JUDGMENT : (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.Y. KOGJE) [1] These two criminal appeals are filed for discharge of the appellants in connection with an offense registered vide NIA Case No.RC-26/2021/NIA/DLI which was registered for offense punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and 8(c), 21(c), 23(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 17, 18 and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “UAPA Act” for short). [2] It is a case of illicit import of heroin camouflaged as a “Semi Processed Talc Stones” from Afghanistan in a huge quantity to the tune of 2988.21 Kgs. with an international value worth Rs.21,000/- Crores. The offense came to light when the DRI, Gandhidham acted on a specific intelligence input received on 13.09.2021 and therefore, DRI, Gandhidham constituted a team to carry out the inspection of the consignment specifically imported in two containers, and upon examination of such goods under the panchnama dated 14.09.2021, contained in 18 jumbo bags in one container and 20 jumbo bags in another container, particularly preliminary testing of goods were conducted by the experts of FSL, Gandhidham, wherein test report confirms presence of heroin, a narcotic substance. During the investigation being carried out of this huge quantity of heroin, it also came to the light that there was prior shipment of similar consignment which took place in the month of June-2021, where the consignment had originated from Bandar Abbas Port, Iran to Mundra Port in 20 feet container which was also contained huge quantity of narcotic substance, heroin and which had reached open market through the similar route as was undertaken in the seized narcotic substance. [3] The appellants of both the appeals have been arraigned as accused Nos. A24 and A25 respectively in the charge-sheet being No.5B/2022. [4] Both the accused had preferred bail application before the Special Court and thereafter, before this Court being Criminal Appeal No.1980 of 2023 and Criminal Appeal No.(F) 35933 of 2023. Appeal of appellant-Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar was rejected by this Court under oral judgment dated 28.03.2024, whereas appeal of appellant-Prince Sharma appears to have been dismissed for default for want of prosecution vide order dated 09.11.2023. Appeal of appellant-Harpreet Singh Talwar @ Kabir Talwar was rejected by this Court under oral judgment dated 28.03.2024, whereas appeal of appellant-Prince Sharma appears to have been dismissed for default for want of prosecution vide order dated 09.11.2023. [4.1] Thereafter, both the appellants have filed application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for discharge before the Special Court, NIA Act, praying for discharge on various grounds which were urged in detailed before the Special Court, NIA and ultimately by an order dated 19.03.2024 respectively, applications for both the appellants came to be rejected. [4.2] As the issues raised by both the appellants are identical and are based on similar facts and grounds, both the appeals are heard together and the facts are narrated from the lead matter being Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2024. [5] It is the case of the appellant that the appellant is wrongly prosecuted by the investigation in the present case. It is submitted that the appellant has never indulged in any activity which would render the appellant liable for punishment either under UAPA, 1967 or under NDPS Act, 1985. That the entire case of prosecution is false and is based upon disclosures which are, inadmissible and the statements of witnesses which are either obtained under the coercion or suffers from material inconsistencies and blatant falsehoods. That, the investigation has arbitrarily arrested the appellant only on the presumption that the import undertaken by Magnate India in December, 2020 was of ‘Semi Processed Talc Stones’ from Afghanistan contained Heroin, without adducing any evidence to prove the same. It is also submitted that Magnet India is a proprietorship concern of the accused-Prince Sharma. (Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1020 of 2024). [6] Learned senior advocate has submitted that the consignment of Magent India imported in the month of December, 2020 from Afghanistan was marked for 100% examination, a witness Alok Mishra, working with Contrans Shipping Pvt. Ltd., who attended clearance of the said import consignment, has stated in his statement dated 26.09.2021 recorded by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit that the examination of the cargo was carried out by the officers in Saurashtra, CFS, Mundra on 24.12.2020 in his presence. He has further stated that the examination of the said cargo was done by Satish Nair, Superintendent and Vikas Kumar Bagdi, then Preventive Officer, Customs, Mundra and thereafter, the out of charge of the cargo was given by the Superintendent on 24.12.2020. Therefore, only after the consignment was thoroughly examined by Indian Customs, the same was released as nothing incriminating was found therein, with the necessary implication that there was nothing other than ‘Semi Processed Talc Stones’ imported in this consignment of Magent India. It is also submitted that the investigation has not launched any criminal prosecution against Customs officials, if the consignment was not examined. [7] It is further submitted that from Inspection Report of SGS Tehram which is at page D-132 16/30 of 2nd Supplementary charge-sheet dated 20.02.2023 that the consignment imported by Magnet India vide bill of Entry No.2083348/23.12.2020 was examined in detailed and even photographs taken, before being shipped from the port of loading at Iran by SGS Iran Limited. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the said consignment contained Narcotic Drugs, without any evidence. [8] Learned senior advocate then argued that as per letter dated 10.11.2020, one Amit Kumar Sharma was authorized by the firm Magent India to import Semi Processed Talc Stones and to sell the same. In the said letter it is clearly seen that Amit Kumar Sharma was liable to pay Rs. 25,000/- to Magent India in lieu of import of the said Semi Processed Talc Stones and further was supposed to bore the GST charges as applicable, import duties and other Customs Charges. It is also submitted after the import of the consignment of Semi Processed Talc vide Bill of Entry No. 2083348 dated 23.12.2020, the process of clearance of the said import consignment was also undertaken by Amit Kumar Sharma. It is also submitted that after the consignment of Magent India reached Mundra Port in the month of December, 2022, Amit Sharma handled the clearance of the said import consignment and also handed over the import documents to the Customs Broker for filing the Bill of Entry No. 2083348 dated 23.012.2020. Thereafter, the transport of the said import consignment from Mundra to Delhi was also handled by Amit Sharma. Thereafter, the transport of the said import consignment from Mundra to Delhi was also handled by Amit Sharma. It is submitted that this clearly shows that Amit Sharma had imported the consignment of Semi Processed Talc vide Bill of Entry No. 2083348 dated 23.12.2020 and the Proprietor of Magent India, Prince Sharma, had merely allowed the import of the said goods in the name of his Proprietary Concern by using the Importer Exporter Code of Magent India. Even though the investigation has revealed the significant and important role played by Amit Sharma in the import of consignment in the name of Magent India, the investigation has not treated Amit Sharma as an accused and not even arrested him. [9] Based on the contents of the second supplementary charge-sheet dated 20.02.2023, it is submitted that three consignments imported in the months of November 2020, December 2020 and March 2021 were stored in the said godown at Neb Sarai. Hence, it cannot be said with exactitude as to whether the sweepings which were taken from the godown is the remnant of consignment imported by Magent India in the month of December 2020 or the earlier one by Jesus Christ Impex in the month of November 2020 or the later consignment imported Vyom Fashion in the month of March 2021. This clearly shows that the investigation has intentionally foisted a false case against the appellant. [10] It is submitted that the investigation failed to trace any monetary trail in the instant case linking the appellant with other accused persons, it was alleged that the appellant was paid not in cash but in kind through firms controlled by him. That the allegation that the import of perfumes and dry dates made by the firms viz. Magent India, Desire Overseas and Oneup Products, wherein the appellant has no share/interest/ownership whatsoever, were supplied by Vityash Koser @ Raju Dubai (WA-07) to the appellant as an offset towards the consignment of Semi Processed Talc vide Bill of Entry No. 2083348 dated 23.12.2020 is false, and the investigation has failed to provide any documentary evidence to substantiate the said allegation. [11] Learned senior advocate has argued that the allegations in the second supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant is that the appellant opened various firms in the name of his friends, employees and other known persons. [11] Learned senior advocate has argued that the allegations in the second supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant is that the appellant opened various firms in the name of his friends, employees and other known persons. In this regard, without prejudice, it is submitted that opening multiples companies for conducting business is not an offence and hence the investigation ought not to have concluded that appellant is involved in Drug Trafficking or Terrorist Activities. Even if the said allegation that the appellant opened various Companies/Firms in the name of his friends and employees, is believed, the records of Customs indicates that such Companies/Firms were used only for the purpose of import of legitimate goods. [12] It is argued that even there is no documentary evidence to support the case of investigation against the appellant is that the consignment imported by Jesus Christ Impex was transported to Delhi in the name of Magent India and is also observed in the impugned order dated 13.07.2023 in para 7 (h) that in the month of November 2020 accused No. 30 Sushanta Sarkar had sent heroin laden consignment through Jesus Christ Impex, the Disclosure cum Pointing Out Memorandum dated 06.10.2022 of accused-Sushanta Sarkar does not states so. Even the copy of the Eway bill alleged to have been prepared in the name Magent India for transportation of consignment form Kolkata to Delhi is not made a part of the charge-sheets by the investigation. [13] Learned advocate has argued that the investigation has acted in partitioned manner as the investigation has not acted against the actual person responsible and in this connection, it is submitted that one Rajatkumar Harcharansingh Gangwani @ Goldybhai had given Importer Exporter Code of Vyom Fashion for the import of Semi Processed Talc Stones and the clearance of the import consignment was carried out by Vityash Koser @ Raju Dubai (WA-07) through his employee Rajesh Gauba. Without admitting to the allegations levelled in the 2nd Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 20.02.2023, it is submitted that the said allegations clearly show that the same modus operandi was carried out by Vityash Koser @ Raju Dubai (WA-07) in the import of consignment of Magent India and later of Vyom Fashion. However, neither the Proprietor of Vyom Fashion, Anil Rajkishor Paikaray, nor Rajesh Gauba, who cleared the import consignment, were arrested by the investigation, and only the Proprietary Concern, Vyom Fashion. However, neither the Proprietor of Vyom Fashion, Anil Rajkishor Paikaray, nor Rajesh Gauba, who cleared the import consignment, were arrested by the investigation, and only the Proprietary Concern, Vyom Fashion. [14] Similarly, in connection with another enterprise which had imported consignments in question, learned advocate has cited that one Maninder Singh who was the employer of Vicky Kukreja had given identity related documents of Vicky Kukreja to Ajay Sindhu. It is further alleged that this Ajay Sindhu had created the firm V K Enterprises using the documents of Vicky Kukreja and used it for the import of Bituminous Coal on behest Vityash Koser @ Raju Dubai (WA- 07) through his employee Rajesh Gauba. Without admitting to the allegations levelled in the 2nd Supplementary Charge Sheet dated 20.02.2023, it is submitted that the said allegations clearly show that the same modus operandi was carried out by Vityash Koser @ Raju Dubai (WA-07) in the import of consignment of Magent India and later of V K Enterprises. However, neither the Proprietor of V K Enterpries, Vicky Kukreja, nor Maninder Singh or Ajay Sindhu, were arrested by the investigation, and only the Proprietary Concern, V K. Enterprises, was charged. [15] This contention is raised for the purpose of drawing parity with the case of appellant, who also have been considered on the similar line has only the firms even as per the case of the investigation of the appellant was involving and there is no independent involvement. [15.1] Learned advocate has strenuously argued that there was no scope for the investigation to invoke UAPA against the appellant as none of the acts of the appellant would amount to unlawful activity covered under the definition clause of UAPA nor does the act meet with the requirement of (Terrorist Act) within meant of Section 15 of the UAPA. It is submitted that it is only to make a serious case against the appellant so as to curtail his personal liberty that the name of the appellant has been included in the charge-sheet invoking even serious sections of UAPA. [15.2] Learned advocate has argued at great length to submit before the Court that an FIR which was registered on 06.10.2021, name of the appellant was not even disclosed in the charge-sheet filed on 14.03.2022, at that stage also, the name of the appellant was not disclosed. [15.2] Learned advocate has argued at great length to submit before the Court that an FIR which was registered on 06.10.2021, name of the appellant was not even disclosed in the charge-sheet filed on 14.03.2022, at that stage also, the name of the appellant was not disclosed. In the supplementary charge-sheet, which came to be filed on 29.08.2022 also, no role of the appellant was surfaced, but it is only in