Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) – Prosecution case that PW-1-Inspector and team members intercepted a vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were present in the vehicle – It was alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing around 80 kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized in the presence of PW-1 and the panchas – A-1 and A-2 were arrested on the spot and interrogated – Acting on their interrogation/confession, A-3 and A-4 were arrested – Propriety:

* Author

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 23 : 2024 INSC 158

Mohammed Khalid and Another

v.

The State of Telangana

(Criminal Appeal No(s). 1610 of 2023)

01 March 2024

[B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration

Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of

the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants

for the charge u/s. 8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Headnotes

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.8(c)

r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) – Prosecution case that PW-1-Inspector and

team members intercepted a vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were

present in the vehicle – It was alleged that three bundles of

ganja weighing around 80 kgs found lying in the vehicle were

seized in the presence of PW-1 and the panchas – A-1 and A-2

were arrested on the spot and interrogated – Acting on their

interrogation/confession, A-3 and A-4 were arrested – Propriety:

Held: A perusal of the evidence of the Seizure Officer (Inspector

PW1) and the confession-cum-seizure panchnama (Exhibit P-3)

would reveal that the prosecution claims to have recovered the

contraband from three bags wherein the ganja as well as green

chillies were present – Seizure Officer(Inspector PW-1) made

no effort whatsoever to conduct a separate weighment of the

contraband by segregating the chillies – Rather, the panchnama

is totally silent about presence of chillies with the bundles of ganja

– When PW-5-Investigating officer appeared for deposition, he

produced the muddamal ganja in the Court and it was seen that

the same was packed in seven new bags as against the three

bags referred to in the seizure memo (Exhibit P-3) – Neither

any proceedings were conducted nor any memo was prepared

by the police officers for repacking the seized ganja bundles in

new packaging – Two independent panchas were not examined

– LW-10, who prepared three samples of ganja as per PW-5 was

also not examined – In addition thereto, the prosecution neither 

24 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

examined any witness nor produced any document to satisfy the

Court regarding safe keeping of the samples right from the time

of the seizure till the same reached the FSL – No proceedings

u/s. 52A were undertaken by the Investigating officer for preparing

inventory and obtaining samples in presence of jurisdictional

Magistrate – As far as A-3 and A-4 are concerned, it is not the

case of the prosecution that the accused A-3 and A-4 were found

in possession of ganja – The entire case of the prosecution as

against these two accused is based on the interrogation notes of

A-1 and A-2 – It is trite that confession of an accused recorded

by a Police Officer is not admissible in evidence as the same is

hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act – The evidence of the police

witnesses is full of contradictions and is thoroughly unconvincing

– The conviction of the accused appellants as recorded by the

trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is illegal on the face of

record and suffers from highest degree of perversity. [Paras 19-24]

List of Acts

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; Evidence

Act, 1872.

List of Keywords

Recovery of narcotics; Confession-cum-seizure panchnama; Power

of seizure and arrest in public place; Power to stop and search

conveyance; Independent panch witnesses; Safe keeping of

samples; Preparation of inventory; Obtaining samples in presence

of jurisdictional Magistrate; Confession recorded by Police.

Case Arising From

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1610

of 2023

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.2022 of the High Court

for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLA No. 594 of 2011

Appearances for Parties

C. Nageswara Rao, Sr. Adv., Vikram Hegde, Chitwan Sharma, Ms.

Chinmayi Shrivastava, Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Tushar Singh, Praseena

Elizabeth Joseph, Advs. for the Appellants.

Kumar Vaibhaw, Ms. Devina Sehgal, Mohd. Ashaab, Advs. for the

Respondent.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 25

Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Mehta, J.

1. These appeals take exception to the final impugned judgment

dated 10th November, 2022 passed by the High Court for the State

of Telangana at Hyderabad rejecting the Criminal Appeal No.

594 of 2011 preferred by the appellants assailing the judgment

dated 30th May, 2011 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge,

Hyderabad(hereinafter being referred to as ‘trial Court’) in Sessions

Case No. 563 of 2010.

2. By the aforesaid judgment, the learned trial Court, convicted the

appellants for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) read

with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985(hereinafter being referred to as the

‘NDPS Act’) and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of

Rs.1,00,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for

a period of six months.

3. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, A-1 (Mohd.

Ishaq Ansari) expired and, therefore, the proceedings qua him stood

abated before the High Court.

