Laxman vs State Of MP

Both these appeals have arisen out of the same judgement, therefore, this order shall govern disposal of both of them.

Both the appellants Karan Singh and Laxman have been convicted under section 8/20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1985) for having 0.950 KG and 1.550 KG cannabis (Ganja) in their illegal possession and have been awarded

2-2 (two-two) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5-5000/- each and in default 1-1 months simple imprisonment by the Special Judge

(NDPS), Dhar vide judgement dated 09.08.2000 rendered in Spl.ST No. 06/1998. They have challenged their conviction and sentence through their

respective appeals.

Facts of the prosecution case, in brief, are that on 18.4.1998 at about 00:50 hours TI Rajendra Singh Tomar (PW-5) of Police Station Gandhwani,

Distt. Dhar received secret information that some people of village Balloda will pass through Zorabad with some illegal Ganja. Memo of this

information Ex.P/1 was prepared and the intimation was entered in Roznamch Sanha Ex.P/2. The SP, Dhar was apprised with the information and

was requested to send some gazetted officer (Ex.P/4). DSP Sunil Kumar Tiwari (PW-7) was deputed by the SP, Dhar. Panch witnesses Ashok and

Magan were called. A team comprising DSP Mr. Tiwari (PW-7), TI Mr. Tomar (PW-5), ASI Mehta, Constable Sohan Singh (PW-2), Head

Constable Sitaram (PW-3) and Driver Sanjay proceeded towards the spot with all paraphernalia. They found the appellants at Zorabad Bus Stand.

They were intimated about the information received by the police and were also apprised about their right of search before the nearest magistrate or

gazetted officer. They consented to be searched by DSP Mr. Tiwari. After giving them search of police personals and of the panch witnesses, their

search was conducted, but nothing illegal was recovered. When the bags, they were carrying, were searched, 950 and 1550 grams Ganja was

recovered (Ex.P/5-9, 15). Following the due process of law, samples were taken out. The samples as well as the remaining contraband were sealed

on the spot (Ex.P/19-20). All these proceedings were entered in Roznamcha Ex.P/2,3,4,24,25,31, 32,33). On interrogation, appellant Karan Singh

revealed that he had purchased that Ganja from Nahar Singh of village Khoda (Ex.P/17). Acting on this information, DSP Mr. Tiwari searched the

house of Nahar Singh and recovered and seized 500 grams Ganja from an almirah built in the wall (Ex.P/21). On interrogation, Nahar Singh disclosed

that he had brought this Ganja from Shankar of village Raipuriya (Ex.P/18). DSP MR. Tiwari went to village Raipuriya and recovered and seized

about 4.5 kg Ganja from the house of Shankar (Ex.P/22). The police team along with the accused persons and the contraband recovered from them;

came back to the police station, handed over all the articles seized on the spot to the Head Constable Moharir, who received and deposited them in

Mallkhanna of the Police Station. Crime No. 95/1998 under Section 8/20 of the Act, 1985 was registered by deducing FIR.

The police further investigated the case, arrested all four accused persons (Ex.P/26-29) and recorded police statements of the witnesses. Samples

taken out from the Ganja seized from all four accused persons were sent to the FSL for chemical analyses, who confirmed that the substance of

samples was Ganja (Ex.P/35). After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed against all four accused persons namely Karan Singh, Laxman,

Nahar Singh and Shankar.

All four accused persons were charged under Section 8/20 of the Act, 1985. After the trial, Nahar Singh and Shankar were acquitted from the

charge, while both the appellants were held guilty and punished as stated in para-1 above.

