[ad_1]
Bangalore District Court
Konankunte Ps vs Lakshman @ Lakshman Ram Patil on 14 August, 2025
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
1
KABC010258282021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, (NDPS), BENGALURU.
Present: Sri. Syed Baleegur Rahaman, B.A.L., LL.B.,
XXXIV Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge &
Special Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
Dated this the 14th day of August 2025
Spl.C.No.1886/2021
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
By Konanakunte Police Station.
(By the Ld Public Prosecutor)
-V/s-
Accused : 1.Laxman @ Laxman Ram Patel,
S/o.Varada Ram Barvan,
Aged about 30 years,
Bharava Grama,
Ghana Post,
Jaluru District,
Rajasthan State.
Presently R/a.Mahalakshmi Home
Lane,No.28, M.M.Lane,
Ganigara Pete,
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
2
Nagarthpete Cross, Bengaluru City.
(By Sri.K.J.S.,Advocate)
1. Date of the offence : 02-11-2017
2. Date of report of the : 02-11-2017
offence
3. Arrest of the accused : 02-11-2017
Date of release : 18-11-2017
Period of custody : Year/s Month/s Day/s
: 00 00 16
4. Name of the complainant : Sri.T.M.Dharmendra
(Police Officer)
5. Date of commencement : 17-09-2024
of recording the evidence
6. Date of closing the : 02-08-2025
evidence
7. Offences complained of :
U/s.18(b) of NDPS Act.
8. Opinion of the Judge : Accused not found guilty.
JUDGMENT
The Konanakunte Police have filed this charge sheet
against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.18(b) of
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
3
2. It is the case of prosecution that on 02.11.2017 at 11.00
a.m, CW-1 received a credible information that the accused is
selling opium at 7th Phase, R.B.I Layout, 5th Main Road, 2nd
Cross, J.P.Nagar. Therefore, CW-1 informed the said fact to
CW-12 and got permission to conduct raid. Thereafter, he
secured CW-2 and 3 as panchas and reached to the spot
along with CW-7 to 10. The accused was secured at the spot.
Thereafter, CW-1 requested CW-13 to come to the spot for the
purpose of conducting body search. Upon searching it was
found that the accused was in possession of opium weighing
44 gms. The above said opium along with a Vivo Company
Mobile Phone, Cash of Rs.500/- and Suzuki Access Motor
Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-04-JE-5655 was seized from the
possession of the accused in presence of CW-4 and 5. As per
the report submitted by the first informant, this case has
been registered against the accused for the commission of
offences referred above.
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
4
3. This court being designated as a special court to try the
offences under NDPS Act-1985, cognizance of the offences
taken and S.207 of Cr.P.C. has been complied with.
4. The accused is on bail and represented by his counsel.
5. On hearing the prosecution and defence, my learned
predecessor in office has framed charge against the accused
for offence punishable U/s.18(b) of NDPS Act, read over and
explained to the accused, for which, he pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution in support of its case has examined
witnesses as P.W.1 to 8 and got marked documents as Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.19 and M.O.1 to 4. After closing of prosecution side
evidence, accused was examined under S.313 of Cr.P.C., and
he has denied the incriminating circumstances appearing
against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The
case of the accused is one of the total denial that he has been
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
5
falsely implicated in this case. The accused did not choose to
lead any defence evidence.
7. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and learned
counsel for the accused.
8. Perused oral and documentary evidence on record.
9. Based on the materials, the following points are framed.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on 01.11.2017 at
about 11.00 a.m, the accused was found in
possession of opium weighing 44 gms in
front of vacant site situated in 7th Phase,
R.B.I Layout, 5th Main Road, J.P.Nagar and
thereby the accused has committed the
offence punishable U/s.18(b) of NDPS Act?
2. What order ?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
6Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final order
for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT NO.1 :- PW-1 Sri.T.M.Dharmendra has deposed
that on 02.11.2017 at 11.30 a.m, when he was present before
the station he received a credible information stating that one
person is selling opium at 7th Phase, R.B.I Layout, J.P.Nagar.
