Bangalore District Court
Balaraju G Pi vs Naveen Madhukar Shetty on 14 July, 2026
KABC030395562022
Presented on : 19-05-2022
Registered on : 19-05-2022
Decided on : 14-07-2026
Duration : 4 years, 1 months, 26 days
IN THE COURT OF THE VIII ADDITIONAL CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Smt. Deepa.V., B.A.L. LL B.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru City.
Date: this the 14th Day of July, 2026
C. C. No.15116/2022
(Crime No.224/2021)
State by Sanjay Nagara Police Station,
Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(Represented by Sri Vishwanath, Senior APP)
Versus
Sri Naveen Madhukar Shetty,
Aged about 32 years,
S/o Sri Late Madhukar Shetty,
R/at No.16, Bull Krishnappa
Apartment, Tata Nagara,
Kodigehalli, Bengaluru.
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
Native Place:
No.4, Near Marthoma School,
Saanoor Manjil,
Chimboor District,
Mumbai. ... Accused
(Rep. by Sri. Akash Raju Advocate for accused)
1. Date of commission of 05-10-2021
offence
2. Date of FIR 05-10-2021
3. Date of Charge sheet 11-05-2022
4. Name of Complainant Sri Balaraju.G., PI,
Sanjay Nagara PS
5. Offences complained of Under Section 20(b) of
NDPS Act.
6. Date of framing charge 10-10-2022
7. Charge Pleaded not guilty
8. Date of commencement 05-11-2025
of Evidence
9. Date of Judgment is 14-07-2026
reserved
2
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
10. Date of Judgment 14-07-2026
11. Final order Accused is acquitted
12. Date of Sentence -
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Sanjay Nagara Police
Station submitted charge sheet against accused for
the offence punishable under Section 20(b) of NDPS
Act.
2. Prosecution Case: On 05-10-2021 at about
3.00 p.m., near Railway Station, Lottegollahalli,
within the limits of Sanjay Nagara Police Station, the
accused was in illegal possession of 550 grams of
Ganja for purpose of sale to general public.
3. First Information Report: On the receipt of
credible information, CW1 namely Sri Balaraj, PI,
along with CW4 to CW7 conducted the raid upon
accused and seizure formalities as per Ex.P1 and
produced accused and seized property before CW11
and submitted report as per Ex.P7.
4. Investigation: Thereafter CW11/PW5 Sri
Girish Naik, PSI on receipt of report as per Ex.P7, he
3
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
registered FIR as per Ex.P11, subjected the seized
property to property form No.93/2021, recorded the
statement of witnesses, sent the seized ganja to FSL
through CW8 and received Ex.P9 report, obtained
station diary as per Ex.P12, after completion of
investigation submitted charge sheet against accused
for the alleged offence.
5. At the pre-cognizance stage, the accused was
enlarged on bail by the order dated 08-10-2021.
6. On receipt of charge sheet, this Court had
taken cognizance for the offence alleged against the
accused.
7. Copies of prosecution papers as required
U/Sec. 207 of Cr.P.C have been furnished to the
accused.
8. Charge: After hearing learned Sr.APP and
counsel for accused, the charge for the offences
punishable U/Sec.20(b) of NDPS Act has been
framed, read over and explained to the accused in
the language known to him, who, in turn, pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. Prosecution Evidence: The prosecution in
order to establish its case cited 11 witnesses,
examined 5 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents
4
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
and MO1 to MO4 and closed their side. Advocate for
accused has no objection to mark the FSL report and
hence the examination of CW9 is given up by the
order dated 09/12/2025. On account of examination
of CW1, the examination of CW5 to CW7 is given up
by the order dated 10/02/2026.
10. Statement of Accused as per section 313 of
CrPC: After completion of evidence of prosecution, the
statement of accused was examined as per section
313 of Cr.P.C wherein he denied all incriminating
evidence appearing in the statement of prosecution
witnesses and did not lead any rebuttal evidence.
11. Heard the arguments. Perused materials on
the record.
