suffer the vice of unfairness or bias and therefore on the sole ground that informant is the investigator, the accused is not entitled to acquittal. The matter has to be decided on a case-tocase basis. A contrary decision of this Court in Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab [Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab, (2018) 17 SCC 627 : (2019) 4 SCC (Cri) 215] and any other decision taking a contrary view that the informant cannot be the investigator and in such a case the accused is entitled to acquittal are not good law and they are specifically overruled.” 10. It is also contended that there was no authorization in the name of PW No. 1 Maneet Kumar to conduct investigation. Law is well settled in this regard as well as Hon’ble Apex Court in H. N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, reported in AIR 1955 SC 196 has held as under: “9. The question then requires to be considered whether and to what extent the trial which follows such investigation is vitiated. Now, trial follows cognizance and cognizance is preceded by investigation. This is undoubtedly the basic scheme of the Code in respect of cognizable cases. But it does not necessarily follow that an invalid investigation nullifies the cognizance or trial based thereon. Here we are not concerned with the effect of the breach of a mandatory provision regulating the competence or procedure of the Court as regards cognizance or trial. It is only with reference to such a breach that the question as to whether it constitutes an illegality vitiating the proceedings or a mere irregularity arises. A defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No doubt a police report which results from an investigation is provided in Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the material on which cognizance is taken. A defect or illegality in investigation, however serious, has no direct bearing on the competence or the procedure relating to cognizance or trial. No doubt a police report which results from an investigation is provided in Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as the material on which cognizance is taken. But it cannot be maintained that a valid and legal police report is the foundation of the jurisdiction of the Court to take cognizance. Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is one out of a group of sections under the heading “Conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings”. The language of this section is in marked contrast with that of the other sections of the group under the same heading i.e. Sections 193 and 195 to 199. These latter sections regulate the competence of the Court and bar its jurisdiction in certain cases excepting in compliance therewith. But Section 190 does not. While no doubt, in one sense, clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 190(1) are conditions requisite for taking of cognizance, it is not possible to say that cognizance on an invalid police report is prohibited and is therefore a nullity. Such an invalid report may still fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 190(1), (whether it is the one or the other we need not pause to consider) and in any case cognizance so taken is only in the nature of error in a proceeding antecedent to the trial. To such a situation Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is in the following terms is attracted: “Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any enquiry or other proceedings under this Code, unless such error, omission or irregularity, has in fact occasioned a failure of justice.” If, therefore, cognizance is in fact taken, on a police report vitiated by the breach of a mandatory provision relating to investigation, there can be no doubt that the result of the trial which follows it cannot be set aside unless the illegality in the investigation can be shown to have brought about a miscarriage of justice. That an illegality committed in the course of investigation does not affect the competence and the jurisdiction of the Court for trial is well settled as appears from the cases in Prabhu v. Emperor [AIR 1944 Privy Council 73] and LumbhardarZutshi v. King [AIR 1950 Privy Council 26]. These no doubt relate to the illegality of arrest in the course of investigation while we are concerned in the present cases with the illegality with reference to the machinery for the collection of the evidence. This distinction may have a bearing on the question of prejudice or miscarriage of justice, but both the cases clearly show that invalidity of the investigation has no relation to the competence of the Court. We are, therefore, clearly, also, of the opinion that where the cognizance of the case has in fact been taken and the case has proceeded to termination, the invalidity of the precedent investigation does not vitiate the result, unless miscarriage of justice has been caused thereby.” 11. Thus from the law laid down by Apex Court it is evident that the accused is not entitled to acquittal merely because the complainant and the Investigating officer are the same and due to it, the trial is vitiated. Each case is to be determined as per its own facts and circumstances and if the accused is able to demonstrate that the Investigating Officer who happens to be the complainant himself and has acted with bias or conducted unfair investigation causing prejudice to the accused, then certainly the accused is entitled to acquittal. Similar would be the case when the investigation is conducted in an unauthorized manner. Now, we would examine the issues raised by the appellant on the touchstone of law laid down by Apex Court. 