He entered the information in Station House Diary and
informed the said fact to CW-13 and obtained permission to
conduct raid. Thereafter, he secured CW-2 and 3 as panchas
and reached to the spot along with CW-8 to 11. The accused
was secured at the spot. He informed the said fact to CW-13
and requested for body search. Accordingly, CW-13 came to
the spot at 12.45 p.m. CW-13 interrogated the accused. The
accused admitted that he is in possession of opium.
Thereafter, he told the accused that he himself is a Gazetted
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
7
Officer and asked whether he can conduct search. CW-13
directed him to conduct search. 6 gms of opium was found
the right side pocket of the pant. 38 gms of opium was found
from the left side pocket of the pant. Total 44 gms of opium
was found in possession of the accused. Cash of Rs.500/-
and Mobile Phone belonging to Vivo Company was also seized
from the possession of the accused. Panchanama was
prepared from 12.45 to 2.45 p.m. Thereafter, he returned to
the police station along with seized articles with the accused
and he prepared a report and registered case against the
accused. He recorded the statements of CW-2, 3 and 8 to 11.
As per the information given by the accused, he seized Suzuki
Motor Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-04-JE-5655 in presence of
CW-4 and 5. He recorded the statements of CW-4 and 5. He
recorded the voluntary statement of the accused. During the
course of voluntary statement, accused disclosed that he
purchased the opium from a person and he can show him.
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
8
Therefore, the accused was taken to police custody from
03.11.2017 to 08.11.2017. On 04.11.2017 further voluntary
statement of the accused was recorded. On 28.11.2017 he
recorded the statement of CW-6. The vehicle was released to
the custody of CW-6 after getting bond. On 05.10.2018, he
sent the seized articles to the F.S.L through CW-12. On
21.10.2020 F.S.L report was received. As the investigation of
this case was complete he submitted final report before the
court.
12. PW-2 Sri.Shivaraj and PW-3 Sri.Sharavana have
deposed that they have not seen the accused. The police have
not conducted any panchanama in their presence and they
have not seized anything in their presence. About 6 to 7 years
back, when they had been to the police station, police took
their signatures to Ex.P-5 and they have not given any
statements before the police. Prosecution treated these
witnesses as hostile and cross examined at length. But
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
9
nothing worth could be elicited from their mouth which may
be helpful to the case of prosecution.
13. PW-4 Sri.Shivakumar and PW-5 Sri.Nagesh have
deposed that they have not seen the accused. About 7 to 8
years back police called them to the police station and took
their signatures to Ex.P-3. But the police have not conducted
any panchanama in their presence and they have not seized
anything in their presence, they do not know the contents of
Ex.P-3 and they have not given any statements before the
police. Prosecution treated these witnesses as hostile and
cross examined at length. But nothing worth could be elicited
from their mouth which may be helpful to the case of
prosecution.
14. PW-6 Sri.Khannaram Patel has deposed that about 7 to
8 years back the accused had taken Suzuki Access Motor
Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-04-JE-5655. The accused is his
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
10
relative. The police had seized the above said vehicle. But he
do not know for what purpose police had seized the above
said vehicle. He do not know what act the accused has
committed by using the vehicle. He has not given any
statement before the police. Prosecution treated this witness
as hostile and cross examined at length. But nothing worth
could be elicited from his mouth which may be helpful to the
case of prosecution.
15. PW-7 Dr.Srinath has deposed that on 10.05.2018, he
received two sealed articles in Cr.No.470/2017 of
Konanakunte Police Station for Chemical Analysis. The
articles were sealed with the seal impression TV which was
intact and tallied with the specimen seal sent by the
Investigating Officer. The articles were examined from
10.08.2020 to 14.09.2020. The articles No.1 and 2 were
having brownish black colour thick liquid with opium smell.
He conducted 10 different chemical tests and opined that
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
11
Article No.1 and 2 responded positive for presence of opium
alkaloids. Accordingly, he submitted test report as per
Ex.P.11.
16. PW-8 Sri.N.R.Mahantha Reddy has deposed that on
02.11.2017, he was in-charge of A.C.P of Subramanyapura
Sub Division. On the same day at about 11.00 a.m, CW-1
received credible information regarding the transporting of
contraband and therefore he has submitted requisition
seeking permission to conduct raid. On the basis of said
requisition he permitted CW-1 to conduct raid. On the same
day at 12.00 p.m, CW-1 called him and informed that he has
secured a person and requested him to come to the spot to
conduct body search. As per the request he reached the spot
at 12.45 p.m. On enquiry, the accused disclosed his address
and agreed to be searched by him. The plastic covers
weighing 6 gms was found in right side pocket of the pant of
the accused. Opium was found in the said pocket. Another
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
12
plastic cover weighing 38 gms was found in the left side
pocket of the pant of accused which was also found to be
opium. Vivo Mobile Phone and cash of Rs.500/- was seized in
presence of panchas under Ex.P-3.
17. This court has framed charge against the accused for
the commission of offence U/s.18(b) of the NDPS Act. It is
alleged that the accused was found in possession of opium
weighing 44 gms. It is the case of prosecution that PW-1
Sri.T.M.Dharmendra the then Police Inspector of
Konanakunte Police Station received credible information
regarding the transport of opium and after getting permission
from Higher Authorities to conduct raid, he has secured the
accused and recovered the opium weighing 44 gms from the
possession of the accused with the help of body search
conducted by CW-13. In order to establish the charges leveled
against the accused, the prosecution has examined the first
informant and the Investigating Officer of this case by name
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
13
Sri.T.M.Dharmendra as PW-1. During the course of his
examination in chief of PW-1 has narrated the story of getting
credible information on 02.11.2017, getting permission from
the Higher Authorities, proceedings to the spot, securing the
accused and seizure of the opium with the help of body
search conducted by CW-13. He has also deposed about the
registration of F.I.R against the accused, recording the
statements of witnesses, completing investigation and filing of
the charge sheet before the court. It is now well settled that
the NDPS Act provides for stringent punishment in case of
violation of any of the provision made thereunder. Therefore,
the statute itself has laid down strict procedure that is to be
followed at the time of conducting raid, search and seizure
and in order to avoid the implication of the innocent person
under the said act. Therefore, now let me appreciate whether
PW-1 has strictly complied the mandatory provision of
Sec.41, 42, 43, 50, 52(A) and Sec.57 of the NDPS Act. Sec.41
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
14
of the NDPS Act authorizes a Metropolitan Magistrate or a
Magistrate of Ist class or any Magistrate of IInd class to issue
a warrant of arrest, if he has reason to believe that any
person has committed offence punishable under the said act.
Sec.41(2) of the NDPS Act mandates that if the Officer who is
authorized to conduct search receives an information
regarding the commission of offence under the said act, it is
his duty to reduce the same into writing. On plain reading of
the examination in chief of PW-1 it becomes clear that he has
not complied the mandatory provision of Sec.41(2) of the
NDPS Act.
18. Sec.42 of the NDPS Act empowers the Officer conducting
search U/s.41 of the said act to conduct search without a
warrant when he has reason to believe that there is a
likelihood that the accused may abscond or the evidence of
commission of offence may be destroyed, he can conduct
search without getting any warrant from the Magistrate as
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
15
per Sec.41(1) of the NDPS Act. In such circumstances,
Sec.42(1) mandates that the Officer conducting search has to
take down in writing, if he has reason to believe that an
offence has been committed under the said act. Apart from it,
Sec.42(2) of the NDPS Act provides that when an Officer takes
down any information in writing under Sub Sec.(1) of Sec.42,
he has to forward the same to his immediate official superior
within 72 hours. On plain reading of examination in chief of
PW-1, it becomes clear that he has neither reduced the
information into writing nor forwarded the same to his Higher
Official in compliance with Sec.42(2) of the NDPS Act.
Therefore, I have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that
PW-1 not strictly followed the mandatory provision of Sec.41
and 42 of the NDPS Act.
