Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1442 (AP)

Gurunadham Subba Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2023-11-07

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The judgment, dtd. 13/3/2009 in Sessions Case No.22 of 2007, on the file of Special Judge for NDPS Cases-cum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole ("Special Judge" for short), is under the challenge in the present Criminal Appeal filed by the unsuccessful accused in the above said Sessions Case. The accused faced charge under Sec. 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short) before the learned Special Judge and he was found guilty of the charge and he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.1, 00, 000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by Prohibition and Excise Inspector, Podili, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.114/2006-07 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Podili under Sec. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act, alleging in substance that the scene of offence is situated at the house of accused in S.T. Colony, Podili. On receipt of credible information through phone call about the storing of Ganja in the house of the accused, L.W.10-K. Sreedevi, Prohibition & Excise Inspector, Podili along with her staff L.W.9-D. Srinivasa Rao of Prohibition & Excise S.I., Podili; L.W.1-A. Ramanaiah, P.C.1734 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Podili; L.W.2-R. Polarao, P.C.203 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Podili and L.W.3-Sk. Ghouse Basha, H.C.161 of Prohibition & Excise Station, Podili and mediators L.W.4-Yaddanapudi Venkateswarlu and L.W.5-M.V.M. Seshachalam, proceeded to the house of the accused, near Junior College, Podili on 17/3/2007 at 1-15 p.m. On search of the house of the accused, they found 13 bags of ganja covered with clothes which are kept in the gap of the house wall of the accused tied in two gunny bags. One bag contained 10 Kgs and another bag contained 9.2 Kgs of dry ganja. They found 1.8 Kgs of ganja in small paper packets (30 + 140 packets) in the house of the accused. They arrested the accused after explaining the grounds of arrest and seized the entire contraband from the house of the accused in the presence of mahazar witnesses under the cover of mahajarnama. They found 1.8 Kgs of ganja in small paper packets (30 + 140 packets) in the house of the accused. They arrested the accused after explaining the grounds of arrest and seized the entire contraband from the house of the accused in the presence of mahazar witnesses under the cover of mahajarnama. During seizure L.W.10 took 100 grams of ganja from each gunny bag and another approximate 100 grams of ganja from the newspaper packets and she sealed and labeled three samples. She returned to the Prohibition & Excise Station along with arrested accused and seized contraband and registered the mahazar report as a case in Crime No.114/2006- 07 under Sec. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i) of NDPS Act and took up investigation. She visited the scene of offence and examined the same. She further examined L.W.6-S. Seetharamaiah, Panchayat Secretary, Podili, L.W.7-Sreeramula Sarojini and L.W.8-Kandela Venkateswarlu and recorded their statements. During investigation she forwarded the samples to the Chemical Examiner for Prohibition & Excise, Guntur. The Chemical analyst opined that the samples are of ganja. Hence, the charge sheet. 4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance under Sec. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(i)(C) of NDPS Act and after complying necessary formalities under Sec. 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short), framed a charge under Sec. 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act against the accused and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, before the learned Special Judge, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 and M.O.1 to M.O.6. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in for which he denied the same. During Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. examination, he stated that on 16/3/2007 there was a quarrel between him and the adjacent owners of the houses and the local police came and took him and implicated him in excise case falsely and that he is an innocent and he did not commit any offence. In furtherance of the defence, the accused examined D.W.1 and D.W.2. 6. In furtherance of the defence, the accused examined D.W.1 and D.W.2. 6. The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused guilty of the charge under Sec. 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of the NDPS Act, convicted him under Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused filed the present Criminal Appeal. 7. Before going to frame the points for determination, this Court would like to make it clear that the accused is undergoing imprisonment pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal as of now. As he did not prosecute the appeal properly, this Court issued Non-Bailable Warrant against the accused. Later, the police found the accused in judicial custody pertaining to Crime No.8 of 2023 of SEB Station, Ongole. The learned Special Judge secured the presence of the accused and entrusted the conviction warrant pending disposal of the Criminal Appeal. 