12. It is evident from the prosecution case that it was CW No. 1 Maneet who received secret information regarding the alleged transport of charas in the truck in question and forwarded to CW No. 2 Mehak Jain (Superintendent NCB Jammu), who in turn conveyed on Phone to Zonal Director( Jammu Zonal Unit), who was in Delhi, who further directed for constitution of Team. In para-3 of the complaint filed by the CW No: 1 it is stated that CW No. 2 Mehak Jain (Superintendent NCB Jammu) constituted the Team for the purpose of effecting recovery and to same effect CW No. 1 Maneet has stated that the team comprising of 5 persons including him was constituted by CW No. 2 Mehak Jain (Superintendent NCB Jammu). On the contrary CW No. 2 Mehak Jain (Superintendent NCB Jammu) has in her deposition before the Court has stated that Zonal Director asked her to direct Intelligence Officer to constitute the team and take necessary action under law. Perusal of list of witnesses reveals that Intelligence Officer is CW No. 1 Maneet Kumar, who is the complainant himself. If CW No. 2 Mehak Jain(Superintendent NCB Jammu) is to be believed then it is CW no:1 Maneet Kumar who was authorised to constitute team for recovery and he himself became the investigating officer and if CW no:1 Maneet Kumar is to be believed, then also except the constitution of team of five people including him for purpose of recovery, he has deposed nothing as to which particular officer was directed to investigate the case. There is nothing on record in the form of any document that a particular officer was deputed to conduct investigation and effect recovery. But the fact remains that CW No: 1 is in fact a person who received secret information i.e. Ext-P1/I and who is both the complainant and Investigating Officer. CW No:1 is the person who prepared the Recovery memo cum Seizure Memo on 14.03.2013 i.e. Ext-P1/VI and two independent witnesses namely Ajay Kumar and Darshan Singh signed the same as marginal witnesses. Both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile as they categorically stated that nothing was recovered in their presence. CW Ajay Kumar has stated that his signatures were taken on blank papers. Both CWs Ajay Kumar and Darshan Singh have stated that their signatures were taken in Polcie Station. Learned Trial Court only on the basis that they had admitted their signatures on Ext- P1/VI held that they were present on the spot and signed the same. CW Ajay Kumar has stated that his signatures were taken on blank papers. Both CWs Ajay Kumar and Darshan Singh have stated that their signatures were taken in Polcie Station. Learned Trial Court only on the basis that they had admitted their signatures on Ext- P1/VI held that they were present on the spot and signed the same. The Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that both the witnesses had denied that they ever went to NCB office at Jammu in connection with the case at hand particularly when it is the case of the prosecution that their statements under sec 67 of NDPS Act were recorded at Jammu office of NCB. It is important to note that none of other witnesses i.e. CW Naveen Kumar, Tilak Raj and Rakesh Singh who were present at the alleged time and at place of recovery has ever deposed that the Ext- P1/VI was signed by Ajay Kumar and Darshan Singh. More so, in Ext- P1/VI it is not mentioned that the alleged contraband was recovered from the truck and truck was also seized despite there being a specific requirement in the seizure memo to reflect the seizure of the vehicle. CW No:1 has admitted that he had not seized the apple boxes. In fact there is no seizure memo of Truck, apple boxes and 8 Bags containing Dhoop. Even CW No:1 has not bothered to count the apple boxes lying in the truck. Further, CW No:1 has categorically stated in his testimony that except these two civilian witnesses, no other civilian witnesses were present on spot and this version has been contradicted by both Rakesh Singh, Naveen Kumar who stated that there were number of people on the spot. The creation of Panchnama further reflects the unfairness on the part of the CW no:1 as the perusal of Panchnama i.e. Ext-P1/X reveals that the same has been prepared on 14-03-2013 at 00:30 hrs i.e. 12:30 A.M (First Page of Panchnama) where as the contents of Panchnama mentions the proceedings having been concluded at 4 A.M (Last page of Panchnama). It clearly shows that it was not prepared at 00:30 hrs and was prepared subsequently. 13. It clearly shows that it was not prepared at 00:30 hrs and was prepared subsequently. 13. Another important aspect of the matter is that as per the complaint it was the CW No. 4 Naveen Kumar who recovered the contraband from the truck but he in his deposition stated that the team recovered charas from Truck and also it is astonishing as to how the team could identify the apple box having contraband from amongst the 117 apple boxes without opening any other apple box as CW Naveen Kumar has admitted that none of the 117 apple boxes was opened. CW Naven Kumar has no where stated that it was he who recovered the apple box containing contraband and rather he stated that it was the team which recovered the apple box containing contraband. On the contrary CW Maneet Kumar stated that CW Naveen Kumar found the apple box. Who amongst the team members found an apple box containing charas remains a mystery. Thus there are material discrepancies in the version of CW Maneet Kumar as well as CW Naveen Kumar and it creates doubt about the recovery of contraband from the truck. More so, CW Naveen Kumar has stated that one Ct. Thussoo of NCB and other constables of Police Station went in to the truck for search. Then why the investigating officer CW No. 1 did not associate them with the investigation and they were never cited as witnesses and he only cited CW No. 4 Naveen Kumar as witness only, who deposed that CW No. 1 Maneet Kumar is his superior officer and he acted as per his instructions. At least, CW No: 1 Maneet Kumar should have either recorded the statement of the other constables from the Police Station who entered the truck or should have cited them as prosecution witnesses, who could have been termed as independent witnesses to some extent and could have proved the recovery of contraband. But strange enough, he cited only his subordinate as witness to the search and recovery. So far as statement of CW Rakesh Singh is concerned, he has categorically stated that except apple boxes, there was nothing in the Truck where as the fact remains that besides apple boxes there were 8 bags containing dhoop. He has further deposed that he remained outside the truck and Apple boxes were not brought out from the truck. So far as statement of CW Rakesh Singh is concerned, he has categorically stated that except apple boxes, there was nothing in the Truck where as the fact remains that besides apple boxes there were 8 bags containing dhoop. He has further deposed that he remained outside the truck and Apple boxes were not brought out from the truck. So he too has not deposed as to who found the apple box and also that he did not go inside the truck, as such no reliance can be placed upon him. Similarly, CW Tilak Raj has deposed that he did not go inside the truck and charas was recovered by the Team. No doubt the accused can be convicted even if independent witnesses have turned hostile and have not proved the seizure memo but in such scenario, the evidence of recovery must be of sterling quality that should point only towards the guilt of the accused. But so far as instant case is concerned, the evidence regarding the recovery of the contraband from the truck is doubtful as there is no evidence as to who found the apple box having contraband without opening any of the other 117 apple boxes particularly when there is nothing on record to establish that the apple box having contraband was different vis-avis from other apple boxes. It assumes significance as the appellant was driving a goods carriage vehicle, carrying the goods loaded by the consignors. 14. Further it has come in the evidence that CW No. 1, Maneet Kumar seized the challans of the consignment loaded in the truck and the consignment was meant to be delivered at New Sabzi Mandi, Delhi by the Driver to Pawan Kumar and Rajesh Kumar. CW No. 1 has also admitted that he did not conduct any investigation from the said firm or from any other firm. He has also admitted that he did not seize any article other contraband, though the truck was loaded with dhoop and apple boxes. He has further admitted to have not conducted any investigation from Vishal Kumar and Ramesh Kumar of Tilak Bazar, Delhi to whom the consignment of dhoop loaded in the truck, was to be delivered. He has also admitted that he did not seize any article other contraband, though the truck was loaded with dhoop and apple boxes. He has further admitted to have not conducted any investigation from Vishal Kumar and Ramesh Kumar of Tilak Bazar, Delhi to whom the consignment of dhoop loaded in the truck, was to be delivered. We have gone through the challans annexed with the complaint and perusal of it reveal that the challans bear the names of consignors and despite that no effort was made by CW No. 1 to collect the evidence that the apple box containing the contraband was not loaded in the truck at the time when other apple boxes were loaded by the said consignors. It was obligatory on the part of the Investigating Officer i.e. CW No. 1 to investigate the consignors with regard to the loading of apple boxes in the truck so as to negate the possibility of loading of the apple box by the accused containing contraband in the truck by the consignors, that could have established the loading of contraband by the appellant after the truck departed the consignor’s place for onward journey. The statement (confession)of the accused recorded by the Investigating Officer is of no use for the prosecution as the same is inadmissible in evidence as per the law laid down by Apex Court in “Tofan Singh versus State of Tamilnadu” reported in 2020(5) JKJ 270 (SC). Though the statement of the accused is not admissible but still the Investigating Officer was aware about Tariq Ahmed who allegedly gave the contraband to the accused but the Investigating Officer has not investigated the said person as well. Whether there was any person named Tariq Ahmed or not, that remains a mystery. It assumes significance in view of the specific averment made in para 11 of the complaint, where the CW No: 1 has prayed for permitting the prosecution to file supplementary complaint against any other person found to be involved in the crime. Neither any supplementary complaint was filed nor the Trial court was informed that complicity of any other accused was not found in the crime. As such, the possibility of the loading of the contraband by the consignors along with apple boxes cannot be ruled out. Neither any supplementary complaint was filed nor the Trial court was informed that complicity of any other accused was not found in the crime. As such, the possibility of the loading of the contraband by the consignors along with apple boxes cannot be ruled out. It was obligatory on the part of Investigating officer to exclude any circumstance that pointed towards the innocence of the accused in order to secure the conviction of the accused. In absence of any such evidence and particularly when the independent witnesses have not supported the recovery and seizure, the accused cannot be convicted on ambiguous and vague evidence. 15. In Noor Aga v. State of Punjab, reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417 , the Apex Court has held as under: “58. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise presumptions with regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the accused as also place the burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal of the said provision would clearly show that presumption would operate in the trial of the accused only in the event the circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift. Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is “beyond all reasonable doubt” but it is “preponderance of probability” on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established. 59. With a view to bring within its purview the requirements of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband was essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” 16. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 513 has held as under: “21. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.” 16. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 513 has held as under: “21. No doubt, when the appellant admitted that the narcotic drug was recovered from the gunny bags stacked in the autorickshaw, the burden of proof is on him to prove that he had no knowledge about the fact that those gunny bags contained such a substance. The standard of such proof is delineated in sub-section (2) as “beyond a reasonable doubt”. If the court, on an appraisal of the entire evidence does not entertain doubt of a reasonable degree that he had real knowledge of the nature of the substance concealed in the gunny bags then the appellant is not entitled to acquittal. However, if the court entertains strong doubt regarding the accused’s awareness about the nature of the substance in the gunny bags, it would be a miscarriage of criminal justice to convict him of the offence keeping such strong doubt undispelled. Even so, it is for the accused to dispel any doubt in that regard. 22. The burden of proof cast on the accused under Section 35 can be discharged through different modes. One is that he can rely on the materials available in the prosecution evidence. Next is, in addition to that, he can elicit answers from prosecution witnesses through cross-examination to dispel any such doubt. He may also adduce other evidence when he is called upon to enter on his defence. In other words, if circumstances appearing in the prosecution case or in the prosecution evidence are such as to give reasonable assurance to the court that the appellant could not have had the knowledge or the required intention, the burden cast on him under Section 35 of the Act would stand discharged even if he has not adduced any other evidence of his own when he is called upon to enter on his defence. 23. In this case non-recording of the vital information collected by the police at the first instance can be counted as a circumstance in favour of the appellant. 23. In this case non-recording of the vital information collected by the police at the first instance can be counted as a circumstance in favour of the appellant. Next is that even the information which PW 2 recollected from memory is capable of helping the accused because it indicates that the real culprits would have utilised the services of an autorickshaw driver to transport the gunny bags and it is not necessary that the autorickshaw driver should have been told in advance that the gunny bags contained such offensive substance. The possibility is just the other way round that the said culprits would not have disclosed that information to the autorickshaw driver unless it is shown that he had entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other main culprits to transport the contraband. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence to show any such connivance between the appellant and the real culprits. There is nothing even to suggest that those culprits and the appellant were close to each other, or even known to each other earlier. Yet another circumstance discernible from the evidence in this case is that the police had actually arrayed two other persons as the real culprits and made all endeavour to arrest them, but they absconded themselves and escaped from the reach of the police.” 17. Also in Hanif Khan v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, reported in (2020) 16 SCC 709, the Apex Court has held as under: “9. Because there is a reverse burden of proof, the prosecution shall be put to a stricter test for compliance with statutory provisions. If at any stage, the accused is able to create a reasonable doubt, as a part of his defence, to rebut the presumption of his guilt, the benefit will naturally have to go to him.” 18. Further in Apex Court in Gangadhar v. State of M.P., reported in (2020) 9 SCC 202 Apex Court has held as under: “10. The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Section 37, the minimum sentence of 10 years, absence of any provision for remission do not dispense with the requirements of prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only whereafter which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused. The stringent provisions of the NDPS Act, such as Section 37, the minimum sentence of 10 years, absence of any provision for remission do not dispense with the requirements of prosecution to establish a prima facie case beyond reasonable doubt after investigation, only whereafter which the burden of proof shall shift to the accused. The gravity of the sentence and the stringency of the provisions will therefore call for a heightened scrutiny of the evidence for establishment of foundational facts by the prosecution.” 19. We have gone through the judgment impugned and it seems that the vital aspects/issues involved in the case as noted above by us have escaped the consideration of the Learned trial Court. 20. In view of what has been stated and discussed above, We are of the considered view that because of the material discrepancies as well as contradictions in the evidence of the official witnesses with regard to the recovery of the contraband, coupled with the fact that the independent witnesses have turned hostile and also because of improper investigation, the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and as such appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt. 21. As a consequence thereof, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment dated 08.01.2015 and order dated 10.01.2015 passed by Learned Sessions Judge Kathua in complaint titled “Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau v/s Mohd. Maqbul lone”. The complaint stands dismissed and the accused is acquitted and be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Record of the trial court be remitted back.