19. Sec.50 of the NDPS Act provides for the manner in
which search has to be conducted by an Officer who is duly
authorized U/s.42 to conduct search. It is the responsibility
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
16
of the Officer conducting search to immediately take the
suspect to a nearest Gazetted Officer of any Department or to
the nearest Magistrate for the purpose of conducting search if
the accused desires to do so. Apart from it, it is now well
settled that the Officer conducting search has to inform the
accused regarding his right of being searched before the
Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, if he wishes so. But on perusal
on the examination in chief of PW-1, it is found that he has
not whispered anything regarding the strict compliance of
Sec.50 of NDPS Act. On the other hand, he has directly called
CW-13 and requested him to come to the spot for the purpose
of conducting the body search of the accused. The
examination in chief of PW-1 discloses that as per his whims
and fancies PW-1 has called CW-13 to the spot for the
purpose of conducting search and not as per the request of
the accused. Offcourse, PW-1 is empowers to conduct search
by himself as per Sec.50(5) of the NDPS Act when he has
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
17
reason to believe that there is a possibility of the accused
parting with the possession of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances. If the Officer conducting search
decides to conduct search by himself as per Sec.50(5) of the
NDPS Act, he has to record the reason as per Sec.50(6) of the
NDPS Act. PW-1 has neither complied Sec.50(1) to (3) nor
conducted search himself as per Sec.50(5) after due
compliance of Sec.50(6) of the NDPS Act. Therefore, I have no
hesitation to come to the conclusion that there is a complete
violation of Sec.50 of the NDPS Act in the present case.
20. In order to convict the accused for the offences alleged
against him, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to
prove that the accused was in possession of 44 gms of opium
in his custody without holding any valid license as alleged by
the prosecution with the help of independent evidence. Ex.P-3
is one of the panchnama under which the Investigating
Officer has seized 44 gms of opium from the possession of the
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
18
accused. PW-4 Sri.Shivakumar and PW-5 Sri.Nagesh are the
panch witnesses to Ex.P-3. Both the above said witnesses
have deposed that they have not seen the accused and police
have not conducted any panchanama in their presence and
not seized in their presence. In view of the above said
deposition of PW-2 and 3, the prosecution treated these
witnesses as hostile and cross examined at length. But
nothing worth could be elicited from their mouth of the above
said witnesses which may be helpful to the case of
prosecution. Hence, it can be said that the prosecution has
not been able to establish Ex.P-3 beyond all reasonable
doubt.
21. The Investigating Officer has seized a Suzuki Access
Motor Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-04-JE-5655 under Ex.P.5.
PW.2 Sri.Shivaraj and PW-2 Sri.Sharavana are the panch
witnesses to Ex.P-5. Both the above said witnesses have not
supported the case of prosecution. Prosecution treated these
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
19
witnesses as hostile and cross examined at length. But
nothing worth could be elicited from their mouth which may
be helpful to the case of prosecution. Hence, it can be said
that the prosecution has not been able to prove Ex.P-5 in
accordance with law.
22. As already discussed in the earlier part of this
judgment, PW-1 Sri.T.M.Dharmendra is the person who has
conducted raid, secured the accused and after body search
recovered 44 gms of opium from the possession of the
accused with the help of PW-8 Sri.N.R.Mahantha Reddy, the
A.C.P of V.V.Puram Sub Division who was in-charge A.C.P of
Subramanyapura Sub Division on 02.11.2017. On careful
perusal of the entire evidence of PW-1, one can find that PW.1
is not only the first informant of this case, but also conducted
entire investigation and submitted final report before the
court. When such being the case, it is the responsibility of the
court to appreciate the fact that whether PW-1 who is the
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
20
first informant and also the Investigating Officer of the
present case can conduct investigation himself and file
charge sheet before the court. The Hon’ble Apex court in the
judgment reported in (2018) 17 SCC page 627 between
Mohanlal V/s State of Punjab has held that if complainant
and Investigating Officer are one and the same, then the
entire investigation and trial is vitiated and on that ground
itself the accused was acquitted. The said matter was referred
to the full bench of Hon’ble Apex court in Mukesh Singh V/s
State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi) reported in AIR 2020 SC
4794 wherein the Hon’ble Apex court has clearly held that
only on the ground that the complainant and Investigating
Officer are one and the same, on that ground itself the
accused is not entitled to be acquitted. The relevant portion of
the opinion expressed by Hon’ble Apex court is as under :-
“Therefore, as such, there is no reason to
doubt the credibility of the informant and
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
21doubt the entire case of the prosecution
solely on the ground that the informant has
investigated the case. Solely on the basis of
some apprehension or the doubts, the entire
prosecution version cannot be discarded and
the accused is not to be straightway
acquitted unless and until the accused is
able to establish and prove the bias and the
prejudice. As held by this Court in the case of
Ram Chandra (supra) the question of
prejudice or bias has to be established and
not inferred. The question of bias will have to
be decided on the facts of each case [See
Vipan Kumar Jain (supra)]. At this stage, it is
required to be noted and as observed
hereinabove, NDPS Act is a Special Act with
the 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
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
22commission 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. 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
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
23upon 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 the case
of Bhaskar Ramappa Madar (supra), the
matter has to be decided on a case to case
basis without any universal generalisation.