12. The following point are arises for
consideration is as follows;
1. Whether the prosecution
proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that on 05-10-2021 at
about 3.00 p.m., near Railway
Station, Lottegollahalli, within
the limits of Sanjay Nagara
Police Station, the accused was
in illegal possession of 550
grams of Ganja for purpose of
5
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
sale to general public thereby
resulted in commission of an
offence punishable under Sec.
20(b) of NDPS Act?
2. What order?
13. The findings on the above points are as
under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : As per final orderREASONS
14. Point No.1: In support of prosecution case
as narrated in paragraph 2 and the point for
consideration in paragraph 12 of this judgment, the
prosecution examined the following witnesses, which
are as follows
i. CW2 namely Sri Syed Sadiq @ Syed Sami,
pancha witness examined as PW1, identified his
signature on raid panchanama as per Ex.P1 , Sample
seal as per Ex.P2 and notice as per Ex.P3 as
Ex.P1(A), Ex.P2(A) and Ex.P3(A) and deposed that he
has signed on said documents at police station at the
request of police, no mahazar was conducted and no
material object were seized in his presence and has
6
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
not given any statement to police. In this regard, the
learned Sr.APP has cross examined this witness by
treating him as hostile witness however no favorable
answer has been elicited from him to support the
prosecution case. His denial of statement given before
the police is marked as Ex.P4.
ii. CW1 namely Sri Balaraj, PI examined as PW2
and deposed that, On 05-10-2021, the accused was
selling ganja near Lotte Gollahalli railway station,
informed ACP, JC Nagar Sub-Division in writing as
Ex.P5, obtained permission to proceed with the raid
as per Ex.P6, issued notice to pancha witnesses
namely CW2 and CW3 as Ex.P3, took the weighing
machine and investigation kit from the station along
with the staff and went to the place where the
information was received. While doing so, he was
caught, CW10 came to the spot and when the body of
the accused was searched, there were 20 grams of
ganja in 3 small packets, 7 plastic zip lock covers,
490 grams of ganja in another cover, Rs.1,000/- cash
and Aprela bike were seized through the raid
panchanama as per Ex.P1. He produced the report
before CW11 and identified the cover of 3 small
packets of ganja as MO1, the ganja in another cover
as Mo2, the envelope with 7 zip lock covers as MO3,
the photograph of a note of Rs.1000/- of
denomination as MO4.
7
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
iii. CW8 Smt. Sushmavathi, WHC, examined as
PW3 deposed about submission of properties to FSL
and submitted report to SHO as per Ex.P8 .
iv. CW10 Smt. Reena Suvarana, APC examined
as PW4 deposed that, on 05-10-2021, CW1 was
found selling ganja, a narcotic substance, to the
public near Lotte Gollahalli Railway Station and
permission was sought. Later, permission was given
to him to go to the spot and conduct a physical
search. When the accused was searched, he was
found to have 3 plastic envelopes with a total of 60
grams of ganja, 7 zip lock envelopes and 490 grams of
ganja, Rs.1000/- and two Rs. 500/- denomination
notes. They seized the two-wheeler No. KA-04-KD-
0843 were seized through Ex. P1.
v. CW11 Sri Girish Naik, PSI, examined as
PW5 deposed that, On 05-10-2021, CW1 received the
written complaint and registered the case, submitted
the report as per Ex.P11, along with the complaint,
CW1 submitted the accused and the seized material
objects, raid panchaname, permission letter obtained
from the ACP during raid report and notice was given
to the pancha witnesses, subjected the seized
material objects to PF No.93/2021, informed the DCP
and ACP about the success of raid, recorded the
statements of witnesses, sent the narcotics for
chemical examination through CW8 to FSL and sent
8
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
the receipt as per Ex.P8, FSL report as per Ex.P9. He
said that the report and a copy of police station diary
were obtained and placed in the file as Ex.P12 and on
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed
against the accused.
15. The charge levelled against accused under
section 20(b) of NDPS Act.