the second supplementary charge-sheet filed on 20.02.2023, the appellant has been arraigned as an accused. It is submitted that even if the entire investigation case papers are examined thoroughly, there is no recovery or discovery of any alleged narcotic substance which has connection with the consignment which was allegedly imported and with which the prosecution are drawing to draw nexus of the appellant with such consignment imported in the past. However, the consignment which was only seized which arrived in India on 13.09.2021 and there is iota of evidence to connect the appellant with such consignment and therefore, due to lack of any evidence on record, the appellant has sought discharged from the offense. [15.3] Over and above the aforesaid contentions on the facts of the investigation learned senior advocate has submitted that his main contention is of no compliance of S52 A of the NDPS Act. It is submitted that the samples were drawn from the godown at Neb Sarai by sweeping of the floor and these samples contained traces of Narcotic substance. However, this exercise was not undertaken in presence of a Magistrate which is the requirement of the provisions. The investigation having failed on this count the prosecution will never be able to establish that the substance was Herione or any other narcotics substance. He submitted that in absence of the Magistrate the evidence of sampling and FSL report of the substance is as good as a waste paper. In support of such arguments certain decisions of the Hon’ble apex court were cited which the court will consider in the later paras. [16] Mr. Devang Vyas, Learned ASG appearing for NIA submitted that the appellants had filed an application for discharge before the Special NIA Court which was rejected and hence, the appeal. In support of such arguments certain decisions of the Hon’ble apex court were cited which the court will consider in the later paras. [16] Mr. Devang Vyas, Learned ASG appearing for NIA submitted that the appellants had filed an application for discharge before the Special NIA Court which was rejected and hence, the appeal. It is submitted that though it is an appeal provided under the UAPA Act, still the scope of examining the issue will be restricted to Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. [16.1] It is submitted that in discharge application, the Court is required to sift evidence to find out sufficiency of evidence to support the charge, but not required to weigh the evidence and this exercise is akin to the exercise undertaken by the Court while considering bail. The argument is made with specific reference to the provision of bail under the Special Act of UAPA. Section 43(D)(5) which also requires same exercise to arrive at a conclusion that there is sufficient evidence to believe the allegation. Learned ASG has therefore, referred to oral judgment of this Court in case of the appellant himself in Criminal Appeal No.1980 of 2023 dated 28.03.2024, which is confirmed by the Apex Court. [16.2] It is submitted that today the investigation has revealed that stone talc powder which was used for camouflaging the Narcotics was also recovered in a dumped condition further substationting the modus adopted by the organised gang. [16.3] It is also argued that the erring persons even it be the officer of the state he has been proceeded against and Ld ASG assures of the stricter action against such erring officers as well. [16.4] Learned ASG has mainly focused on the issue of scope of the Court while considering discharge application, it is submitted that the scope is quite limited and has relied on decision of Apex Court in Ghulam Hassan Beigh v/s. Mohammad Maqbool Margey and others, reported in, (2022) 12 SCC 657 . [16.5] Learned ASG has submitted that the very aspect of Section 52A of the NDPS Act has been argued by the Central Government in a SLP before the Apex Court in case of Narcotic Control Bureau v/s. Kashif in Special Civil to Appeal (crl.) No.12120 of 2024, wherein the Apex Court has reserved the order vide order dated 18.11.2024. [17] Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. [17] Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. The present offense is no ordinary offense. It involves cross boarder smuggling of a Narcotic Substance in a very huge quantity and such an activity cannot be undertaken single handedly and it does involve a group of persons in an organised crime with proper network with each member being assigned a specific role. With the use of technology, the members of such network are not even required to meet face to face to carry out the respective role. [18] The offense came to light due to specific intelligence received by DRI, Gandhidham that a consignment of semi-processed Talc Stones was to arrive at Mundra Port, originating from Bandra Abbas Port, Iran and Narcotic Drugs have been concealed in such consignment. [19] Acting upon the intelligence, the DRI, Gandhidham on 13-09- 2021, constituted various teams at TG Terminals Pvt Ltd. Container Freight Station Mundra Port, Gujarat to verify the fact and two containers being Nos.GVCU5288290 & TTNU9289839, covered under Bill of Lading No.FFS-MUN-211168 dated 06.09.2021 and Bill of Entry No.5408652 dated 11-09-2021 were put on hold. DRI, examined the goods under Panchnama dated 14-17-09-2021 and 18-19-09-2021 and necessary preliminary testing of the goods were conducted by the experts from Forensics Science Laboratory(FSL), Gandhinagar during examination of goods. The test reports on the suspected material confirmed the presence of Heroin (opium derivative) in 03 out of total 38 Jumbo bags. DRI recovered 1999.579 Kgs narcotics substance from the container No.GVCU5288290 and 988.64 Kgs from the containers No. TTNU9289839. Thus, a total quantity of 2988.21 kg of narcotics drugs substance having international value worth Rs.21,000 crore, was seized. DRI, Gandhidham in this connection registered a case No.DRI/AZU/GRU/NDPS Case No.01/2021 under NDPS Act on 14/09/2021 and seized both the containers along with 2988.21 kg of narcotic drug. Te case No. DRI/AZU/GRU/NDPS Case No. 01/2021, was transferred to NIA, by Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, CTCR Division, North Block, New Delhi vide its order No. 11011/64/2021/NIA dated 06/10/2021. [20] During the course of investigation of Mundra Drug seizure case, it is revealed that another consignment of Aashi Trading Co. which was sent by Hasan Hussain Ltd., also received at Mundra Port in the month of June, 2021 was further transported to Alipur, Delhi. [20] During the course of investigation of Mundra Drug seizure case, it is revealed that another consignment of Aashi Trading Co. which was sent by Hasan Hussain Ltd., also received at Mundra Port in the month of June, 2021 was further transported to Alipur, Delhi. Accordingly, on 18-09-2021, DRI Unit of Delhi Zone carried out investigation at Alipur, Delhi and conducted searches and seized Narcotics substance along with other incriminating material/objects/documents.The consignment which was received at Mundra Port in the month of June 2021 and was transported to Alipur, Delhi is part of the same larger conspiracy. Considering the strong link between the two crimes, the MHA vide order dated 25-10-2021, transferred the case