As rightly held by this Court in the case of V.
Jayapaul (supra), 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,
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
24conducts 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.”
23. On careful perusal of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex
court referred to supra, it becomes clear that though the
accused cannot be acquitted on the sole ground that the
complainant and Investigating Officer are one and the same,
but when the entire case of the prosecution rests on the
testimony of complainant and Investigating Officer himself,
then the same can be given due weightage. In the present
case, the independent panch witnesses that is PW-2 to 5 have
turned hostile. In view of the same, the prosecution has not
been able to established Ex.P-3 and 5 in accordance with law
beyond all reasonable doubt. When such being the case, it
would not be safe to rely on the evidence of PW-1 who is not
only a complainant but also conducted entire investigation
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
25
and he has filed the charge sheet. Apart from all the above
said fact, it is also pertinent to note that this court has found
that PW-1 has not properly complied the procedure
contemplated U/s.41 to 43 and Sec.50, 52(a) and 57 of the
NDPS Act. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the evidence of
PW-1 cannot be relied on to base conviction.
24. Sec.52A of the NDPS Act provides for disposal of the
seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances. As per
Sec.52A(2) of the NDPS Act, the officer who is conducting
investigation has to submit an application to the Magistrate
for the purpose of certifying the correctness of the inventory.
After certification of the inventory, samples has to be drawn
in presence of Magistrate in Sec.52A(2)(c) of the NDPS Act.
On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW-1, one can
find that the Investigating Officer has not whispered anything
regarding producing the seized articles before the Magistrate
for the purpose of certification of the inventory and drawing
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
26
of the samples. Therefore, it can be said that the Investigating
Officer has not complied Sec.52A of the NDPS Act. As per
section referred to supra, the concerned officer shall take an
order from the Magistrate for the destruction of seized
contraband after drawing the samples. No materials is
produced before the court to show that what had happened to
the remaining samples after drawing the samples. At this
juncture, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble
Apex Court reported in (2023) 19 SCC 364 between
MANGILAL V/S STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the mandate of
Sec.52(a) of NDPS Act observed as under :-
“On a bare perusal of the record, it is apparent that
at no point of time any prayer had been made by the
prosecution for destruction of the said opium or
disposal thereof otherwise. The only course of action
the prosecution should have resorted to is for its
disposal is to obtain an order from the competent
court of Magistrate as envisaged under Section 52-A
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
27of the Act. It is explicitly made under the Act that as
and when such an application is made, the
Magistrate may, as soon as may be, allow the
application (see also Noor Aga v. State of Punjab,
(2008) 16 SCC 417 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 748).
11. There is no denial of the fact that the prosecution
has not filed any such application for
disposal/destruction of the allegedly seized bulk
quantity of contraband material nor was any such
order passed by the Magistrate. Even no notice has
been given to the accused before such alleged
destruction/disposal. It is also pertinent here to
mention that the trial court appears to have believed
the prosecution story in a haste and awarded
conviction to the respondent without warranting the
production of bulk quantity of contraband. But, the
High Court committed no error in dealing with this
aspect of the case and disbelieving the prosecution
story by arriving at the conclusion that at the trial,
the bulk quantities of contraband were not exhibited
to the witnesses at the time of adducing evidence.”