20. Punishment for contravention
in relation to cannabis plant and
cannabis-Whoever, in
contravention of any provisions of
this Act or any rule or order made
or condition of licence granted
thereunder,-
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant;
or
(b)produces, manufactures,
possesses, sells, purchases,
transports, imports inter-State,
exports inter-State or uses
cannabis, shall be punishable–
(i)where such contravention
relates to clause (a) with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years and shall
also be liable to fine which may
extend to one lakh rupees;
9
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
(ii)where such contravention
relates to sub-clause (b),(A) and involves small quantity,
with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one
year, or with fine, which may
extend to ten thousand rupees, or
with both;
That the accused was in possession of 550
grams of ganja near Railway Station, Lottegollahalli,
within the limits of Sanjay Nagara Police Station i.e.,
public place thereby the burden of proof is upon the
prosecution to prove that the accused was in
possession of ganja with the said quantity of 550
grams.
16. It is the case of prosecution that the ganja
was seized from the possession of accused in the
public place which reads as under
43. Power of seizure and arrest in
public place-Any officer of any of
the departments mentioned
in section 42 may-
(a) seize in any public place or in
transit, any narcotic drug or10
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022psychotropic substance or
controlled substance in respect of
which he has reason to believe an
offence punishable under this Act
has been committed, and, along
with such drug or substance, any
animal or conveyance or article
liable to confiscation under this
Act, any document or other article
which he has reason to believe
may furnish evidence of the
commission of an offence
punishable under this Act 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;
(b) detain and search any person
whom he has reason to believe to
have committed an offence
punishable under this Act, and if
such person has any narcotic
drug or psychotropic substance or
controlled substance in his
possession and such possession
appears to him to be unlawful,11
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022arrest him and any other person
in his company.
Explanation.–For the purposes of
this section, the expression
“public place” includes any public
conveyance, hotel, shop, or other
place intended for use by, or
accessible to, the public.
If the suspect is in possession of alleged
contraband which is unlawful, the authorised officer
can also arrest him or any other person in his
company. Section 22 does not mandate a search
warrant or authorisation. It does not also require
recording of the grounds for his belief that if he does
not act in haste, enter, seize and arrest the suspect
would have concealed the evidence or escaped.
Section 22 does not require the authorised officer to
forward the written grounds of his belief to his
immediate superior within seventy-two hours. All the
aforesaid are requirements under Section 21.
17. Section 57 of NDPS Act, 1985 which reads as
under
Report of arrest and seizure.–
Whenever any person makes any
arrest or seizure, under this Act,
he shall, within forty-eight hours
next after such arrest or seizure,
12
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
make a full report of all the
particulars of such arrest or
seizure to his immediate official
superior.
The arrest memo is not placed on record
however it appears that the CW1 has called upon the
ACP for body search as he has taken into custody at
6.15 pm near Railway Station, Lottegollahalli, Sanjay
Nagara, Bengaluru dated 05-10-2021 by informing
his immediate superior about the arrest.
18. It has been held in the case of State of
Punjab Vs Balbir Singh reported in AIR 1994
SUPREME COURT 1872 wherein it was held that the
provision of Section 57 which deal with the steps to
be taken by the officers after making arrest or seizure
under Section 41 to 44 is by itself not mandatory and
if there is non-compliance or if there are lapses like
delay etc., then the same has to be examined to see
whether any prejudice has been caused to the
accused and such failure will have a bearing on the
appreciation of evidence regarding arrest or seizure as
well as on merits of the case. Thus it is essential to
examine the case and see whether any prejudice was
caused to the accused. The prosecution case cannot
be thrown out on the failure of the prosecution to
comply with the provisions of Section 57 of the NDPS
Act, 1985 alone.
13
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
19. Section 50 of The Narcotic Drugs And
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
50. Conditions under which
search of persons shall be
conducted.–
(1) When any officer duly
authorised under section 42 is
about to search any person under
the provisions of section 41,
section 42 or section 43, he shall,
if such person so requires, take
such person without unnecessary
delay to the nearest Gazette
Officer of any of the departments
mentioned in section 42 or to the
nearest Magistrate.