4. For the sake of convenience, the accused will be referred to as

A-1(Md. Ishaq Ansari)(expired), A-2(S.A. Shafiullah), A-3(Mohd.

Khalid) and A-4(Md. Afsar).

Brief Facts :

5. Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police(PW-1), West Zone Task

Force (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Inspector PW-1’) claims

to have received credible information on 8th May, 2009 regarding

transportation of ganja by two persons from Sangareddy to

Hyderabad in a ‘Toyota Qualis’ vehicle. PW-1 apprised his superior

officers about such source information and after obtaining permission,

secured the presence of two panchas, namely, Shareef Shah and

Mithun Jana, to associate as panchas and proceeded to the spot

along with his team. The Inspector PW-1 and the team members

intercepted a Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing registration no. AP 09 

26 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

AL 6323 near Galaxy Theatre at 15:00 hours. A-1 and A-2 were

allegedly found present in the vehicle. The Inspector PW-1 served

them a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. On the request of

the accused, a Gazetted Officer i.e., Inspector PW-4(V. Shambabu)

was called to the spot to associate in the proceedings. The accused

were again given a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act by PW4(V. Shyambabu) who also participated in the search proceedings

and it is alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing around 80

kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized in presence of Inspector

PW-1 and the panchas.

6. A-1 and A-2 were arrested and interrogated at the spot. Three samples

weighing about 50 grams were drawn from each bundle contraband

and remaining muddamal ganja was seized vide confession-cumseizure panchnama (Exhibit P-3). One part of the sample was handed

over to A-1 and A-2.

7. Inspector PW-1 thereafter proceeded to hand over the accused along

with the seized articles to LW-10(G. Naresh Kumar, Sub-Inspector

of Police, Golkonda Police Station)(hereinafter being referred to as

‘Sub-Inspector LW-10’) for further action. Based on these proceedings,

a complaint came to be lodged at the Golkonda Police Station and

Criminal Case No. 181 of 2009 was registered and investigation

was commenced.

8. One part of sample collected from the recovered contraband was

forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) from where a

report (Exhibit P-11) was received concluding that the sample was

of ganja as defined under Section 2(b) of the NDPS Act. Acting on

the confession/interrogation of the two occupants of the car, i.e.

A-1 and A-2, the Investigating Officer (PW-5 K. Chandrasekhar

Reddy)(hereinafter being referred to as ‘Investigating Officer PW5’) apprehended the accused A-3 and A-4. After concluding the

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the four accused in

the trial Court.

9. Upon being charged for the offence punishable under Section 8 read

with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act, the accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined five witnesses

and exhibited 13 documents to prove its case as per the following

table:-

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 27

Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana

PW1 M. Srinivasa Rao, complainant-cum-investigating

officer

PW2 Mohd. Illiyas Akber, panch witness

PW3 Sk. Shamshuddin Ahmed, panch

PW4 V. Shyambabu, Gazetted Officer

PW5 K. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Investigating Officer

Exhibit P1 Notice to accused

Exhibit P2 Complaint

Exhibit P3 Confession-cum-seizure panchnama of A1 and A2

Exhibit P4 Bunch of (2) photographs

Exhibit P5 Signature of PW2 on panchnama of A3

Exhibit P6 Signature of PW2 on panchnama of A4

Exhibit P7 Signature of PW3 on panchnama of A3

Exhibit P8 Signature of PW3 on panchnama of A4

Exhibit P9 Notice to accused No. 1 and 2

Exhibit P10 First Information Report

Exhibit P11 FSL Report

Exhibit P12 Seizure panchnama of A3

Exhibit P13 Seizure panchnama of A4

10. The accused, upon being questioned under Section 313 of Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973(hereinafter being referred to as ‘CrPC’)

denied the prosecution allegations but chose not to lead any evidence

in defence. The trial Court proceeded to convict and sentence the

accused in the above terms by the judgment dated 30th May, 2011.

11. Being aggrieved by their conviction and the sentence awarded by

the trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal under Section 374(2)

CrPC in the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

which stood rejected vide the judgment dated 10th November, 2022.

12. A-3 and A-4 have preferred Criminal Appeal No. 1610 of 2023 and

A-2 has preferred Criminal appeal No. 1611 of 2023 for assailing

the impugned judgment dated 10th November, 2022 of High Court

whereby the conviction recorded and sentences awarded to the

accused by the trial Court have been affirmed.