25. Sec.57 of NDPS Act provides that after completion of
raid, report has to the Higher Officer regarding successful
raid. On plain reading of the examination in chief of PW-1,
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
28
one can find that the Investigating Officer that is PW-1 has
not submitted any report to the Higher Officer after the
process of seizure and arrest in compliance with Sec.57 of the
NDPS Act.
26. PW-7 Dr.Srinath has spoken about examining the
samples and submitting report as per Ex.P-11. As already
discussed when the prosecution has failed to prove the illegal
possession of contraband in accordance with law, the
accused cannot be convicted based on the evidence of PW-7.
27. PW-8 Sri.N.R.Mahantha Reddy the then A.C.P of
V.V.Puram has spoken about granting permission to conduct
raid and also regarding conducting body search of the
accused. On plain reading of the examination in chief of PW-1
one can find that there has been no strict compliance of
Sec.50 of the NDPS Act. Therefore, the evidence of PW-8 will
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
29
not help the prosecution to establish the charges leveled
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
28. On overall verification of the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it can be said that the prosecution has
miserably failed to established the charges leveled against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I am of the view
that the accused deserves to get the benefit of doubt.
Therefore, I answer the above Point No.1 in the Negative.
29. POINT NO.2 :- In view of my finding to Point No.1, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under S.235(1) of Cr.P.C.,the
accused is acquitted of the charge brought
against him.
The bail bond of the accused and that of
his surety shall continue for a period of six
months in terms of S.437(a) of Cr.P.C., to
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
30ensure his appearance before the higher
court in case of any appeal or revision.
M.O.1 and 2 being worthless articles shall
be destroyed after expiry of the appeal
period, if an appeal is preferred, then after
its disposal, as per law.
M.O.3 and 4 are ordered to be confiscated
to the state.
The Interim custody of Suzuki Access
Motor Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-04-JE-5655
is hereby made absolute.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed
by her, script corrected and signed by me, then pronounced
in the open court on this the 14th day of August 2025.)(Syed Baleegur Rahaman)
XXXIV Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special
Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
List of the witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 Sri.T.M.Dharmendra
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
31PW-2 Sri.Shivaraj
PW-3 Sri.Sharavana
PW-4 Sri.Shivakumar
PW-5 Sri.Nagesh
PW-6 Sri.Khannaram Patel
PW-7 Dr.Srinath
PW-8 Sri.N.R.Mahantha Reddy
List of the documents marked for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Permission Letter
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW-8
Ex.P.2 : Notice to Panchas
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.3 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.3(b) : Signature of PW-4
Ex.P.3(c) : Signature of PW-5
Ex.P.3(d) : Signature of PW-8
Ex.P.4 : Sample Seal
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.5 : Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW-1
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
32
Ex.P.5(b) : Signature of PW-2
Ex.P.5(c) : Signature of PW-3
Ex.P.6&7 : PF.196/17 & 197/17
Ex.P.6(a)& : Signature of PW-1
7(a)
Ex.P.8 & : Two Photos
9
Ex.P.8(a)& : Signature of PW-1
9(a)
Ex.P.10 : F.S.L.Acknowledgment
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.11 : F.S.L.Report
Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.11(b) : Signature of PW-7
Ex.P.12 : Sample Seal
Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of PW-1
Ex.P.12(b) : Signature of PW-7
Ex.P.13 : Request to Body Search
Ex.P.13 : Signature of PW-1
(a)
Ex.P.13(b) : Signature of PW-8
Ex.P.14 : Statement of PW-2
Ex.P.15 : Statement of PW-3
Ex.P.16 : Statement of PW-4
Ex.P.17 : Statement of PW-5
Ex.P.18 : Statement of PW-6
Ex.P.19 : Body Search Memo
Spl.C. No.1886/2021
33
Ex.P.19(a) : Signature of PW-8
List of material objects:-
M.O.1 : Opium Box
M.O.2 : Opium Box
M.O.3 : Mobile Phone
M.O.4 : Rs.500/- (100X5=500/-)
List of documents got marked for the defence:-
: -Nil-
Digitally signed by
SYED SYED BALEEGUR
BALEEGUR RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN Date: 2025.08.18
17:58:51 +0530
(Syed Baleegur Rahaman)
XXXIV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special
Judge, (NDPS), Bengaluru.
[ad_2]
Source link