(2) If such requisition is made, the
officer may detain the person
until he can bring him before the
Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate
referred to in subsection (1).
(3) The Gazette Officer or the
Magistrate before whom any such
person is brought shall, if he sees
no reasonable ground for search,
forthwith discharge the person14
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022but otherwise shall direct that
search be made.
(4) No female shall be searched by
anyone excepting a female.
(5) When an officer duly
authorised under section 42 has
reason to believe that it is not
possible to take the person to be
searched to the nearest Gazetted
Officer or Magistrate without the
possibility of the person to be
searched parting with possession
of any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance, or
controlled substance or article or
document, he may, instead of
taking such person to the nearest
Gazette Officer or Magistrate,
proceed to search the person as
provided under section 100 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(2 of 1974).
(6) After a search is conducted
under sub-section (5), the officer
shall record the reasons for such
belief which necessitated such
search and within seventy-two15
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022hours send a copy thereof to his
immediate official superior.
The ingredients of Section 50 of
the NDPS Act, 1985 are:
(i) The officer conducting the
search must be an authorised
officer under Section 42 of the
NDPS Act, 1985.
(ii) When such authorised officer
is about to search any person he
shall, “if such persons so
requires” take such person
without any unnecessary delay to
the nearest Gazetted Officer of
any of the departments mention
in Section 42 or to the nearest
Magistrate.
(iii) When such a requisition is
made the authorised officer has
the power to detain the said
person until he can bring him
before the Gazetted Officer or the
Magistrate.
(iv) The Gazetted Officer or the
Magistrate before whom such a
person is brought “if he sees no
reasonable ground for search”;
16
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
has has the power to forthwith
discharge the person or otherwise
direct the search be made.
(v) No female shall be searched by
anyone except a female.
(vi) The authorised officer, if he
has reason to believe that it is not
possible to take the person to be
searched to the nearest Gazetted
Officer or Magistrate without the
possibility of the person to be
searched partying with possession
of any narcotic drug or
psychotropic substance, or
controlled substance or article or
document, he may, instead of
taking such person to the nearest
Gazetted Officer or Magistrate,
proceed to search the person as
provided under Section 100
Cr.P.C.
(vii) If the authorised officers
proceeds to search as provided
under Section 100 Cr.P.C then. In
that case the said authorised
officer must record the reasons for
such belief and within 72 hours
17
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
sent a copy thereof to his
immediate official superior.
Section 50 of the NDPS Act, 1985 however,
provides that when any officer duly authorized is
about to search any person he shall, “if such person
so requires” take such person without unnecessary
delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the
Departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the
nearest Magistrate. Thus, under Section 50 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 option must be given to the person to
be searched. Though the PW4 (ACP) went to the spot
on 05-10-2021 and found that the accused was in
possession of the ganja however the permission letter
to do body search of the accused does not disclose
the timings when they obtained the consent of
accused to do body search.
20. CW2/PW1 pancha witness did not support
the prosecution case. The presence of another pancha
witness namely Sri Asgar Shariff s/o Noorullla Shariff
(CW3) was not secured to prove the authenticity of
Ex.P1 (seizure mahazar) thereby the alleged seizure of
ganja measuring 550 grams and Rs.1000/- from
custody of accused raises the doubt in the mind of
this court about the authenticity. Thus, it is clear
that the local inhabitants of the alleged spot was not
made as witnesses to the Ex.P1 though CW2 and
CW3 are from different locality as they are from
18
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
Bhoopasandra, however the spot is bounded on the
East by towards Lottegollahalli railway gate road,
West by Lottegollahalli railway track, North by vacant
place beside railway track and south by
Lottegollahalli railway station. None of persons who
were working in the Lottegollahalli railway station
were not made as a witnesses to the Ex.P1. The
seizure mahazar was carried out is against the
procedural law as per Section 100(4) of CRPC.
21. It appears from the records the photographs
or videograph were not taken at the time of alleged
seizure to prove that the alleged ganja was seized
from the possession of accused. The denomination of
notes were not mentioned in the Ex.P1 to connect
that the notes were seized from the possession of the
accused.
22. There is no explanation on the part of delay
in making application under section 52A of NDPS Act
for sampling before the Magistrate. There is no
explanation for the inordinate delay by the PW4. The
seizure mahazar was prepared on 05.10.2021, but
the application for drawing the sample under Section
52A before Magistrate was made on 18/10/2021 i.e.,
after an inordinate delay of 13 days and further after
inventories before the magistrate on 22/10/2021, the
sample was sent on 29/10/2021 i.e., beyond the 72
hours. In this regard, it is relevant to mention the
19
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
decision in the case of Union of India Vs Mohanlal
reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379 wherein the Apex
Court opines that the application to the Magistrate
for sampling has to be moved immediately after
seizure and in furtherance that samples were sent to
FSL only on 31.07.2018, while Clause 1.13 of
Standing Order 1/88 states that samples have to be
sent to FSL within 72 hours from the date of seizure.
The said clause reads as under:
“1.13. Mode and Time limit for
dispatch of sample to Laboratory:
The samples should be sent either
by insured post or through special
messenger duly authorized for the
purpose. Despatch of samples by
registered post or ordinary mail
should not be resorted to.
Samples must be dispatched to
the Laboratory within 72 hours of
seizure to avoid any legal
objection.”
Thus relying on the decision of Apex Court in the
case of Noor Aga Vs Stage of Punjab and another
reported in (2008) 16 SCC 417 that the guidelines in
the Standing Order cannot be flouted and should be
substantially complied with.
20
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
23. No doubt, FSL report dated 18-03-2022 as
per Ex.P9 depicts that the seized contraband sent for
chemical examination contains positive for cannabis.
In this context, it is well settled proposition of law by
the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by the Hon’ble High
Court of Karnataka that the Investigating Agency has
to follow the guidelines issued by the Narcotic Control
Bureau column No.1.18 and there must have a
quantitative and qualitative test within 15 days and
further 15 days of seizure. The said procedure has
been flouted by the Investigating agency.
24. It is relevant to mention herein that though
the PW2 and PW4 deposed that they have seized the
ganja and cash from accused however after seizure of
ganja, the ganja and seal SJN was in possession of
Station House officer till the inventories were carried
out on 22-10-2021 as per records.
25. It appears from the alleged ganja was sent
to FSL on 29-10-2021 even after the inventories were
made before the Jurisdictional Magistrate by the
PW5. So, the PW5 was in possession of ganja and the
seal (SJN) so such being the case, there is all
possibility of misuse of seal of the investigating
officer. As per the version of prosecution witnesses,
after sealing the property as the samples of ganja
with the departmental seal and the same was in their
possession. Thus, the seal was not handed over to
21
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
any independent witness. There is nothing on record
to suggest that IO had made efforts to handover the
seal to any independent witness. The seal remained
with the police officials of same police station and
therefore the possibility of tampering with the case
property cannot be eschewed. Moreover, it is not even
the case of the prosecution that the seal was not
within the reach of Detecting officer or Investigating
Officer and thus, there was no scope of tampering of
case property. In this regard, it has been held in the
case of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana reported in
2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 452 held in paragraph 7
that:
“….The very purpose of giving seal to
an independent person is to avoid
tampering of the case property. It is
well settled that till the case property
is not dispatched to the forensic
science laboratory, the seal should not
be available to the prosecuting agency
and in the absence of such a
safeguard the possibility of seal,
contraband and the samples being
tampered with cannot be ruled out.
Similarly, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Safiulla Vs
State reported in (1993) 49 DLT 193, had observed:
22
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
“9. … The seal after use were kept by
the police officials themselves
therefore the possibility of tempering
with the contents of the sealed parcel
cannot be ruled out. It was very
essential for the prosecution to have
established from stage to stage the
fact that the sample was not tempered
with. The prosecution could have
proved from the CFSL form itself and
from the road certificate as to what
articles were taken from the
Malkahana. Once a doubt is created
in the preservation of the sample the
benefit of the same should go to the
accused…”….
Thus, it is nowhere the case of prosecution that
the seal after use was handed over to his superior
officer. Even the I.O. has not uttered a word regarding
the handing over of the seal after use to their superior
officer. Therefore, the conclusion which can be
arrived at is that the seal remained with the
Investigating Officer or with the other member of the
raiding party therefore the possibility of interference
or tempering of the seal and the contents of the
sample cannot be ruled out. Thus, the in light of the
aforesaid discussion, the possibility of misuse of seal
and tampering of case property cannot be ruled out.
23
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
26. Therefore the prosecution case is not free
from contradictions, the benefit of such doubt which
arisen from the case of prosecution shall be accorded
to the accused and therefore, this court is of the view
that the prosecution has not substantially proved
beyond all reasonable doubts the allegations leveled
against the accused thereby this court answers the
above point No.1 in the negative.
27. Point No.2:- For the foregoing discussion
and the findings to the above point No.1, this court
proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty
and acquitted from the offence
punishable Under Section 20(b) of
NDPS Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
24
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
(iv) MO1 and MO2 (samples) shall
be sent for destruction to Disposal
Committee after appeal period is
over.
(v) After expiry of appeal period,
MO3 shall be destroyed and the
seized amount of Rs.1000/-
shown under PF No.93/2021
shall be confiscated to State.
(vi) After expiry of appeal period,
the interim custody of vehicle
bearing Reg.No.KA 04 KD 0843
granted in favour of petitioner is
made absolute.
(vii) Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by steno, verified and
corrected by me on my laptop, then the judgment pronounced by me in the open
court, on this the 14th day of July, 2026)
(Deepa.V.),
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
25
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined for prosecution :
PW1 : Sri Syed Sadiq @ Syed Sami/Pancha
witness
PW2 : Sri Balaraj/Informant cum PI
PW3 : Smt. Sushmavari/WPC
PW4 : Smt. Reena Suvarna/ACP
PW5 : Sri Girish Naik/PSIDocuments marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1 : ದಾಳಿ ಪಂಚನಾಮೆ/PW1 Ex.P2 : Sample seal/PW1 Ex.P3 : ತಿಳುವಳಿಕೆ ಪತ್ರ/PW1 Ex.P4 : Statement of PW1 Ex.P5 : Seeking permission to raid on
accused letter dtd:5-10-2021
Ex.P6 : Permission letter 5-10-2021/PW2
Ex.P7 : Complaint/PW2
Ex.P8 : Report/PW3
Ex.P9 : Seeking permission to search
accused/PW4/
Test Report on consent
Ex.P10 : Notice/PW4
Ex.P11: FIR/PW5
Ex.P12: Copy of Station Diary/PW526
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022Material Objects marked on behalf of the
prosecution:
MO1-2 : Samples MO3 : 7 empty plastic covers MO4 : Photo
Witnesses examined for defence: Nil
Documents marked on behalf of defence: Nil
VIII Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
27
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
14-07-2026
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separately
ORDER
Acting U/Sec.248(1) of the Cr.P.C.
(i) The accused is found not guilty
and acquitted from the offence
punishable Under Section 20(b) of
NDPS Act.
(ii) Accused is set at liberty.
(iii) In view of Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C his bail bond shall be in
force for 6 (six) months.
(iv) MO1 and MO2 (samples) shall
be sent for destruction to Disposal
Committee after appeal period is
over.
(v) After expiry of appeal period,
MO3 shall be destroyed and the
seized amount of Rs.1000/-
shown under PF No.93/2021
shall be confiscated to State.
28
KABC030395562022 CC15116/2022
(vi) After expiry of appeal period,
the interim custody of vehicle
bearing Reg.No.KA 04 KD 0843
granted in favour of petitioner is
made absolute.
(vii) Ordered accordingly.
VIII ACJM, Bengaluru
29