Appellant Laxman has preferred this appeal on the grounds that mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 52 and 57 of the Act, 1985 have not been

complied with in the alleged recovery of contraband. The appellant had never given consent for his search by DSP Tiwari. Mr. Tiwari has admitted in

his statement before the Court that the option letter is not in his handwriting. The Investigating Officer has admitted that no seizure slip signed by the

panch witnesses was put on the samples taken from the appellant and other co-accused persons. It also appears from the evidence on record that no

seal as required under the law was put on the samples. The IO has admitted in this statement that no report was sent by him to the senior officers

immediately after the search was over. No independent witness has supported the case of the prosecution. Both the panch witnesses have turned

hostile. There is discrepancy in the documents prepared on the spot. Panchnama of weighing Ex.P/15 was prepared at 9:15 a.m. while seizure memo

Ex.P/20 was prepared at 8:15 a.m. This makes the recovery doubtful. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

No specific ground has been mentioned in the memo of appeal by appellant Karan Singh, however, the learned counsel representing him has placed

reliance on the grounds taken by the appellant Laxman and has also prayed for his acquittal.

In the present case search and seizure was effected by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Sunil Kumar Tiwari (PW-7), who was a

gazetted officer. It is held in 2003 AIR SCW 4975 SC M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence that when the Gazetted

Officer has himself conducted the search, arrested the accused and seized the contraband, it was not necessary to comply with the provisions of S.

42.

Facts show that in this case TI Rajendra Singh Tomar (PW-5) of Police Station Gandhwani, Distt. Dhar received the information of illegal

trafficking of contraband. He reduced this information into writing, prepared memo Ex.P/1 and also entered it in Roznamch Sanha Ex.P/2. He further

apprised the SP, Dhar and requested him to send some gazetted officer (Ex.P/4). DSP Sunil Kumar Tiwari (PW-7) was deputed by the SP, Dhar,

who reached at the police station and conducted all further proceedings like search, recovery etc. DSP Mr. Tiwari has supported this statement. HC

Razaque Shah PW-11 has stated that as wireless operator in the Police Control Room, Dhar, in the midnight of 17-18 July 1998, he received

information from TI of PS, Gandhwani regarding illegal transportation of contraband, who asked him to request the SP to depute some gazetted

officer. He apprised the SP, Dhar immediately and SP Dhar deputed Mr. Tiwari (PW-7) to take action. Nothing contrary has emerged in the cross

examination of all these three witnesses to doubt their statements. This shows substantial compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the

Act, 1985.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled in Rewant Ram V. State of Rajsthan 1995 Cri.L.J. 772 that if the search is made by the Gazetted Officer

himself, there is no need to comply with the provision of Section 50 of the Act, 1985. Is was stated that the contention raised by the appellant that

there is a non-compliance of the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, 1985, which deals with the condition of search of a person and provides that

before making the search the accused should be informed whether he wants to get himself searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer of any of

the Departments mentioned in Sec. 42 or before a nearest Magistrate. Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable only in the cases where the search is

not made by a Gazetted Officer and not in a case where the search itself has been made by the Gazetted Officer. This provision has been made

considering the stringent punishment providing under the Act and provides a safeguard that the search of the person should be made in the presence

of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. When the search has been made in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is a Gazetted

Officer, therefore, the compliance of Sec. 50 of the M.D.P.S. Act has been mane in the case. The contention raised by the appellant, is, therefore,

devoid of any force.

In Shamlal Vs. State of Haryana 1997 Cri. L.J. 872 also it was observed that Section 50 of the Act, 1985 has been enacted to act as a safeguard

against vexatious search and unfair dealing and to protect and safeguard the interest of an innocent person. It also provides a weapon to the law

enforcement agency against common allegation that the drugs have been planted by these officers. Since the search was conducted in the presence of

D.S.P., a Gazetted Officer, the provisions of Sec. 50 stood complied with.

Mr. Tiwari (PW-7) has stated that before effecting the search, he apprised the appellants about their right to be searched before the Magistrate or

Gazetted Officer. The accused persons signed on consent statement expressing their confidence to be searched by him; therefore, he conducted the

search. TI Mr. Tomar PW-5 has supported his statement. Both these witnesses have proved memos Ex.P/5 & 8 showing consent of the appellants to

be searched by the Mr. Tiwari. of Inspector - It cannot be held that there was non-compliance with S. 50 of Act. Therefore, the arguement advanced

by the learned counsel is not tenable.

Otherwise also in this case the contraband was not recovered from the 'person' as spelt out in the provision, but has been recovered from the bags,

the appellants were carrying with them. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ravindran @ John v. Superintendent of Customs 2007 CRI. L. J. 3414 SC has

held that plastic bag carried by the accused is not search of a 'person' of accused. In such case Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act (61 of 1985) does not apply. Plea that accused was not informed of his legal right to get his personal search in presence of a Gazetted

Officer or a Magistrate is not, therefore, tenable. Paras 8, 9, 10 of this judgement reads as under:

In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the appellant was carrying a plastic bag in which the drug in question duly packed had been kept. Section 50 is,

therefore, not attracted to the facts of this case.

It was, however, contended before us that PWs 1 and 2 had not informed the appellant of his legal right to get his person searched in the presence of a Gazetted

Officer or a Magistrate. Merely informing him that he has an option to have his personal search done in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate was not

sufficient and that he should have been informed of his legal right to get his personal search done in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. In this

connection, reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in (1999) 6 SCC 1 (1999 AIR SCW 2457) Pon Adithan Versus Deputy Director, Narcotics Control Bureau,

Madras. It was, however, brought to our notice that the question as to whether the accused appellant is not entitled to be informed of his right to be searched in the

presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that merely being asked as to whether the accused-appellant would like to be searched in the presence of a

Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate would be sufficient compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act, has been referred to a larger Bench of this Court to

resolve the conflict of opinion on the interpretation of Section 50 of the Act. (See (2005) 12 SCC 574).

In our view this question does not survive for our consideration because we have earlier held that Section 50 was not attracted to the facts of this case. If any

drug was recovered from the personal search of the appellant as explained in Pawan Kumar's case, the appellant could advance this argument to challenge his

personal search. That not being the case, the submission must be rejected. An argument was advanced before us that if the search is found to be illegal that is fatal to

the case of the prosecution. Apart from the fact that this question does not arise in the instant case, it cannot be said as a general principle of law that the illegality of

the seizure would in all cases prove fatal to the case of the prosecution. As held by this Court in 2006 (9) SCALE 644 (2005 AIR SCW 2154) Ritesh Chakarvarti Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh although the effect of the illegal search may not have any direct effect on the prosecution case, it would all the same have a bearing on the

appreciation of evidence of the official witnesses and other materials depending on the facts of each case.

In this regard, judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in State of Punjab v. Baljinder Singh and Anr. AIR 2019 SC 5298 (J-3,)

Kashmiri lal Vs. State of Haryana AIR AIR 2013 SC (Supp) 426 (J-2), Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 52S1t, ate of Rajasthan v.

Shanti AIR 2010 SC 43 ,Kulwinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab AIR 2015 SC 2488, Makhan Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2015 SC (Supp)

2012 (SC) can also be referred.

The law does not provides that the memo of apprising the accused about his right to be searched before any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate should

be in the hand writing of the officer who intends to conduct the search. Therefore, admission of DSP Mr. Tiwari that the memos Ex.P/5 & 8 showing

consent of the appellants to be searched by Mr. Tiwari are not in his hand writing, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, does not

hold ground.

No challenge of violation of the provisions of Section 52 of the Act, 1985 was made during the trial. Otherwise also; there is nothing on record to

show that there was any violation of the procedure prescribed under this Section of the Act, 1985.

In para 37 of the cross-examination, Mr. Tiwari PW-7 has admitted that after completing the arrest and seizure, he did not send any report to his

immediate official superior.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court has considered the very nature of the provision and effect of Sections 52 and 57 and its non compliance in State of

Punjab v. Balbir Singh 1994 CRI. L. J. 3702 SC. It was held that steps under Ss. 52 and 57 are to be taken after search and seizure; therefore, they

by themselves are not mandatory. 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. Para 25 and 26 of this judgement are relevant and are being reproduced here:

Sections 52 and 57 came into operation after the arrest and seizure under the Act. Somewhat similar provisions also are there in the Cr.P.C. If

there is any violation of these, provisions, then the Court has to examine the effect of the same. In that context while determining whether the

provisions of the Act to be followed after the arrest or search are directory or mandatory, it will have to be kept in mind that the provisions of a statute

creating public duties are generally speaking directory. The provisions of these two Sections contain procedural instructions for strict compliance by

the officers. But if there is no strict compliance of any of these instructions that by itself cannot render the acts done by these officers null and void

and at the most it may affect the probative value of the evidence regarding arrest or search and in some cases it may invalidate such arrest or search.

But such violation by itself does not invalidate the trial or the conviction if otherwise there is sufficient material. Therefore it has to be shown that such

non-compliance has caused prejudice and resulted in failure of justice. The officers, however, cannot totally ignore these provisions and if there is no

proper explanation for non-compliance or where the officers totally ignore the provisions then that will definitely have an adverse effect on the

prosecution case and the courts have to appreciate the evidence and the merits of the case bearing these aspects in view. However, a mere non-

compliance or failure to strictly comply by itself will not vitiate the prosecution.

The questions considered above arise frequently before the trial courts. Therefore we find it necessary to set out our conclusions which are as

follows:

(1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the Provisions of the NDPS Act makes a search or arrests a person in the normal course of

investigation into an offence or suspected offence as provided under the provisions of Cr. P.C. and when such search is completed at that stage Section 50 of the

NDPS Act would not be attracted and the question of complying with the requirements thereunder would not arise. If during such search or arrest there is a chance

(of) recovery of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance then the police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should

thereafter proceed in accordance with the provisions of the NDPS Act. If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage .onwards, he should carry

out the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the NDPS Act.

(2A) Under Section 41(1) only an empowered Magistrate can issue warrant for the arrest or for the search in respect of offences punishable under Chapter IV of the

Act etc., when he has reason to believe that such offences have been committed or such substances are kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or place.

When such warrant for arrest or for search is issued by a Magistrate who is not empowered, then such search or arrest if carried out would be illegal. Likewise only

empowered officers or duly authorised officers as enumerated in Ss. 41(2)and 42(l) can act under the provisions of the NDPS Act. If such arrest or search is made

under the provisions of the NDPS Act by any one other than such officers, the same would be illegal.

(2B) Under Section 41(2) only the empowered officer can give the authorisation to his subordinate officer to carry out the arrest of a person or search as mentioned

therein. If there is a contravention that would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the conviction.

(2C) Under Section 42(l) the empowered officer if has a prior information given by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if he has reason

to believe from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or materials which may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are

concealed in any building etc., he may carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does not mandate that he

should record his reasons of belief. But under the proviso to Section 42(l) if such officer has to carry out such search between sunset and sunrise, he must record the

grounds of his belief. To this extent these provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial.

(3) Under Section 42(2) such empowered officer who takes down any information in writing or records the grounds under proviso to Section 42(l) should forthwith

send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non-compliance of this provision the same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is

mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case.

(4A) If a police officer, even if he happens to be an ""empowered"" officer while effecting an arrest or search during normal investigation into offences purely under the

provisions of Cr.P.C. fails to strictly comply with the provisions of Sections 100 and 165, Cr.P.C. including the requirement to record reasons, such failure would only

amount to an irregularity.

(4B) If an empowered officer or an authorised officer under Section 41(2) of the Act carries out a search, he would be doing so under the provisions of Cr.P.C. namely

Sections 100 and 165, Cr.P.C. and if there is no strict compliance with the provisions o Cr.P.C. then such search would not per se be illegal and would not vitiate the

trial. The effect of such failure has to be borne in mind by the courts while appreciating the evidence in the facts and circumstances of each case.

(5) On prior information, the empowered officer or authorised officer while acting under Sections 41(2) or 42 should comply with the provisions of Section 50 before

the search of the person is made and such person should be informed that if he so requires, he shall be produced before a gazetted officer or a magistrate as provided

thereunder. It is obligatory on the part of such officer to inform the person to be searched. Failure to inform the person to be searched and if such person so requires,

failure to take him to the gazetted officer or the magistrate, would amount to non-compliance of Section 50 which is mandatory and thus it would affect the

prosecution case and vitiate the trial. After being so informed whether such person opted for such a course or not would be a question of fact.

(6) The provisions of Sections 52 and 57 which deal with the steps to be taken by the officers after making arrest or seizure under Sections 41 to 44 are by themselves

not mandatory. 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.

The same view was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurbax Singh v. State of Haryana, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 28 : (AIR 2001 SC

1002), to hold that the provision of Section 57 is directory in nature. Violation of this provision would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction.

However, Investigating Officer cannot totally ignore these provisions and such failure will take a bearing on appreciation of evidence regarding arrest

of the accused or seizure of the article. This judgement of Gurbax Singh (supra) was relied upon by the Hon'ble Apex Court inB abubhai Odhavji

Patel and others v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 725 : (AIR 2006 SC 102, )wherein it was affirmed that the provisions of Section 57 of

NDPS Act are not mandatory provisions and they are only directory.

Careful scrutiny of the evidence produced by the prosecution before the trial Court does not show that due to non-compliance of these provisions,

any prejudice was caused to the appellants.

Independent witness Ashok (PW-6) has not supported the prosecution and Magan has not been examined before the trial Court. Ashok has been

declared hostile. He has not admitted his signatures on the documents purportedly prepared on the spot at the time of alleged recovery and seizure

from the appellants. He has not submitted any plausible explanation of his signature on these documents of the prosecution. Therefore, it appears that

he is not a trustworthy witness. On the other hand, there is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the police officers, whose testimonies are

supported by the documents prepared on the spot. Therefore, absence of corroboration of the independent witnesses does not affect the case of the

prosecution adversely. It is held in recent judgement rendered in Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab AIR 2020 SC 303 (J-3) 9 that merely because

prosecution has not examined any independent witness, same would not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the appellant has been falsely

implicated. The evidence of Seizing Officer in this case is totally reliable as it remained unshaken and unrebutted throughout the cross-examination and

very well supported by the other witnesses examined by the prosecution and further corroborated by the documents proved by all these witnesses. In

this regard; reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tahir v. State(Delhi) reported in (1996) 3 SCC 338 : (AIR 1996 SC

3079), wherein the Court observed that if the testimony of Police official is found reliable, it can be made the basis for conviction. In such a case,

corroboration from some independent witness is not necessary and the only rule of caution will apply. In Kulwinder Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab

AIR 2015 SC 2488 also it was held that the prosecution cannot be rejected solely on ground of non-examination of independent witnesses if evidence

of official witnesses are trustworthy and credible.

In the case in hand, TI Mr. Tomar and DSP Mr. Tiwari have deposed that Mr. Tomar had received the intimation, sent the same to the SP, Dhar

with a request to depute some Gazetted Officer, DSP Mr. Tiwari was deputed and reported at Police Station Gandhwani. From the Police Station,

DSP Mr. Tiwari (PW-7), TI Mr. Tomar (PW-5), ASI Mehta, Head Constable Sitaram (PW-3), Constable Sohan Singh (PW-2) and Driver Sanjay

proceeded towards the spot. On the spot, Mr. Tiwari conducted search and seizure. They all came back to the police station, handed over the articles

to the Moharir and registered the crime. In his unchallenged testimony Ompraksh PW-1 has stated that on the request of HC Sitaram, he had gone

with him and had weighed the Ganja. Head Constable Sitaram PW-3 and Constable Sohan Singh PW-2 have supported the recovery and seizure.

