1 2025:CGHC:59996 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 1643 of 2025 1 - Pradeep Pandey S/o Shatruhan Pandey, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village- Kumhrauli, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, Present Residence- Nigarband Road Takhatpur, Naya Colony Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - Kanti Pandey @ Kajal, W/o Pradeep Pandey, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village- Kumhrauli, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District Mungeli, Present Residence- Nigarband Road Takhatpur, Naya Colony Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sakari, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WITH CRA No. 1708 of 2025 Abhay Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ramji Singh Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Sherpur, Police Station - Akodhi Gola, District - Rohtas (Bihar), Present Address - C.S.B. Colony, Korba, District - Korba Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Sakri, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WITH CRA No. 1820 of 2025 Sohan @ Golu Sahu S/o Shri Bedram Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o Village - Pendri, Police Station - Nawagarh, District - Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Sakari, District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Pragya Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 10.12.2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. All these appeals are being heard together as the common thread passes through the issue. 3. These criminal appeals filed by the appellants-accused under Section 415 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (henceforth “BNSS”) are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), 3 Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Sessions (NDPS) Case No. 120 of 2024, whereby they have been convicted & sentenced as under :- Name of Appellant Conviction Sentence In Default of Payment of Fine Pradeep Pandey Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.50,000/- Additional RI for 01 year Kanti Pandey @ Kajal Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.50,000/- Additional RI for 01 year Abhay Kumar Singh Under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.50,000/- Additional RI for 01 year Sohan @ Golu Sahu Under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 RI for 05 years and fine amount of Rs.50,000/- Additional RI for 01 year 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.10.2024, the Station-in- charge Sub Inspector Hemant Aditya (P.W.11) received secret information to the effect that some persons were going from Korba to Takhatpur via Mopka Bypass through road connected with Sakari Under- Bridge Kanan Pendari Kathakoni for selling ganja. After receiving 4 information, necessary proceedings were done and thereafter blockade was made by the police near Ghogha Nala situated in village Kathakoni and in meanwhile one Innova Car No. C.G. -10/M-4100 appeared to be coming from side of Kanan Pendari. It is further alleged that an attempt was made to intercept the Innova Car but it was the driver of the Innova Car who made an attempt to flee after getting the car turned back and the car turned upside down and two persons namely the accused no.1 Vishnu @ Bablu Chandra and the accused no.2 Sohan @ Golu Sahu came out from the car and were trying to flee but they were caught by the police team. It is further alleged that in search there were three sacks containing Ganja (first sack containing 09.730 K.G. ganja, second sack contacting 04.100 K.G. ganja and third sack contacting 02.990 K.G. Ganja, total 16.820 K.G. ganja) found inside Innova Car No. C.G. -10/M-4100 and the same was seized from joint possession of the accused no.1 Vishnu @ Bablu Chandra and the accused no.2 were going to sell the sized ganja to the accused no.3 Pradip Pandey and the accused no.4 Kanti Pandey @ Kajal. It is further alleged that the accused no.5 Aman Shukla and the accused no.6 Abhay Kumar Singh were in Swift Dezire Car No. C.G.- 12/B.H. -1643 and they were ahead of Innova Car No. C.G. -10/M-4100 for patrolling purpose. 5. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants (the accused persons). Charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 5 1985 was framed against the appellants (the accused). The appellants have denied the charge, pleaded innocence and claimed for trial. 6. On 05.08.2025, the learned Special Judge (NDPS Act) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) has passed the judgment dated 05.08.2025 and thereby has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Hence appeals. 7. Mr. Basant Kaiwartya, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No.1643 of 2025 would submit that the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2025 (Annexure A-1) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore liable to be set-aside. The present applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that seized 16.820 Kgs of Ganja was not seized from the joint possession of the present applicants and other co-accused. Total of 16.820 Kgs of Ganja has been recovered from the possession of co-accused person the same is less than the commercial quantity. The appellants Pradeep Pandey and Kanti Pandey @ Kajal were made accused without any investigation due to their presence. The information given in the memorandum statement Ex. P.-44 of accused Bablu @ Vishnu Chandra has been certified, on the basis of which it is proved that applicants is proved to be a co-accused by being involved in the crime. On behalf of the applicants, it that Section 52 A of the NDPS was not followed in the case. He further submit that the Exhibit "D" (seized from accused Pradeep Pandey), a Redmi company mobile whose model is REDMI 11 6 PRIME, whose IMEI number is 860825053442736, 860825053442744, in which Jio company SIM card whose ICCID number is 89918630400471851177 was installed, the mobile was in working condition. Exhibit "E" (seized from accused Kanti Pandey), a Vivo company mobile whose model is V2303, whose IMEI number is 862736067639639, 862736067639621, in which Jio company SIM card whose ICCID number is 89918630400806582166 was installed. He further submit that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that there are material omission and contraction in the deposition and (Investigation officer Excise Sub Inspector). His evidence is wholly unreliable. Hence, learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the convecton of the appellants cannot be based on the testimony of such witness. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the offence under section 20 (b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985, is not attracted against the present appellants, so, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to consider the case and grant bail to present appellants. The impugned judgment is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the law, it is therefore liable to be set-aside. 8. Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1708 of 2025 would submit that the learned trial court has not properly appreciated the facts and evidences available on record while passing the impugned order. The learned trial court has failed in appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses in proper perspective. He further 7 submits that there are major contradictions between the prosecution witnesses' police statements and their court statements. It is also worth to be noted that there are substantial developments in the prosecution witnesses' court statements. Therefore, the learned trial court should have acquitted the appellant of the charge framed under section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985. The prosecution witnesses are not reliable. Therefore, the learned trial court should have acquitted the appellant of the charge framed under section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985. There are number of contradiction and discrepancies in statements of prosecution witnesses. Therefore, the learned trial court should have acquitted the appellant of the charge framed under section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985. Mandatory provisions given in the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 have not been complied with. The prosecution has failed to establish any offence against the appellant, and therefore, the learned trial court should have acquitted the appellant of the charge framed under section 20(b)(ii)(B) read with section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act 1985. He further submits that the appellant has been convicted on basis of the alleged memorandum statement of the co-accused Aman Shukla whereas the said memorandum statement is not admissible in eyes of law. The prosecution has failed to prove connection 8 of the mobile allegedly seized from the appellant with the crime in question. The prosecution has failed to adduce any reliable evidence which goes to show connection of the appellant with other co-accused persons. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.2025 and further be pleased to acquit the appellant from the charge. 9. Mr. Virendra Verma, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ashutosh Trivedi, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1820 of 2025 would submit that the learned Trial Court has gravely erred in convicting the Appellant despite the complete absence of any active participation or incriminating role attributed to him in the alleged offence. The Appellant was merely a passenger in the Innova car, and the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to establish that he had conscious possession of the alleged contraband or was actively involved in its transportation or illegal sale. The entire conviction is based on surmises and conjectures regarding his presence in the vehicle. The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the seizure witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case regarding the recovery and seizure. Their deposition in court clearly negates the prosecution's claim of a transparent seizure in their presence, thereby rendering the entire seizure doubtful and unreliable. He further submits that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been strictly complied with by 9 the police officials, vitiating the entire search and seizure proceedings. Even assuming, without admitting, that the Appellant gave written consent to be searched by the Investigating Officer, the law mandates that the accused must be informed of their right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and, if they so choose, must actually be taken before such an officer for the search. The mere recording of a "consent" does not absolve the police of this statutory duty. This non- compliance is fatal to the prosecution's case. The Hon'ble Apex court in similar matters have categorically held that strict compliance with Section 50 is mandatory, and an offer to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer must be made in an intelligible manner, and if the accused so desires, he must be produced before such officer. The mandatory provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been satisfactorily taken care of, rendering the warrantless search illegal. While the information was recorded in the daily diary and Constable Amit Porte was sent to inform CSP Sakri, the prosecution's plea of "unavailability" of the CSP and risk of delay to conduct a warrantless search, followed by a mere "report to a senior officer," does not meet the strict requirements of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act. The immediacy and impracticability of obtaining the orders of a superior officer, or producing the accused before one, must be clearly established, which is lacking in the present case. The learned Trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the alleged statements of the accused recorded under Section 10 67 of the NDPS Act, which are generally inadmissible as they are made before a police officer. There is no corroborative evidence to lend credence to these alleged disclosures. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the Court may kindly be pleased to allow this appeal and set-aside the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.2025 and further be pleased to acquit the appellant from the charge. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that the investigating officer at the time of effecting search and seizure proceedings has substantially complied with all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Learned trial Court having appreciated the overall oral and documentary evidence has rightly recorded a finding of guilt against the appellants which needs no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeals being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. In order to examine the above facts and submissions/evidences, it would be appropriate to refer to the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 11 13. On perusal of the records, it transpires that there is violation of Standing Order No.1 of 1989 as well as provisions of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act, which prescribes the procedure to be followed while conducting seizure of the contraband. It is also found that samples of the seized contraband Ganja were not taken in presence of the Magistrate and it is also pertinent to mention that entries has not been made before the Magistrate and also no photographs have been taken of the contraband in presence of the Magistrate. 14. Standing Order 1/89 Section-II, General Procedure For Sampling, Storage, Etc.- “Whereas the Central Government considers it necessary and expedient to determine the manner in which the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances shall as soon as may after their seizure, be disposed of having regard to their hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution and constraints of proper storage space.” 15. Relevant Sections of the NDPS Act read as under :- “52-A. Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.- [(1)…… (2)…...Where any [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under section 53, the officer referred to in subsection (1) shall prepare an inventory of such [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying 12 particulars of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-section (1) may consider relevant to the identity of the [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of- (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or (b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of [such drugs or substances or conveyances] and certifying such photographs as true; or (c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn. (3) Where an application is made under subsection (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, controlled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under subsection (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence]. 16. In the case at hand, date of incident is of 21.10.2024 and, therefore, as per provision of Section 52A(2), (3) & (4) of the NDPS Act when any contraband/narcotic substance is seized and forwarded to the police or to the officer so mentioned under Section 53, the officer so referred to in sub-section (1) shall prepare its inventory with details and the description of the seized substance like quality, quantity, mode of packing, 13 numbering and identifying marks and then make an application to any Magistrate for the purposes of certifying its correctness and for allowing to draw representative samples of such substances in the presence of the Magistrate and to certify the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. 17. Notwithstanding the defence set up from the side of the respondent in the instant case, no evidence has been brought on record to the effect that the procedure prescribed under subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Section 52A of the NDPS Act was followed while making the seizure and drawing sample such as preparing the inventory and getting it certified by the Magistrate. No evidence has been brought on record that the samples were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list of the samples so drawn were certified by the Magistrate. 18. In the matter of Union of India v. Mohanlal and another reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379, the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 52A of the NDPS Act clearly laid down that it is manifest from the said provision that upon seizure of the contraband, it has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who is obliged to prepare an inventory of the seized contraband and then to make an application to the Magistrate for the purposes of getting its correctness certified. It has been further laid down that the samples drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and the list thereof on being certified alone would constitute primary evidence for the purposes of the trial. 14 19. Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Yusuf @ Asif versus State (Criminal Appeal No.3191/2023), decided on 13.10.2023, has held as under:- “16. In the absence of any material on record to establish that the samples of the seized contraband were drawn in the presence of the Magistrate and that the inventory of the seized contraband was duly certified by the Magistrate, it is apparent that the said seized contraband and the samples drawn therefrom would not be a valid piece of primary evidence in the trial. Once there is no primary evidence available, the trial as a whole stands vitiated. 17. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the failure of the concerned authorities to lead primary evidence vitiates the conviction and as such in our opinion, the conviction of the appellant deserves to be set aside. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court as well as the trial court convicting the appellant and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine to undergo further imprisonment of one year is hereby set aside.” 20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sanjeet Kumar v. State of C.G. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine (SC) 1117, has held as under:- “18. But if the Court has - (i) to completely disregard the lack of corroboration of the testimony of police witnesses by independent witnesses; and (ii) to turn a Nelson’s eye to the independent witnesses turning hostile, then the story of the prosecution should be very convincing and the testimony of the official witnesses notably trustworthy. If independent witnesses come up with a story which creates a gaping hole in the prosecution theory, about the very search and seizure, then the case of the prosecution should collapse like a pack of cards. It is no doubt true that corroboration by independent witnesses is not always necessary. But once the prosecution comes up with a story that the search and 15 seizure was conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and they also choose to examine them before Court, then the Court has to see whether the version of the independent witnesses who turned hostile is unbelievable and whether there is a possibility that they have become turncoats. 