28 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Submissions on behalf of the accused appellants :

13. Learned counsel representing A-2(S.A. Shafiullah) advanced the

following submissions to assail the impugned judgment and seeking

acquittal for the accused:-

(i) That the independent panch witnesses associated with the

search and seizure were not examined in evidence and hence

the entire search and seizure proceedings become doubtful

and are vitiated;

(ii) That it is admitted that the contraband ganja was seized from

three bags which were also having green chillies therein.

However, the Seizure Officer made no effort whatsoever to

segregate the chillies and the alleged contraband and hence it

cannot be held with any degree of certainty that the recovered

contraband ganja fell within the category of commercial quantity;

(iii) That the prosecution failed to ensure compliance of the

requirements of Section 52A of the NDPS Act inasmuch as,

no sampling procedure was undertaken before the Magistrate;

(iv) That the Seizure Officer (Inspector PW-1) claims to have

collected a total of three samples (one from each bundle of

ganja) and handed over one part of the sample to the accused.

However, when the articles were received at the FSL, three

distinct sample packages were found which upon testing gave

the presence of ‘cannabis sativa’. It was thus submitted that

only two samples remained with the Investigation Officer and

hence there is a grave contradiction and doubt regarding the

sanctity of the samples collected by the Seizure Officer (Inspector

PW-1) at the time of seizure.

(v) Attention of the Court was also drawn to the evidence of PW-5

who stated that three samples of ganja were taken by SubInspector LW-10, who handed over these sample packets to

witness. However, this fact is contradicted by the evidence of

the Seizure Officer(Inspector PW-1)), who stated that it was he

who collected three samples from the contraband(three bundles

of ganja) and handed one over to the accused under proper

acknowledgment. Thus, as per the learned counsel, the FSL

report is honest in the eyes of law as the sampling procedure

is totally flawed; 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 29

Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana

(vi) That three bundles/packets of ganja were allegedly seized

from the vehicle ‘Toyota Qualis’ in possession of A-1(Mohd.

Ishaq Ansari) and A-2(S.A. Shafiullah) but when Investigating

Officer PW-5 appeared in the witness box, he produced seven

packets wherein the contraband was packed. These packets

were not having any seals or identifying marks, i.e., signature

of the accused and the panchas. Thus, it is apparent that the

original muddamal seized at the spot was never produced and

exhibited in the Court;

(vii) That Sub-Inspector LW-10 who allegedly handed over

the sample packets to Investigating Officer PW-5 was not

examined in evidence. Furthermore, the carrier Constable who

transmitted the samples to the FSL was also not examined by

the prosecution;

(viii) No document pertaining to deposit of the samples at the Police

Station and the transmission thereof to the FSL was exhibited

on record. The samples were forwarded to the FSL after a

gross delay of more than two months and hence, the FSL

report cannot be read in evidence because the required link

evidence is missing.

14. Learned counsel representing A-3 and A-4 urged that these accused

were not found present at the spot at the time of seizure. They were

arrested on 30th May, 2009 merely on the basis of the interrogation

notes of A-1 and A-2 and were charged for offence under Section 8

read with Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act. As the prosecution never

came out with a case that the contraband was recovered from the

possession of these two accused, their conviction for the offence

under Section 8 read with Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act is ex

facie illegal and unsustainable on the face of the record.

Arguments on behalf of State :

15. Per contra, learned counsel representing the State, vehemently and

fervently opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel

for the appellants. He urged that two Courts, i.e., the trial Court as

well as the High Court, have recorded concurrent findings of facts

for convicting the appellants and for affirming their conviction and

hence, this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 136 of

the Constitution of India should be slow to interfere in such concurrent

findings of facts. He thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeals.

30 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Discussion and Conclusion :

16. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at the Bar and have gone through the impugned judgment

and the evidence available on record.

17. Before discussing the prosecution evidence, we would like to note

that the case as set up by the prosecution is regarding recovery

of narcotics from a vehicle which was stopped during transit.

Thus, the procedure of search and seizure would be governed

by Section 43 read with Section 49 of the NDPS Act which are

reproduced below:-

“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

or psychotropic 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 V-A 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, arrest 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.

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 31

Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana

49. Power to stop and search conveyance.—Any officer

authorised under Section 42, may, if he has reason to

suspect that any animal or conveyance is, or is about to be,

used for the transport of any narcotic drug or psychotropic

substance [or controlled substance], in respect of which

he suspects that any provision of this Act has been, or

is being, or is about to be, contravened at any time, stop

such animal or conveyance, or, in the case of an aircraft,

compel it to land and—

(a) rummage and search the conveyance or part thereof;

(b) examine and search any goods on the animal or in

the conveyance;

(c) if it becomes necessary to stop the animal or the

conveyance, he may use all lawful means for stopping

it, and where such means fail, the animal or the

conveyance may be fired upon.”

18. We now proceed to some important excerpts from the prosecution

evidence:-

(a) Complaint dated 8th May, 2009(Exhibit P-2)

“Then I recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchnama

of the accused persons A-1 and seized three bundles

containing Ganja in it from their possession. On weighing

the three bundles it was found about 80 kgs of Ganja in it.

Out of the seized Ganja we have taken three samples and

marked as S-1 and S-3 each sample packet containing

50 grams of Ganja and affixed panch chits. Also seized

Maroon, colour Qualis vehicle bearing No. AP 09AL 6323

Engine No. 2L9722612, Chassis No. LF50-104863512/01

from the possession of the accused persons. Out of the

seized Ganja drawn three samples containing 50 grams

marked S-1 to S-3, each packed in polythene covers and

attached panch chits to them. The sample is supplied to

the accused Mohd Ishaq Ansari and S.A. Ashafiullah.”

(b) Exhibit P-11(FSL Report) –

“Received one sealed cloth parcel sealed with six seals,

which are intact and tallying with the sample seal labelled as 

32 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

“Cr. No. 181/2009” containing a cardboard box containing

three closed polythene packets each labelled as “S-1,

S-2 & S-3” respectively described below through Sri K.

Narsimulu, PC 7770 on 14/07/2009.”

(C) PW-1

“I collected three samples weighing about 50 gms each

and given one sample to the accused under proper

acknowledgement.”

“M.O.I is the ganja packed in seven bags.”

“There are no panch chits right now on M.O.I bags.”

“It is true that the bags, deposited before the court are

not having, seals. I, have weighed the Ganja only and it

is weighing 80 Kgs, but I have not weighed the chillies.

The total weight of the Ganja bundles as mentioned in

the panchnama includes the weight, of chillies. I have not

mentioned about sealing of samples in my panchnama. I

have not mentioned in panchnama in what containers. I

have taken, the samples.”

“As per the panchnama one sample was given to the

accused. I have taken 3 samples and out of them I have

given one sample to both the accused and two samples

I handed over in police station.”

(d) PW-4

“PW1 seized 3 ganja bundles weighing around 80 kgs and

collected samples of 50 grams from the bundles.”

(e) PW-5

“Originally three bundles of ganja was seized from the

accused and as the Ganja was becoming dry and turning

into dust, and due to the holes of the bags it is coming

out, and therefore we transferred the Ganja into 7 new

bags, which was already marked as M.O.1.”

“Three samples of Ganja have been taken by LW 10 and

handed over the samples to me. We have forwarded the

three samples to FSL through A.C.P., and submitted FSL

report Ex. P.11.”

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 33

Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana

“The samples were taken on 8.5.2009 and they were

forwarded to FSL on 7.7.2009 i.e. after two months of

taking of samples. The samples were not deposited in

the court.”

“I did not file any document to show that where the

property was kept in Maalkhana. I did not produce any

Maalkhana register in this case. The property was sent to

FSL after two months of its seizure. The FSL report, does

not disclose about the panch chits and seals and quantity

of samples. The property deposited in court is not having

any official seals.”

“I did not report to the court till today that the ganja was

getting dried up and becoming dust, I converted them from

three bundles to 7 bags for safe custody.”

19. A perusal of the evidence of the Seizure Officer (Inspector PW-1) and

the confession-cum-seizure panchnama (Exhibit P-3) would reveal

that the prosecution claims to have recovered the contraband from

three bags wherein the ganja as well as green chillies were present.

Seizure Officer(Inspector PW-1) made no effort whatsoever to conduct

a separate weighment of the contraband by segregating the chillies.