Constable Swamideen PW-4 has supported preparation of Mukhbir Suchna Panchnam Ex.P/1. HC Salim Khan has proved deposit of contraband in

the Malkhana of the police Station (Ex.P/37). Constable Ezaz Khan has stated that he had delivered the samples to the FSL and HC Rajaque Shah

has stated that he had recived request of the TI of PS, Gandhwani to apprise the SP with the information and to request him to depute any Gazetted

Officer. No challenge is made to the statements of both these witnesses. The statements of all these witnesses are well supported by the documents

proved by them. The learned trial Court has appreciated them all in detail in the impugned judgement. It can be safely deduced from the

aforementioned discussion that the prosecution has proved the case by leading cogent evidence, which proved guilt of the appellants beyond

reasonable doubt and there is no grounds to interfere with the same.

The alternate plea taken by the learned Counsel of the appellants is that the offence was committed 22 years back. Since then, the appellants are

facing trial. They have always co-operated with the proceedings of the Court. They have been granted bail during the trial and have never misused the

liberty granted by the Court. They are the first offender and have no criminal record. Neither prior nor after registration of this case any other criminal

case of what-so-ever nature, has ever been registered against them. Only small quantity of less harmful contraband Ganja was recovered from their

possession. They belong to very poor families with no resources of livelihood. They were simple agricultural labourer and were earning his livelihood

by doing labour work as daily wager. At the time of commission of the offence, Karan Singh was 50 and Laxman was 45 year old. Now Karan Singh

is running in 72 years of age and Laxmant is 67 year old. No useful purpose would be achieved by sending them in jail after 22 years of the incident

that too at the age of 70 years. Therefore, their sentence be reduced to the period already undergone.

The learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer, but has not contested the facts that the appellants are the first offender and no other

criminal case has ever been registered against them.

I have considered the prayer.

Only 950 grams Ganja was recovered from appellant Karan Singh, which, according to the notification issued by Ministry of Finance, Department

of Revenue No. S.O. 527(E) dated 16th July 1996 is small quantity. As per Section 20 (ii)(b)(A) of the Act, 1985, prescribed sentence for such

offence was rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months or fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both. Thus, the

sentence awarded to him (Karan Singh) is contrary to the law and is, therefore, set aside.

Appellant Karan Singh has remained in jail from 19.04.1998 to 24.06.1998 i.e. 64 days and from 09.08.2000 to 25.03.2001 i.e. 220 days. Thus, he

has completed maximum prescribed sentence for the offence alleged against him and therefore, there is no need to reduce his sentence to the period

already undergone.

The quantity recovered from appellant Laxman is 1550 grams. As per Section 20 (ii)(b)(B) of the Act, 1985, the sentence prescribed for quantity

more than 01 kg to 20 kg is up to 10 years rigorous with fine of up to rupees one lakh.

The incident took place on 18.04.1998.

Appellant Laxman has remained in jail from 19.04.1998 to 24.06.1998 i.e. 64 days and from 09.08.2000 to 25.11.2000 i.e. 108 days total 172 days

or about 6 months.

Looking at the facts narrated by the learned counsel for the appellant and considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality and the

quantity recovered from the appellant Laxman, I find some force in the prayer of the appellants and deem it proper to reduce his sentence to the

period already suffered by him. Therefore, his appeal is allowed to the extent that his conviction under Section 20 (ii) (b)(B) of the Act, 1985 is

confirmed but his sentence for the same is set aside. For the offence found proved against him, he is awarded imprisonment for the period already

under gone with the fine awarded by the learned trial Court.

With the aforesaid modification, the appeals are partly allowed to the extent indicated here-in-above and are disposed off.

The order of the learned trial Court in respect of disposal of the case property is hereby confirmed.