8. Now, in the light of the contentions advanced in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the investigating officer complied the relevant mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act in detection and investigation of the case against the accused? (2) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused was found in possession of 21 Kgs of ganja on 17/3/2007 in his house in the manner as alleged and whether the prosecution proved the guilt against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? (3) Whether the judgment, dtd. 13/3/2009 is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? Point Nos.1 to 3:- 9. Ms. Harija Akkineni, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that though according to the case of the prosecution, the investigating officer received credible information about the storage of ganja in the house of the accused, but there was no compliance of mandatory provisions of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. She would submit that though the accused raised various contentions as to non-compliance of Ss. 41, 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act, but now the accused is confining his arguments about the violation of mandatory provision under Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. She would submit that though the accused raised various contentions as to non-compliance of Ss. 41, 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the NDPS Act, but now the accused is confining his arguments about the violation of mandatory provision under Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. When the accused raised this serious issue before the learned Special Court, it gave a finding that when the information received is not authentic, there is no need to comply Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. Here in the charge sheet, in the mahajarnama and in the evidence, the case of the prosecution is that the investigating officer received credible information about the storage of ganja in the house of the accused. Thus, the finding of the learned Special Judge is nothing but irregular. The investigating officer violated the procedure regarding the lifting of samples. He dumped all the so-called 170 packets into a single cover and lifted one sample. He further dumped 13 socalled small bags into two gunny bags and lifted two samples. There is no guarantee that all the so-called 170 packets and 13 small gunny bags contained ganja. When the samples were not lifted from all the above, it cannot be held that the accused possessed commercial quantity of ganja. The entire conviction is vitiated for violation of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act and as the investigating officer did not lift the samples in a proper manner. In fact, the prosecution cited D.W.1 and D.W.2 as list of witnesses 7 and 8 and it did not examine. Accused examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 in furtherance of his defence. The contention of the accused is that on the previous day he had a quarrel with neighbouring house owners and then the police came there and took away him and entrusted him to the Excise Police, as such, he is falsely implicated. D.W.1 and D.W.2 supported the defence theory. Irrespective of the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, the case of the prosecution must fall on its ground for utter violence of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act and further violation of procedure regarding lifting of samples, as such, the accused is entitled to a benefit of doubt. 10. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would canvass the contention that the investigating officer issued Ex.P.1-search proceedings before entering into the house of the accused. 10. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would canvass the contention that the investigating officer issued Ex.P.1-search proceedings before entering into the house of the accused. Mahajarnama contains whisper about the issuance of such proceedings. Though the search proceedings did not contain the signature of the accused, but mahajarnama contained the signature of the accused. Non-compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act is not fatal. The investigating officer rightly issued proceedings under Sec. 165 of Cr.P.C. before entering into the house of the accused under Ex.P.1. According to the findings of the learned Special Judge when the information so received was not authentic, there is no need to comply Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. He would further canvass the contention that the accused did not dispute his presence at the house and there is no dispute about the ownership of the house with that of the accused and the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the form of P.W.1 to P.W.6 is consistent, as such, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 11. P.W.1 is the then Inspector, Prohibition and Excise Station, Podili. Her evidence is that on 17/3/2007 based on information received at 12-30 noon, she along with raid party proceeded towards Viswanadhapuram to the S.T. Colony to the students' hostel. The house of the accused is opposite to there. The accused was found in front of his house. He disclosed his identity. They informed him that they got information about the availability of ganja in his house and they have to search his house. He reported no objection. They served search proceedings under Ex.P.1. There are three rooms opposite to the house in the premises covered by the same compound. He along with mediators searched the house. They found 30 paper packets in the hole of the wall. They found ganja in 30 packets. In the course of further search, they found black colour polythine bag with 140 paper packets of ganja. At one place they further found 13 bundles covered with saree pieces and 13 bundles also contained ganja. They seized the ganja under the cover of mahajarnama. They weighed paper packets total 170 and it was found as 1.8 Kgs of ganja. They further weighed 13 bundles of saree cloth pieces and found 19.200 Kgs. of ganja. At one place they further found 13 bundles covered with saree pieces and 13 bundles also contained ganja. They seized the ganja under the cover of mahajarnama. They weighed paper packets total 170 and it was found as 1.8 Kgs of ganja. They further weighed 13 bundles of saree cloth pieces and found 19.200 Kgs. of ganja. They put the ganja in two gunny bags and on weighing the same, it is 10 Kgs + 9.2 Kgs. From the paper packets they lifted 100 grams of ganja and from two gunny bags they lifted 100 grams of ganja each. They secured the proof of ownership of the house of the accused. M.O.1 to M.O.3 were the seized contraband. M.O.4 to M.O.6 were the samples. Ex.P.1 is the search proceedings. Ex.P.2 is the electricity demand original notice to the house of the accused. Ex.P.3 is the tax receipt. Ex.P.4 is the mahajarnama. They arrested the accused under the cover of mahajarnama. After returning to the station, she registered the mahajarnama as a case in Crime No.114/2006-07 and took up investigation. Ex.P.5 is the F.I.R. She forwarded the accused to the Court for remand. She forwarded the samples to the chemical examiner. The chemical examiner opined that the samples are of ganja. She obtained Ex.P.7 Panchayat Secretary Certificate. 12. P.W.2 is the Prohibition and Excise S.I., who assisted P.W.1 in the investigation and according to him, he is also one of the signatories to Ex.P.4-mediatornama and he participated in the raid. 13. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the mediators, who did not support the case of the prosecution. According to P.W.3, he knows L.W.5-Seshachalam V.R.O., Audalapalli. He went to ST Colony of Viswanadhapuram at request. By then Excise Inspector and Excise people were there. One person was there in panic condition. No proceedings taken place in his presence. He was asked to sign on Ex.P.4. The prosecution declared him as hostile and during cross examination he denied the case of the prosecution. 14. According to P.W.4, at about 3-00 p.m., on 27/3/2007 he went to ST colony and he did not observe whether the accused is there. He was asked to sign on the slips affixed to M.O.1 to M.O.6 and Ex.P.4-panchanama. The prosecution declared him as hostile and during cross examination he denied the case of the prosecution. 15. 14. According to P.W.4, at about 3-00 p.m., on 27/3/2007 he went to ST colony and he did not observe whether the accused is there. He was asked to sign on the slips affixed to M.O.1 to M.O.6 and Ex.P.4-panchanama. The prosecution declared him as hostile and during cross examination he denied the case of the prosecution. 15. P.W.5 is the Panchayat Secretary, who issued Ex.P.7 to the effect that the accused is resident of ST Colony, Door No.9-20-1. 16. P.W.6 is the Prohibition and Excise Constable, who taken part in the raid and he deposed in tune with the evidence of P.W.1. 17. According to the evidence of D.W.1, in March, 2007 there was a galata between wife of accused and wife of Excise Constable in ST Colony at water tap at 7-00 a.m. Later, the accused was taken away by local police of Podili. He was witness to the said galata. He came to know that local police handed over the accused to the Excise Police and he was implicated falsely. During cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied that he is deposing false in favour of the accused. 18. The evidence of D.W.2 is that two years back, morning at water pump, there was a galata between one constable and his wife on one side and the accused and his wife on other side. The accused was taken away by Podili police and they implicated him in excise case. During cross examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied that he is deposing false in favour of the accused. 19. In the light of the contentions advanced, firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act in this case is necessary and if so, whether it is complied. For better appreciation, it is pertinent to refer here Sec. 42 of the Act. [42. 19. In the light of the contentions advanced, firstly, this Court would like to deal with as to whether compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act in this case is necessary and if so, whether it is complied. For better appreciation, it is pertinent to refer here Sec. 42 of the Act. [42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.- (1) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset, -- (a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place; (b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry; (c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and (d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act: [Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances, granted under this Act or any rule or order made there under, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector: Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-sec. (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.] 20. The prosecution alleged that the investigating officer seized commercial quantity of ganja in the house of the accused bearing Door No.9-20-1, opposite to Government Boys Hostel, ST Colony. According to the case of the prosecution, Ex.P.1- Search proceedings were served on the accused before entering into the house of the accused. The search place is nothing but a building. The search is an act on the part of the investigating officer entering into the building and made search of the house of the accused. It is to be noted that a close perusal of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act means that if any such officer has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, he may between sunrise and sunset enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place, etc. Coming to Ex.P.1 there is no dispute that investigating officer did not obtain the signature of the accused on Ex.P.1. When it was addressed to the accused intimating the intention of the investigating officer to make search of his house, nothing prevented the investigating officer to obtain the signature of the accused in token of receipt of Ex.P.1. It is altogether a different aspect that Ex.P.4-mahajarnama bears the signature of the accused in which there was a whisper about the search proceedings. This does not itself make the compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. 21. It is to be noted that the case of the prosecution according to the charge sheet is that the investigating officer received credible information about storage of ganja in the house of the accused. So when it is a case that the investigating officer received credible information about the storage of ganja in the house of the accused, he should have taken down the same in writing in compliance of the mandates under Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. So when it is a case that the investigating officer received credible information about the storage of ganja in the house of the accused, he should have taken down the same in writing in compliance of the mandates under Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. According to the evidence of P.W.1, on 17/3/2007 based on information received at 12-30 p.m., they proceeded to the house of the accused. According to the evidence of P.W.2, he assisted P.W.1 in detection and investigation of the case. According to the evidence of P.W.6, on 17/3/2007 afternoon he proceeded along with C.I. of Police. As seen from Ex.P.4-mahajarnama, it is very specific that on prior information received only they proceeded to the house of the accused. According to the averments in the charge sheet, the information so received was credible one. Absolutely, it is not the evidence of P.W.1, the investigating officer, that he did not reduce the information into writing so received, as it was not credible. In the entire evidence of P.W.1, absolutely, there is no whisper as to whether the investigating officer reduced the information in writing so received especially when it was credible. It is not the case that the investigating officer proceeded to the house of the accused basing on personal knowledge. Hence, when he received information, it must have been from another person and in such a case he should have noted down the information in writing. However, this is not complied. Further mandate of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act is that within 72 hours he shall forward the copy of the information so received to the superior officer. Thus, the evidence is lacking in this case as regards the compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act as above. It is not the case of the prosecution that without there being any proper information during the routine raids to detect prohibition and excise offences, they visited the house of the accused and conducted raid. Absolutely, it is not such a case. On the other hand, when the charge sheet itself reveals that the investigating officer received credible information and when it is not the case of the prosecution that he proceeded to the house of the accused on personal knowledge, he was supposed to reduce the information so received into writing and to send the same to superior officer within 72 hours. Absolutely, there is no whisper in the entire case of the prosecution as to the compliance of the mandatory provision. Time and again the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that violation of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act vitiates entire conviction. 22. It is to be noted that before the learned Special Judge, the accused raised the serious contention as to violation of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. The learned Special Judge made a finding that compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act is not necessary when the information is not such a credible. Here none of the prosecution witnesses especially P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 deposed that they received vague information. When the evidence of P.W.1 and the averments in the charge sheet is so clear that the investigating officer received credible information about the storage of ganja, the finding of fact recorded by the learned Special Judge as if there is no need to comply Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act when the information was not authentic is untenable. Thus, it is clear that the investigating officer miserably failed to comply Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. The punishments provided under NDPS Act are deterrent in nature. The Legislature in its wisdom imposed several safeguards so as to see that the penal provisions of the Act may not be abused. Here is a case that investigating officer received credible information that the accused stored ganja in his house. When that is the situation, she was supposed to comply mandates under Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act, but she did not comply. Hence, it is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution. 23. Another grave irregularity which is found in the case of the prosecution is that the investigating officer did not lift samples from all the paper packets or other 13 bags, as the case may be. The case of the prosecution is so specific that at one place in the house of the accused 30 paper packets were found which contained ganja. At another place 140 paper packets were found which contained ganja. At another place 13 small bags were found which contained ganja. There is no guarantee that all the paper packets 170 in number and all the 13 small bags contained ganja. So, to prove that they contained ganja, the investigating officer was supposed to take samples properly. At another place 140 paper packets were found which contained ganja. At another place 13 small bags were found which contained ganja. There is no guarantee that all the paper packets 170 in number and all the 13 small bags contained ganja. So, to prove that they contained ganja, the investigating officer was supposed to take samples properly. Instead of lifting samples each from 170 paper packets and 13 small bags what she did is that she thrown the so-called ganja of 13 small bags into two gunny bags. Further she thrown the so-called ganja from 170 packets into a small bag and she lifted three samples from each as above. Thus, the investigating officer committed a serious irregularity in not lifting the samples from all the above items. In the absence of lifting samples from all the above items, it cannot be held that each item contained ganja. The case of the prosecution cannot stands to the test of scrutiny on its face value to say that the accused was found in possession of commercial quantity of ganja of 21 Kgs. This is another serious irregularity committed by the investigating officer. 24. Apart from this, the investigating officer did not care to take the signature of the accused on Ex.P.1- Sec. 165 of Cr.P.C. search proceedings. The investigation conducted by the investigating officer is not free from blemish. It is a fact that the mahazar witnesses i.e., P.W.3 and P.W.4 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Thus, there is no corroboration to the testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 from independent source. The investigating officer cited D.W.1 and D.W.2 as prosecution witnesses, who are not examined by the prosecution. Of course, the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 is contrary to the case of the prosecution. However, as the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 have no corroboration from P.W.3 and P.W.4, evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution. If the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 is scrutinized with care and caution, it is quite apparent that the investigating officer did not set forth any reason whatsoever for noncompliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act. The finding of the learned Special Judge that it is not liable to be complied when there was no authentic information cannot stands to any reason on account of the reasons furnished supra. The finding of the learned Special Judge that it is not liable to be complied when there was no authentic information cannot stands to any reason on account of the reasons furnished supra. Apart from this, the investigating officer committed a serious irregularity in not lifting samples in a proper manner. The act of the investigating officer in dumping so-called ganja from 170 packets into a single small packet and lifting one sample is a serious irregularity. The further act of the investigating officer in dumping the so-called ganja from 13 small bags into two gunny bags and lifting only two samples is also another irregularity. On this count itself the entire conviction is vitiated. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the non-compliance of Sec. 42 of the NDPS Act is a serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution and further the non-lifting of samples from the so-called all paper packets and so-called small gunny bags is another serious lacuna in the case of the prosecution. 25. Viewing from any angle, I do not find any tenable reason to say that the accused was found in commercial quantity of ganja. The manner in which the investigating officer claimed to have conducted raid is not free from blemish. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 is not that of sterling quality and it is lacking corroboration from the independent source. 26. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused. The learned Special Judge with erroneous appreciation of evidence recorded the conviction and sentenced the accused which is not tenable. Hence, I hold that the judgment, dtd. 13/3/2009 in Sessions Case No.22 of 2007 of the learned Special Judge, is not sustainable under law and facts and the accused is entitled for acquittal by extending the benefit of doubt. 27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment, dtd. 13/3/2009 in Sessions Case No.22 of 2007, on the file of learned Special Judge for NDPS Casescum-I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ongole and thereby the appellant/accused shall stand acquitted of the charge under Sec. 20 (b)(ii)(C) r/w 8(c) of NDPS Act. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him after appeal time is over. The fine amount, if any, paid by the accused shall be refunded to him after appeal time is over. The accused shall be released forthwith if he is not required in any other case. 28. The Registry is directed to forward the copy of this judgment to the trial Court as well as to the Central Prison, Nellore, where the accused undergoing imprisonment forthwith. Further the Registry is directed to forward the record to the trial Court within one week from this day. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.