Rather, the panchnama is totally silent about presence of chillies

with the bundles of ganja. Thus, it cannot be said with any degree of

certainty that the recovered ganja actually weighed 80 kgs. Seizure

Officer(Inspector PW-1) also stated that he collected three samples

of ganja at the spot and handed over one sample to accused. If this

was true, apparently only two sample packets remained for being

sent to the FSL. Contrary to the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 stated

that three samples of ganja were taken by LW-10 who handed the

same over to him. Thereafter, these samples were forwarded to the

FSL through the ACP and a FSL report (Exhibit P-11) was received.

When PW-5 appeared for deposition, he produced the muddamal

ganja in the Court and it was seen that the same was packed in

seven new bags as against the three bags referred to in the seizure

memo (Exhibit P-3). Neither any proceedings were conducted nor

any memo was prepared by the police officers for repacking the

seized ganja bundles in new packaging.

20. The two independent panch witnesses i.e. Shareef Shah and Mithun

Jana who were associated in the recovery proceedings, were 

34 [2024] 3 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

not examined in evidence and no explanation was given by the

prosecution as to why they were not being examined.

21. Sub-Inspector LW-10, who prepared three samples of ganja, as per

the testimony of PW-5, was not examined in evidence. In addition

thereto, the prosecution neither examined any witness nor produced

any document to satisfy the Court regarding safe keeping of the

samples right from the time of the seizure till the same reached the

FSL. The official who collected the samples from the police station

and carried the same to the FSL was not examined at the trial.

From the quoted portion of the evidence of Seizure Officer(Inspector

PW-1), it is clear as day light that he handed over one of the three

samples to the accused. The witness also admitted that he did not

mention about sealing of the samples in the panchnama. Contrary

to the evidence of PW-1, PW-5 stated that three samples of ganja

were taken out by Sub-Inspector LW-10 and were handed over to

the witness who forwarded the same to the ACP for sending it to

FSL. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he did not file

any document to show that the property was kept in malkhana. The

malkhana register was not produced in the Court. The FSL report

(Exhibit P-11) does not disclose about the panch chits and seals

and signature of the accused on samples. The property deposited in

the Court(muddamal) was not having any official seals. The witness

also admitted that he did not take any permission from the Court for

changing the original three packets of muddamal ganja to seven new

bags for safe keeping. These glaring loopholes in the prosecution

case give rise to an inescapable inference that the prosecution has

miserably failed to prove the required link evidence to satisfy the Court

regarding the safe custody of the sample packets from the time of

the seizure till the same reached the FSL. Rather, the very possibility

of three samples being sent to FSL is negated by the fact that the

Seizure Officer handed over one of the three collected samples to

the accused. Thus, their remained only two samples whereas three

samples reached the FSL. This discrepancy completely shatters the

prosecution case.

22. Admittedly, no proceedings under Section 52A of the NDPS Act

were undertaken by the Investigating Officer PW-5 for preparing an

inventory and obtaining samples in presence of the jurisdictional

Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the FSL report(Exhibit P-11)

is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read in evidence. The 

[2024] 3 S.C.R. 35

Mohammed Khalid and Another v. The State of Telangana

accused A-3 and A-4 were not arrested at the spot. The offence under

Section 20(b)(ii)(c) deals with production, manufacture, possession,

sale, purchase, transport, import or export of cannabis. It is not the

case of the prosecution that the accused A-3 and A-4 were found

in possession of ganja. The highest case of the prosecution which

too is not substantiated by any admissible or tangible evidence is

that these two accused had conspired sale/purchase of ganja with

A-1 and A-2. The entire case of the prosecution as against these

two accused is based on the interrogation notes of A-1 and A-2.

23. It is trite that confession of an accused recorded by a Police Officer

is not admissible in evidence as the same is hit by Section 25 of the

Evidence Act. Neither the trial Court nor the High Court adverted

to this fatal flaw in the prosecution case and proceeded to convict

A-3 and A-4 in a sheerly mechanical manner without there being

on iota of evidence on record of the case so as to hold them guilty.

24. As a consequence of the above discussion, we are of the firm

opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges

against the accused. The evidence of the police witnesses is full

of contradictions and is thoroughly unconvincing. The conviction of

the accused appellants as recorded by the trial Court and affirmed

by the High Court is illegal on the face of record and suffers from

highest degree of perversity.

25. Resultantly, the judgment dated 10th November, 2022 passed by the

High Court affirming the judgment of the trial Court convicting and

sentencing the accused appellants for the charge under Section 8(c)

read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act is hereby quashed and set

aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. They are in

custody and shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other

case.

26. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

27. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan Result of the case:

Appeals allowed.