related to the seizure of 16.105 kgs of suspected Narcotic substance (Heroin) from a rental premises at Alipur Delhi by DRI Delhi Zonal Unit (DZU) on 17-09- 2021, to NIA for investigation as a connected offence in NIA Case No.RC26/2021/NIA/DLI.case relating to seizure of 20.250 kgs of Heroin by Punjab Police from a Sainik Farm Hose in Saket, New Delhi also has linkages with the present case. Accused persons arrested in FIR No.90/2021, dated 01-07-2021 registered at Garshankar Police Station, Hoshiarpur, Punjab are linked to the present crime. The Sainik Farm House located at Neb Sarai was taken on rent by Najibulla Khalid (WA- 4) (wanted accused) who is main conspirator of Mundra Drug seizure case, which was used for the purification purpose and further distribution of the drugs on the instructions of wanted accused Mohd. Hussain Dad. [21] PW-70 & Document No.121 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet- Rakesh Jejurkar is friend of accused Harpreet Singh Talwar( A-24), who has stated that A-24 consumes weed and drugs. As per him, for import of dry dates, A-24 and said witness travelled to Dubai in 1st week of December-2020, where A-24 met Raju Dubai (WA-7) and Vicky Kataria (WA-10). A-24 and WA-7 hatched conspiracy for importing “KIWI” (Heroin) from Afghanistan, which would be loaded from Iran. X-1/PW- 180 & Document No.-115 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet is associate of WA-7 and proving Connection between WA-7 with A-24 and A-25. He admitted his association with WA-7, A-24, A-25 and A-34 in importing, the consignments from Afghanistan. He was involved in custom clearance of the said consignments. He was also available at Neb Sarai Warehouse at the time of unloading of the consignments. He admitted his association with WA-7, A-24, A-25 and A-34 in importing, the consignments from Afghanistan. He was involved in custom clearance of the said consignments. He was also available at Neb Sarai Warehouse at the time of unloading of the consignments. [22] X-2/PW-56 & Document No.123 of 2nd Supplementary Chargesheet is close associate and employee of WA-7. Proving connection between WA-7 with A-30, the proprietor of A-34. He was helping in collecting money and custom clearance of the imported consignment in India at the instances of WA-7. After clearance of consignment, he was informed by WA-7 that the consignment is for A-24 having Narcotics. He admitted to have received money of Rs. 70-75 Lakhs from protected witness “M”. X-2 Paid Rs. 22 Lakhs to A-30 at the instance of WA-7 for clearance of November 2020 consignment of Heroin to A-24. X-3/PW-55 & Document No.124 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet is accountant of A-24 and handles all the financial transactions. In September-2020, he opened Magent company (A-34) in the name of Prince Sharma (A-25), as directed by A-24, which was under full control of A-24. A-24 visited Dubai in December-2020 and directed to share documents of A-34 with X-1 (associate of WA-7), Further, December- 2020 consignment related documents were provided to X-1, duly signed by A-25 at the instance of A-24. Talc stones sample related to December 2020 consignment was brought by X-1 in office of A-24. A-34’s cash bills related to consignment documents were destroyed at the instances of A-24. Reverse entry was created in the name of M/S Prabh International (A24’s wife Shaily Talwar is proprietor) at the instance of A-24 for the December-2020 consignment to evade liability (No physical movement of the Goods). He will prove the involvement of A- 24 in incorporating Shell entities in the name of friends, relatives, employees etc. and engagement in Hawala Transactions. These entities were utilised to import semi processed talc stone in India from Afghanistan from which consignment was recovered. He will also prove the close business. [23] Document No.17 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet is Personal Search -cum-Seizure memo dated 25/08/2022, in which one blue colour Samsung mobile along with SIM card was seized from A-25, while Document No.88 is an Explanation-cum Recovery Memorandum of A- 24, in which A-24 has disclosed about the abbreviation of saved audio files, which were retrieved from the sized. [23] Document No.17 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet is Personal Search -cum-Seizure memo dated 25/08/2022, in which one blue colour Samsung mobile along with SIM card was seized from A-25, while Document No.88 is an Explanation-cum Recovery Memorandum of A- 24, in which A-24 has disclosed about the abbreviation of saved audio files, which were retrieved from the sized. Document No.35 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet is disclosure memo of Harpreet Singh Talwar, to prove the hawala transaction made by him, incorporation of Magnet India and his connection with Vitaysh @ Koser @ Raju Dubai in terms of benefit in kind and import of talc consignments. Document Nos.131/85 and 86 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet is date of invoice mentioned in the Country-of-Origin certificate is 08.12.2020, whereas, invoice No.11 is of date 16.11.2020 (D-131/86 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet), whereas, Packing List is dated 12.08.2020 (D-132/19 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet). The above fact clearly establishes that fake country of origin certificate was issued for getting clear the consignment for India. These facts were well within the knowledge of A-24. [24] Document No.31 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet is disclosure Memo of Price Sharma will prove the incorporation of Magent India, utilization of documents of Magent India for import of consignment and other details of Harpreet Singh Talwar (A-24) and Vitaysh Koser @ Raju Dubai (WA-7). As per Document No.132/14 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet packing list dated 12.08.2020, is shown to be signed on behalf of A-38 by WA-1. This establishes ownership/proprietorship of A-38 by WA-1. Whereas, the same is unsigned. As per Document No.132/18, date of invoice mentioned in the Country-of-Origin certificate is 08.12.2020, whereas, Invoice No.11 is of Date 16.11.2020 (D-131/86 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet). Whereas, Packing List is dated 12.082020 (D-132/19 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet). The above fact clearly establishes that fake country of origin certificate was issued for getting clear the consignment for India. These facts were well within the knowledge of A-24. Document No.114 of 2nd Supplementary Charge-sheet shows travel details of A-24 and A-30 to Dubai, UAE, to hatch conspiracy for the Nov-2020 and December-2020 Heroin laden Talc stones is confirmed from said travel details. It will establish that A-24 travelled from Delhi to Dubai and back from 08.09.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Emirates Flight EK511 and EK 510). Further, A-24 travelled from Delhi to Dubai and back from 03.12.2020 to 10.12.2020 (Emirates Flight EK511 and EK 510). It will establish that A-24 travelled from Delhi to Dubai and back from 08.09.2020 to 14.09.2020 (Emirates Flight EK511 and EK 510). Further, A-24 travelled from Delhi to Dubai and back from 03.12.2020 to 10.12.2020 (Emirates Flight EK511 and EK 510). Document No.33 of 1st SCC is road Challan Invoice No.JC-1-2020-21 between Importer Jesus Christ Impex and Received M/s Magent India, whereby Heroin Laden Talc Stones consignment was loaded as per the Bill Entry\ ACLBNDCCU/518270 dated 06.10.2020, Vehicle No WB39B2151,\Driver Name: Kishore (M6200084514), said Road Challan signed for Jesus Christ Impex on 20.11.2020, is direct evidence of nexus between A-24, A-25, A-30, A-33, A-34, A-37, A-38, WA-1, WA-2, WA-7, WA 4, WA-9 & Others. [25] The Court may now refer to the judgment relied upon by the respondent-NIA. The main contention being limited scope of Court’s intervention at the stage of discharge and the consideration for the Court while considering discharge. For this, reliance is placed on decision of Apex Court in case of Ghulam Hassan Beigh (supra). The Apex Court after referring to all the past decisions of the Apex Court on discharge held in para-27 as under:- “27. Thus from the aforesaid, it is evident that the trial court is enjoined with the duty to apply its mind at the time of framing of charge and should not act as a mere post office. The endorsement on the charge sheet presented by the police as it is without applying its mind and without recording brief reasons in support of its opinion is not countenanced by law. However, the material which is required to be evaluated by the Court at the time of framing charge should be the material which is produced and relied upon by the prosecution. The sifting of such material is not to be so meticulous as would render the exercise a mini trial to find out the guilt or otherwise of the accused. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. All that is required at this stage is that the Court must be satisfied that the evidence collected by the prosecution is sufficient to presume that the accused has committed an offence. Even a strong suspicion would suffice. Undoubtedly, apart from the material that is placed before the Court by the prosecution in the shape of final report in terms of Section 173 of CrPC, the Court may also rely upon any other evidence or material which is of sterling quality and has direct bearing on the charge laid before it by the prosecution. (See : Bhawna Bai v. Ghanshyam, (2020) 2 SCC 217 .” [26] The Court has also taken into consideration all the decisions of the Apex Court on the point of discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. starting from (1) Union of India v/s. Prafulla Kumar Samal and another, reported in, 1979 (3) SCC 4 , (2) Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v/s. State of Gujarat, reported in, 2019 (16) SCC 547 , (3) Sajjan Kumar v/s. CBI, reported in, 2010 (9) SCC 368 , (4) Asim Shariff v/s National Investigation Agency, reported in, 2019 (7) SCC 148 and (5) State of Karnataka v/s. M.R.Hiremath, reported in, 2019 (7) SCC 515 .The summary of the judgments aforesaid can be listed down as under:- 1. Evaluate Prosecution's Material: The court must evaluate the material produced and relied upon by the prosecution. 2. Focus on Prima Facie Case: The court should only determine whether the evidence, if accepted as true, shows sufficient grounds to presume that the accused committed the offense. 3. Sift the Material: The court must sift through the material presented by the prosecution to determine whether a prima facie case exists for the accused to stand trial. 4. Proceed to Trial Unless Evidence is Inadequate: If the prosecution's evidence, even if unchallenged, cannot establish the offense, the court may discharge the accused. Otherwise, the case should proceed to trial. 5. Base Decision on Facts of Each Case: The test to determine a prima facie case depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, requiring the judge to assess the material accordingly. 6. Evaluate Material on Its Face Value: The court should assess whether the material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offense. 7. Base Decision on Facts of Each Case: The test to determine a prima facie case depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, requiring the judge to assess the material accordingly. 6. Evaluate Material on Its Face Value: The court should assess whether the material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients necessary to constitute the alleged offense. 7. Consider Probative Value of Evidence: The court must evaluate the material's probative value but not delve into its conclusiveness at this stage. 8. Do Not Conduct a Mini-Trial: The court must not analyze or weigh the evidence meticulously or evaluate its probative value as if conducting a full-fledged trial. 9. Avoid Acting as a Post Office: The court should not mechanically accept the charge sheet or blindly rely on the prosecution's allegations without applying judicial mind. 10. Avoid Roving Enquiry: The judge should not conduct a detailed or roving enquiry into the evidence or attempt to weigh it as if conducting a full trial. 11. Refrain from Pure Subjective Satisfaction: Strong suspicion must not be based solely on the moral judgment or subjective satisfaction of the judge; it must be founded on objective material evidence. 12. Do Not Discharge Without Clear Basis: Discharge should not be based on mere possibilities or doubts; there must be clear reasons showing the absence of grave suspicion. 13. Avoid Deciding Final Guilt or Innocence: The court should not decide on the ultimate guilt or innocence of the accused at the stage of framing charges. 14. Do Not Demand Conclusive Proof: The court must not expect the prosecution to provide evidence that conclusively proves guilt before the trial begins. 15. Exercise Judicial Mind: While considering a discharge application under Section 227 CrPC, the trial judge must exercise their judicial mind to determine if a prima facie case for trial has been made out. 16. Frame Charges Based on Strong Suspicion: A strong suspicion, supported by material evidence, is sufficient to frame charges if it leads to the conclusion that the accused might have committed the offense. [27] Yet another judgment of the Apex Court on this line is in case of State of Gujarat v/s. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in, 2023 (13) SCALE 603, wherein it is held in paras-7, 8 and 12 as under:- 7. [27] Yet another judgment of the Apex Court on this line is in case of State of Gujarat v/s. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao, reported in, 2023 (13) SCALE 603, wherein it is held in paras-7, 8 and 12 as under:- 7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind being necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for proceeding with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell into the pros and cons of the matter by examining the defence of the accused when an application for discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial judge has to merely examine the evidence placed by the prosecution in order to determine whether or not the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the accused on basis of charge sheet material. The nature of the evidence recorded or collected by the investigating agency or the documents produced in which prima facie it reveals that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused, so as to frame a charge would suffice and such material would be taken into account for the purposes of framing the charge. If there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused necessarily, the accused would be discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after such consideration of the material there are grounds for presuming that accused has committed the offence which is triable, then necessarily charge has to be framed. 8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking cognizance the accused has no right to produce any material and call upon the court to examine the same. No provision in the Code grants any right to the accused to file any material or document at the stage of framing of charge. The trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the facts of the case as may be necessary to determine whether a case has been made out by the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-sheet material only. 12. The primary consideration at the stage of framing of charge is the test of existence of a prima-facie case, and at this stage, the probative value of materials on record need not be gone into. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP Vs. This Court by referring to its earlier decisions in the State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa (1996) 4 SCC 659 and the State of MP Vs. Mohan Lal Soni (2000) 6 SCC 338 has held the nature of evaluation to be made by the court at the stage of framing of the charge is to test the existence of prima-facie case. It is also held at the stage of framing of charge, the court has to form a presumptive opinion to the existence of factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep into probative value of the material on record and to check whether the material on record would certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of trial.” [28] The Court may also refer to decision of this Court in case of Pradeep Niramkarnath Sharma v/s. State of Gujarat in Criminal Revision Application No.36 of 2022 dated 14.03.2023, authored by one of us, wherealso on the issue of discharge, after referring to various judgments of the Apex Court on the issue and held in paras-10 and 11 as under:- “10. It appears from the record that at this stage, on the basis of the charge sheet and documents produced with it, court should have to take decision. The defence taken and evidences produced by the accused should not be considered at this stage. At the present stage, it is to see that whether prima facie offence is there against the accused or not and evaluation of evidence produced by the accused and evaluation of the evidence should not be considered at this stage. It appears that at the time of framing charge, the court should have to consider the evidence produced before the court and not to make evaluation thereof. 11. This court is of the considered view that at the stage of framing of charge, court will not have to weight the evidence as it would only see as to whether prima facie case has been made out or not and while considering the observations made by learned trial court while rejecting the discharge application of the applicant that prima facie case has been established by the prosecution against the applicant, this court is not inclined to accept the prayer of the applicant.” [29] The Court may now analyze the judgment cited by the appellant in support of his contention. (a) In case of State of Union of India v/s. Mohanlal and Another, reported in, 2016 (3) SCC 379 , learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon paras-14 to 19 and 27 to 30 to support his contention that non-following of a procedure provided for is fatal to the prosecution. This judgment specifically dealt with Section 52A of the NDPS Act. The argument made is noncompliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act not being complied when the investigation agency took the sample by sweeping the floor of the godowns and sent the sample for analysis. As the title of Section 52A of the NDPS Act itself suggests that this provision was specifically meant for disposed of the seized Narcotic Drugs, and in fact the purport of this section is made clear in 52A(1) of the NDPS Act and it provides for disposal of such substance keeping in mind the vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraint of proper storage facilities etc. of the hazardous narcotic substance specifically for preventing the very substance from being misused or perhaps by one way or the other finding its way back to market, thereby frustrating the very purpose of the Act. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court was taking into consideration a very broad issue on the status of implementing Section 52A of the NDPS Act Pan-India and therefore, in para-12 of the judgment allotted a chapter to seizure and sampling and in para-13 narrated prevailing position in the States and having found there was no uniform practice or procedure being followed by State or Central Agencies in matter of drawing samples proceeded to pronounce to emphasis the importance of the provision as also the indicating to carry out the procedure and observed in para-19 as under:- “19. …..There is in our opinion no manner of doubt that the seizure of the contraband must be followed by an application for drawing of samples and certification as contemplated under the Act. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. There is equally no doubt that the process of making any such application and resultant sampling and certification cannot be left to the whims of the officers concerned. The scheme of the Act in general and Section 52-A in particular, does not brook any delay in the matter of making of an application or the drawing of samples and certification. While we see no room for prescribing or reading a time frame into the provision, we are of the view that an application for sampling and certification ought to be made without undue delay and the Magistrate on receipt of any such application will be expected to attend to the application and do the needful, within a reasonable period and without any undue delay or procrastination as is mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 52A (supra). We hope and trust that the High Courts will keep a close watch on the performance of the Magistrates in this regard and through the Magistrates on the agencies that are dealing with the menace of drugs which has taken alarming dimensions in this country partly because of the ineffective and lackadaisical enforcement of the laws and procedures and cavalier manner in which the agencies and at times Magistracy in this country addresses a problem of such serious dimensions.” Thus, the Apex Court has made broad based observation with regard to the procedure followed by the agencies. Moreover, the Apex Court has made such observation at the stage of conviction. In the opinion of the Court at the stage of discharge, this exercise of examining the evidence with regard to the compliance of requirement of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is not warranted. (b) Before referring to the other judgments cited by learned advocate for the appellant, the Court may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Mangilal v/s. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in, JT 2023 (7) SC 357, wherein also the Apex Court has explained the requirements and procedure of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. In paras-4 and 5, the Apex Court has held as under:- “4. Sub-section (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act facilitates the Central Government a mode to be prescribed to dispose of the seized narcotic substance. In paras-4 and 5, the Apex Court has held as under:- “4. Sub-section (1) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act facilitates the Central Government a mode to be prescribed to dispose of the seized narcotic substance. The idea is to create a clear mechanism for such disposal both for the purpose of dealing with the particular case and to safeguard the contraband being used for any illegal purpose thereafter. 5. Sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act mandates a competent officer to prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs with adequate particulars. This has to be followed through an appropriate application to the Magistrate concerned for the purpose of certifying the correctness of inventory, taking relevant photographs in his presence and certifying them as true or taking drawal of samples in his presence with due certification. Such an application can be filed for anyone of the aforesaid three purposes. The objective behind this provision is to have an element of supervision by the magistrate over the disposal of seized contraband. Such inventories, photographs and list of samples drawn with certification by Magistrates would constitute as a primary evidence. Therefore, when there is non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, where a certification of a magistrate is lacking any inventory, photograph or list of samples would not constitute primary evidence.” The aforesaid observation hints that the non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act would render the evidence thus collected by the Investigating Agency has not the primary evidence however, it would not mean that such evidence would not remain evidence at all. After all, it is matter of trial when the prosecution may placed before the trial Court the evidence collected during the investigation and ultimately for the trial Court to decide upon the admissibility and therefore, acceptability of the evidence produced. This exercise can certainly not be envisaged while considering the application for discharge. (c) The Division Bench of this Court also had an occasion to examine the application of Section 52A of the NDPS Act in case of Abdul Kadar Jusab Sandhi vs. State of Gujarat, reported in, 2002 (2) GLR 1212 , wherein while observing that application of Section 52A of the NDPS Act before the trial, if the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances are to be disposed of then the procedure as laid down in Sub-Section 2 has to be followed. In para-17.1 referring to the facts before the Court, the Division Bench has held that from reading Section 52A, it is clear that before the trial, if the narcotic drugs an psychotropic substances are to be disposed of then the procedure as laid down in Sub- Section 2 has to be followed and thereafter, the material can be disposed of and the Magistrate has to certify which would be thereafter, considered as primary evidence. However, it was observed that in the facts of that case when the Charas and Ganja seized was produced before the Court in absence of disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substance, there is no question of invoking Section 52A of the NDPS Act. This view was taken in response to the argument made by the counsel therein that in view of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, it was absolutely necessary for the police to forward the substance to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 2 of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. This contention was not accepted by this Court. (d) Reverting back to the decision cited by the appellants, In case of Mohammed Khalid v/s. State of Telagana, reported in, 2024(5) SCC 393 again to support the arguments of Section 52A of the NDPS Act . In this judgment, in para-2, facts indicate that the Apex Court was examining the connection of the appellant for offenses under Sections 8(c) read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. The case of appellant was examined on fact where the appellant was not arrested on the spot and he was not found in possession of substance and there was tangible evidence which is admissible against appellant (See para-22) and prosecution was passed only on interrogation notes of coaccused. It in these facts that the Apex Court declared the FSL report being waste paper, if the inventory and obtaining of samples was not in presence of Magistrate. Therefore, the contentions of appellant that absence of Magistrate at Nabsarai Godown would render the entire procedure a nullity cannot be accepted at the stage of discharge of an accused. In the facts of the present case the stage is of discharge more over the protection has not based its case only on the sampling process undertaken at Neb sarai, there are other sets of evidence also collected by the investigation. In the facts of the present case the stage is of discharge more over the protection has not based its case only on the sampling process undertaken at Neb sarai, there are other sets of evidence also collected by the investigation. (e) Another judgment relied upon by learned advocate is in case of Simranjit Singh v/s. State of Punjab, reported in, 2023 (O) AIJEL SC 73039. Here also in para-3, it is recorded that the accused were convicted and appeal was dismissed by the High Court. It is at this stage in para-8, the Court observed as under:- “8. In paragraphs 15 to 17 of the decision of this Court in Mohanlal's case, it was held thus: 15.******* 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure.” Thereafter, the Court has considered the deposition of PW- 7, a Sub-Inspector who has drawn sample and on facts held that there was no doubt on the prosecution case that the substance recovered is a contraband. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure.” Thereafter, the Court has considered the deposition of PW- 7, a Sub-Inspector who has drawn sample and on facts held that there was no doubt on the prosecution case that the substance recovered is a contraband. The stage is not yet arrived in the facts of the present case. (f) Reliance is also placed in case of Roy V.D. v/s. State of Kerala, reported in, 2000 (8) SCC 590 . In this case, the issue was filing of charge-sheet against the appellant therein by Excise Inspector who was not authorized and search and recovery was conducted by an officer who was not empowered to do so and therefore, in exercise of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the proceedings were quashed. (g) Learned advocate for the appellant has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Babu Vergese v/s. Bar Council of Kerala, reported in, 1999 (3) SCC 422 to submit that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, then it must be done in that manner only. Based on this, it is submitted that the NIA ought to have carried out the process as per the requirement of Section 52-A. Similar principle was also laid down in case of Union of India v/s. Mahendra Singh, reported in, 2022 INSC 746. [30] Chapter V of the NDPS Act provide for procedure and a specific provision Section 51 provides that provision of Cr.P.C. to apply for warrants, arrests, searches and seizures. Therefore, the drawing of sample, upon seizure at the time when the substance is found upon detection of offense will be at a first stage for ascertaining as to whether the substance is a narcotic or psychotropic substance so as to enable the investigating officer to proceed further and therefore, when it comes to search and seizure during the course of investigation, necessarily the Investigating Officer will have to act as per the provision of CRPC and Chapter-7 of the Cr.P.C. which is process to compel the production of things, wherein, Sections 100 and 102 provides for seizure of the suspicious goods. and thereafter, in the same Chapter Section 52A provides for disposal of seized narcotic drugs which is a complete code itself for a specific purpose. and thereafter, in the same Chapter Section 52A provides for disposal of seized narcotic drugs which is a complete code itself for a specific purpose. However, any further discussion on the issue would be exceeding the limit prescribed while considering discharge application. [31] The whole thrust of argument of the appellant is non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act as the samples drawn from the Godown at Nabsarai in absence of the learned Magistrate, against which respondent-Agency has contended that Section 52A of the Act refers to the seized Narcotics Drugs ‘Heroin’ wherein it mandates the disposal of said Drugs. It is the contention of the investigation that search and seizure memorandum (D-10) dated 20.10.2021 was prepared by the Additional SP rank officer of NIA alongwith this team as per the authorization issued by CIO (NIA) under Section 165(3) of the Cr.P.C. read with the powers conferred under Section 52 of the NDPS Act, alongwith Forensic team of CFSL, Delhi, in the presence of independent witness Godown Owner (PW-58). Therefore, as alleged during floor sweepings from said New Sarai Godown No.416, supervision by Magistrate at the time of collection as an ‘enabling provision’ upon the application of seizing officer) before such Magistrate, (and inter-alia) the same is not mandatory requirement as alleged by accused, as the words used are ‘may’. Moreover, the said provision is applicable when disposal of drugs is being undertaken by the Officer seizing said narcotic or psychotropic substance. This contention raised will have to be examined both on the facts as well as in law and would be examined only during course of trial, and the prosecution cannot be deprived of the contention at a threshold at the stage of framing of charge. [32] The Court may refer to a previous round of litigation by the appellant-Harpreet Singh Talwar, who preferred a bail application vide Criminal Appeal No. 1980 of 2023 which came to be rejected by oral order dated 28.03.2024. This was challenged by appellate being Special Civil to Appeal no.8878 of 2024 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Vide order dated 25.09.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “…..(i) The High Court of Gujarat is requested to take up the criminal appeals/revision petitions, preferred by the accused, challenging the orders of the Special Court whereby their applications for discharge have been rejected. Vide order dated 25.09.2024, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:- “…..(i) The High Court of Gujarat is requested to take up the criminal appeals/revision petitions, preferred by the accused, challenging the orders of the Special Court whereby their applications for discharge have been rejected. Let such appeals be decided out of turn, and preferably within two months. (ii) The Presiding Officer, NIA Court, Ahmedabad is directed to take up the application, moved recently by one of the accused seeking his discharge, and decide the same on the next date of hearing, i.e., 05.10.2024. The counsel for the accused, who has sought his discharge, shall extend full cooperation in this regard. (iii) The Presiding Officer, NIA Court, Ahmedabad shall immediately take up the matter for framing of charges and after according reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties, the issue regarding framing of charges shall be decided, in all circumstances, before 30.11.2024. (iv) In this regard, we direct the accused persons and their counsel as well as the Public Prosecutor to extend full cooperation to the Presiding Officer, NIA Court and in case, the court finds that there is non-cooperation by any particular learned counsel, the Court shall be free to appoint a legal aid counsel for such accused and proceed with the matter. (v) If any other accused, meanwhile, applies for his discharge, pendency of such application shall not be an impediment in deciding the issue of framing of charges qua the other accused whose applications have already been rejected. Such an application shall be decided separately as per its own merit. 8. Meanwhile, the prosecution will submit a list of vulnerable and private witnesses, who are required to be examined at the first instance. 9. The Presiding Officer, NIA Court shall fix the date for recording the statements of such witnesses and the schedule of their examination shall be notified to counsel for the parties in advance. This will be subject to the protection of witnesses. 10. It shall be the responsibility of NIA to produce those witnesses and no request for adjournment in this regard, shall be entertained. 11. A Status Report shall be filed by the NIA before the date fixed. This will be subject to the protection of witnesses. 10. It shall be the responsibility of NIA to produce those witnesses and no request for adjournment in this regard, shall be entertained. 11. A Status Report shall be filed by the NIA before the date fixed. The Presiding Officer, NIA Court, Ahmedabad shall also send a Status Report regarding compliance of the directions issued hereinabove....” [32.1] The direction contained in clause (iii), (iv) and (v) as aforesaid are the direction of the Apex Court to proceed immediately for framing of the charges. [33] The Court has perused the impugned judgment and order dated 19.03.2024 in NIA-Special Case No.01 of 2023 in connection with NIA Case No.RC-26/2021/NIA/DLI and agrees with the reasonings given by the Special Court while deciding the application for discharge. [34] In view of the reasonings assigned by the Special Court so also the reasonings given hereinabove, The court finds that there is sufficient evidence to proceed further with the trial and alleged non compliance of S. 52 A of the NDPS Act in the facts of the cases is no ground to conclude that there is no evidence against the appellants to be proceeded against. This Court finds that no case is made out by the appellants to discharge them from the offences under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 8(c), 21(c), 23(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 17, 18 and 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appeals are therefore, hereby dismissed.