31. Therefore, it is clear that the I.O. examined as PW-7 claims to have done everything only in the presence of independent witnesses. But those independent witnesses not merely denied their presence and participation but also came up with an explanation as to how their signatures found a place in those documents. 32. In such circumstances, a serious doubt is cast on the very search and seizure allegedly made by PW-7. But unfortunately, both the Special Court and the High Court went by the law in theory, without applying the same to the facts of the case.” 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Rajasthan versus Bher Singh reported in (2009) 16 SCC 293 has held as under:- “2. We have perused the evidence of PW 7 who seized the opium in question, as also the evidence of PW 9 who was the officer in charge of the malkhana and from their evidence, we find that it is not possible to hold that the seal allegedly put by PW 7 while taking the sample opium remained intact right through the time it reached the forensic science laboratory. This being a mandatory requirement to establish the fact that the seized goods was in fact a prohibited drug under the NDPS Act, we agree with the High Court on facts of this case that the prosecution has failed to establish this part of its case, hence, we find no reason to interfere in this appeal. Therefore, we dismiss the same.” 22. Considering facts of case, submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, witnesses of search and seizure, quantity of contraband 16 Ganja which was seized in total quantity 16.820 Kg (it is neither small quantity nor commercial quantity, it is an intermediate quantity) and other material and evidence available on record, further considering the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act and the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohanlal (supra), Yusuf @ Asif (supra), Sanjeet Kumar (supra) & Bher Singh (supra). 23. The Report of Regional Forensic Science Laboratory which shows that the samples of seized articles have been found positive. 24. Considering the submission with regard to sentence of the appellants, learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no previous antecedent against the appellants under the NDPS Act and the learned State Counsel has also affirmed this aspect. 25. With regard to conviction of the appellants - Pradeep Pandey & Kanti Pandey @ Kajal (in CRA No.1643 of 2025) and the appellant – Sohan @ Golu Sahu (in CRA No.1820 of 2025), this Court is of the view that the finding of conviction recorded by trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record which is neither perverse nor contrary to the records. Looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, in my considered view, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants -Pradeep Pandey, Kanti Pandey @ Kajal & Sohan @ Golu Sahu for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii) (B) of the NDPS Act, 1985. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial Court. 17 26. Thus, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants -Pradeep Pandey, Kanti Pandey @ Kajal & Sohan @ Golu Sahu. The conviction as awarded by the trial Court under Section 20(b) (ii)(B) of the NDPS Act, 1985 to the appellants -Pradeep Pandey, Kanti Pandey @ Kajal & Sohan @ Golu Sahu is hereby affirmed/maintained. 27. Considering entire facts and circumstances of case, evidence available on record, quantity of seized contraband, there is no previous antecedent against the appellants, period since appellants -Pradeep Pandey, Kanti Pandey @ Kajal & Sohan @ Golu Sahu are facing mental trauma and agony of pendency of criminal case, I am of the view that sentence imposed upon appellants -Pradeep Pandey, Kanti Pandey @ Kajal & Sohan @ Golu Sahu by trial Court of five years is on higher side. Accordingly, substantive jail sentence imposed upon appellants - Pradeep Pandey & Kanti Pandey @ Kajal (in CRA No.1643 of 2025) and the appellant – Sohan @ Golu Sahu (in CRA No.1820 of 2025) of five years is reduced to 02-02 years. However, sentence of fine awarded by trial Court is hereby affirmed/maintained. Ordered accordingly. 28. With regard to conviction and sentence of the appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh (in CRA No.1708 of 2025), I have found that on the basis of statement made by one co-accused Aman Shukla, the present appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh has been arrested by the police. Further considering the fact that mobile phone has been seized from the Abhay 18 Kumar Singh, but neither there is any call detail obtained nor any call detail report has been submitted by the prosecution. Learned State counsel has also admitted the fact that only on the basis of confessional statement made by the co-accused - Aman Shukla, appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh has been arrested. Contraband material has also not been seized from the possession of the appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh and he has also not arrested from the spot. Therefore, on perusal of the evidence and record, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the nexus between Abhay Kumar Singh and other co-accused persons. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has committed legal error in convicting and sentencing the appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) r/w Section 29 of the NDPS Act. As such, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside sine qua to the appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh. 29. For the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Appeal No.1708 of 2025 is allowed which is submitted by appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh and the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2025 is hereby set-aside with regard to the appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh. The appellant – Abhay Kumar Singh is acquitted of the charge levelled against him. He is reported to be in jail. He shall be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 30. Consequently, the CRA Nos.1643 of 2025 & 1820 of 2025 are allowed in 19 part while CRA No.1708 of 2025 is allowed. 31. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 32. Record of case be sent back forthwith with a copy of this order for information and necessary action. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant