1 / 22 2025:CGHC:14797 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 379 of 2022 Judgment Reserved on : 27.01.2025 Judgment Delivered on : 27.03.2025  Vinod Kumar Kafle, S/o Santosh Kumar Kafle, aged about 23 years, Resident of village – Kanipokhari, Ward No.2, Police Station = Bahuni Nagar Palika – Morand, District – Virat Nagar Morand (Nepal) . ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J (CAV Judgment) 1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.01.2022 passed by the Special Judge (NDPS Act), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon (C.G.) in Special Criminal 2 / 22 Case (N.D.P.S. Act 1985) No.41/2018, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 05.03.2018, Sub Inspector Krishna Sahu, who was posted in the year 2018 in DCRB Branch, Kondagaon, was orally assigned the duty to curb the illegal business and to take action against antisocial elements, received a secret information to the effect that a brown colour mini Truck bearing registration No. PG-11-BN-4017 was transporting contraband article ganja from Malkangiri to Raipur through Jagdalpur Kondagaon road. The above information was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha and summoned the independent witnesses namely Ghanshyam Sharma and Anil Chandrakar through Constable – Narendra Netam and served a notice under Section 16 of Cr.P.C. making them aware about the secret information and obtained consent for becoming witness. Thereafter, the Investigation Officer sent information to SDOP, Kondagaon through post regarding presence on the spot for proceeding but SDOP was not present at the headquarters. The Investigating Officer, 3 / 22 fearing delay in informing other senior officer or in obtaining search warrant and the possibility of the suspects absconding and no other senior officer being present in the police station, without obtaining a search warrant himself went along with staff Head Constable Rajesh Manhar, Jaiman Mandavi, Narendra Netam, Constable Ashok Kumar and lady Constable Usha Dugga in Govt. vehicle No. CG- 03-5167 with investigation kit and independent witnesses, and set up a blockade near Bandha lake NH-30. At around 02:40 PN, a suspicious vehicle was seen coming which was stopped and checked. There were two people in the said vehicle. Upon asking their names and addresses, the person sitting in the driver's seat told his name to be Jainendra Kumar alias Gaurav Sarama and the person sitting on the adjacent seat told his name to be Binod Kumar Kafle. The suspicious vehicle was covered with a brown tarpaulin and its trolley was filled with drums of a chemical liquid called 2-ETHYL HEXANOL which the driver Jainendra Kumar told that it was being transported from Visakhapatnam to Delhi and presented the documents. The Investigating Officer, in order to ascertain the authenticity of the secret information, got both the accused persons off the vehicle and they were informed about their legal rights by giving them a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act regarding the search by a gazetted officer, Magistrate or himself, on which the accused persons agreed to get 4 / 22 themselves searched by the Investigation Officer. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer got himself, his accompanying staff, government vehicle and witnesses searched and no suspicious material was found. Then the accused persons were searched and during their search, the keys of the suspicious vehicle, Vivo mobile, cash of Rs. 980/-, driving license, duplicate RC of the suspicious vehicle, duplicate copy of PAN card, documents of transportation of chemical kept in the suspicious vehicle were recovered from accused Jainendra Kumar and a Samsung tablet, birth certificate issued by Morand Municipality Nepal, mark sheet of class 8th, school TC were recovered from appellant Vinod Kafle. During the search of suspicious vehicle, a liquid named ETHYL HEXANOL was found in a trolley in a green coloured drum. In total 40 drums, in the middle of which 9 pieces of suspicious material were hidden in white coloured plastic bags, goods transport permit, national permit, insurance in the dashboard, PUC, challan receipt and photocopy of order dated 15.05.2015 passed by High Court of Patna, Bihar in Cri.Misc. No.17838/2015. 3. Upon identification of the recovered suspicious substance, it was found to be contraband article ganja. Thereafter, a notice under section 67 NDPS Act was issued to the accused persons produce valid documents regarding transportation, possession or sale of the recovered narcotic 5 / 22 substance, but they were unable to produce the same. Then the Investigating Officer summoned Sitendra Karan with electronic weighing machine through Head Constable Rajesh Manhar for weighing the recovered ganja and obtained consent by giving notice and physical verification of the electronic weighing machine. 9 sacks of recovered ganja were marked as Ex. A-1 to A-9 and all the sacks were weighed and it was found to be 218.630 kg., which were sealed on the spot. The articles recovered from the accused persons were seized and they were arrested. During interrogation, the accused persons told that the owner of vehicle Karam Singh had come with them from Delhi and got 40 drums of chemical loaded from Visakhapatnam on 26.02.2018, then all of them stayed near Koraput Sungi border for 5-6 days. On the night of 04.03.2018, Karam Singh got the ganja loaded in the vehicle and sent them away and he stayed there saying that he would come later. He told that the ganja belonged to Karam Singh and that he would take it to Delhi and sell it, and he promised them to give them Rs.10,000 each in exchange for delivering the goods. The investigating officer registered dehati nalishi No.08/18 on the spot. Thereafter, he took the accused persons and the property seized from them along with the staff and witnesses back to Police Station – Kondagaon and submitted dehati nalishi, on the basis of which, Sub Inspector Anurag Sonwani registered Crime No. 6 / 22 62/2018 under section 20 (B) of NDPS Act against the accused at Kondagaon police station. The investigating officer handed over the seized property property seized from the accused persons to Maalkhana clerk Head Constable Tekram Dhruv for keeint it safe in the Maalkhana and obtained the acknowledgment receipt thereof. During investigation, spot map was prepared, statements of witnesses were recorded. Proceeding of the samras, inventory and sampling of the contraband article ganja was got done through the Executive Magistrate, Kondagaon, which was also photographed. Sample packets prepared during inventory were sent to FSL, Raipur for it chemical examination through memo of Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon, and a report thereof was obtained in which opinion was given that the sample packets contained ganja. 4. After completing the usual investigation, during the absconding period of accused Karam Singh, charge sheet under Section 20 (b) of the NDPS Act was filed against the accused/appellant before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act against the appellant and other co-accused persons, to which the appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial. 5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all 7 / 22 the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. During trial, Jainendra Kumar @ Gaurav Sharma was absent and accused/appellant Vinod Kumar Kafle was in judicial custody, so accused Jainendra was declared absconding and his case was separated from the appellant Vinod Kumar Kafle and further proceeding was taken in the case. 7. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court is perverse, erroneous, contrary to law and not sustainable in the eye of law. The alleged offence on the accused/appellant is based on the statement of independent witnesses, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and declared hostile. The seizure of contraband in the case has also not been proved. Learned counsel further submits that Rajesh Kumar Manhar (PW-5), Head Constable, has not stated about the number of suspicious vehicle and weight of the seized contraband/bags. Learned counsel further stated that in acknowledgment receipt of supurdnama (Ex.P/38) it has not been stated by Tekram 8 / 22 Dhruv (PW-7) whether the article was sealed or opened, as such, the seizure of contraband creates suspicion. That apart, Ghanshyam Sharma (PW/-1) and Anil Kumar Chandrakar (PW-2), have specifically denied the identification of the appellant, seizure of contraband article ganja and statement of appellant recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel also submits that the appellant is not owner of the vehicle and he was only a passenger and he was not in exclusive possession of the vehicle, therefore, also the complicity of the appellant in the crime in question is not proved. It is also clear that all contraband was mixed and thereafter sample packets were prepared, which is clear violation of Standing order 1/89 dated 13.06.1989 issued under Sub Section (1) of Section 52A of NDPS Act by the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. It is also not proved by the prosecution that sample packets were remained in safe custody before sending it to FSL, as such, the prosecution case become suspicious. In support of her submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the matter of Lalit @ Deepak Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [Cra. No. 614/2015, judgment dated 07.09.2023], decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mangilal Vs. State of M.P. [Criminal Appeal No.1651/2023, order date 12.07.2023], Jitendra & another Vs. State of M.P. reported in (2004) 10 SCC 562, 9 / 22 Union of India Vs. Jarooparam reported in (2018) 4 SCC 334, State of Karnataka Vs. Dondusa Namasa Baddi reported in (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 576, Simarnjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Criminal Appeal No.1443/2023, order dated 09.05.2023] decision of High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Saudan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2002 (Cri) 4816 . 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence submits that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. So, the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant. The instant appeal is without any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that the learned trial Court framed charge under Section 20 (b) (ii-C) of the NDPS on this ground that the appellant possessed 218.630 kg ganja in vehicle bearing registration No.PB-11-BN-4017 which was in his possession on 05.03.2018. 12. Ghanshyam Sharma (PW-1) and Anil Kumar Chandrakar (PW-2) are the independent witnesses. They have admitted their signature on all the documents but denied any search and seizure of contraband before them and have also 10 / 22 denied this fact that contraband article ganja was recovered from illegal possession of the appellant. The prosecution declared these witnesses hostile and these witnesses denied all suggestions of prosecution. 13. Sitendra Karan (PW-3) is also a independent witness, who weighed the contraband ganja and admitted his signature on notice (Ex.P-20 and P-22) & certificate (Ex.P-32). This witness has denied this fact that he weighed all contraband and it was found to be 218.630 kg. The prosecution has declared this witness hostile and cross-examined him but he denied all suggestions of prosecution and stated that police called him in police station and got the documents signed by him. 14. Anurag Sonwani (PW-8), Sub-Inspector has stated that on the basis of dehati nalisi (Ex.P-41), he registered the FIR (Ex.P-42). 15. Krishna Sahu (PW-9), Sub – Inspector, has stated that on 05.03.2018, he received a secret information to the effect that some persons were transporting contraband in a Truck bearing registration No. PB-11-BN-4017 to Raipur. The said information was recorded in the Rojnamcha Sanha and summoned two independent witnesses namely Ghanshyam Sharma and Anil Chandrakar and served a notice making them aware about the secret information and obtained consent for becoming witness. Thereafter, he sent information to SDOP, Kondagaon but SDOP was not 11 / 22 present at the headquarters and being the senior officer he himself along with staff and witnesses went in govt. vehicle after preparing panchanama for not being able to obtain search warrant and after setting up blockade near Bandha lake, the vehicle was intercepted and checked. This witness has also submitted that there were two people in the said vehicle. The person sitting in the driver's seat told his name to be Jainendra Kumar alias Gaurav Sharma and the person sitting on the adjacent seat told his name to be Vinod Kumar Kafle, resident of Nepal, whom he made them aware about the secret information of contraband and informed about their legal rights by giving them a notice regarding the search and after obtaining their consent, the vehicle and accused persons were searched. Some cash, mobile, other documents, documents related to vehicle and photocopy of bail order of owner of vehicle Karan Singh was seized. And upon searching the vehicle, liquid named ETHYL HEXANOL was found in 40 drums and in the middle of which, 9 pieces of suspicious material were hidden in white coloured plastic bags, which was identified on the spot and the same found to be substance like ganja. He has also submitted that valid documents regarding the transportation of contraband was demanded by giving them notice under Section 67 of NDPS Act but the accused person failed to submit such documents. Thereafter, the contraband was exhibited from A1 to A9 and got weighted by calling electronic weighing 12 / 22 machine and weigher and the same was found to be 2 quintal and 18 kilogram. This witness has also stated that thereafter he recorded dehati nalishi under Section 20B of NDPS Act and issued notice to the accused persons and before two witnesses search and seizure was carried out. 16. According to the Investigating Officer (PW-9), he deposited the contraband in maalkhana and received acknowledgment thereof under Ex.P-38 from Head Constable Tek Ram Dhruv (PW-7), who has stated that on 05.03.2018 he received 09 sealed bags marked as A-1 to A-9 for keeping the same in maalkhana. He has also stated that on 08.03.2018, on the instruction of Sub-Inspector Anurag Sonwani (PW-8), took out the contraband from the maalkhana for presenting it before the Executive Magistrate for samras (collection) and sampling proceeding and the entry of which was made by him in page No.60 of the Maalkhana register. 17. Smt. Aasha Mourya (PW-6), Executive Magistrate, has stated in para 3 of her examination-in-chief that the seized contraband ganja was presented before her for samras and sampling proceeding. She got all the bags of contraband opened and mixed together (samras) under Ex.Z-1 and thereafter got prepared 60-60 grams sample packets separately. 18. Main objection of the appellants is that it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantity of contraband was seized from the 13 / 22 exclusive possession of the accused/appellant and it was also necessary that all the seizure memo and physical verification proceedings were conducted before any Magistrate but in this case the prosecution did not follow the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It is also clear that the samples were not collected from all the packets which is clear from Samras Panchanama (Ex.Z-1). 19. Nemichand Bhandari (PW-10), Constable, has stated that on 19.03.2018, he received two sample packets marked X1 and X2 related to crime No. 62/18 of Section 20B of NDPS of Kondagaon Police Station from Head Constable Maalkhana Clerk Tekram Dhruv (PW-7) for depositing the same in FSL, Raipur, and he was also given a draft of Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon on 14.03.2018 in one copy. He has also stated that on 19.03.2018, the said sample packed and draft was deposited by him in the FSL, Raipur. He has also stated that after depositing the said packets he was given acknowledgment receipt (Ex.P/66), which was given to Maalkhana Clerk Tekram Dhruv (PW-7) by him. 20. It is case of the appellant that the Investigating Officer had not complied with the Standing Order 1/89 and not taken sample from each of 9 sacks. Total 9 sacks of ganja were seized from the vehicle and only two samples were taken out from the contraband after mixing them, which is not permissible as per law. 14 / 22 21. Though no procedure is prescribed either in the N.D.P.S. Act or in the N.D.P.S. Rules regarding the manner in which the samples are to be drawn but a Standing Order 1/89 has been issued by the Central Government in this regard, wherein general procedures for sampling, storage etc. have been given which reads as under :- “2.1. All drug shall be properly classified, carefully weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure. 2.2. All the packages/containers shall be serially numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witnesses (Panchas) and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchanama drawn on the spot. 2.3. The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in the cases of opium, ganja and charas (hashish) where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages/containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is drawn. 2.4. In the case of seizure of a single package/container, one sample in duplicate shall be drawn. Normally, it is advisable to draw one 15 / 22 sample (in duplicate) from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. 2.5. However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings, and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages/containers may be carefully bunched in lots of ten packages/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 2.6. Where after making such lots, in the case of hashish and ganja, less than 20 packages/containers remain and, in the case of other drugs, less than 5 packages/containers remain, no bunching would be necessary and no samples need be drawn. 2.7. If such remainder is 5 or more in the case of other drugs and substances and 20 or more in the case of ganja and hashish, one more sample (in duplicate) may be drawn for such remainder package/container. 2.8. While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must he ensured that representative samples in equal quantity are taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot. 16 / 22 2.9. The sample in duplicate should be kept in heat-sealed plastic bags as it is convenient and safe. The plastic bag container should be kept in a paper envelope which may be sealed properly. Such sealed envelope may be marked as original and duplicate. Both the envelopes should also bear the No. of the package(s)/container(s) from which the sample has been drawn. The duplicate envelope containing the sample will also have a reference of the test memo. The seals should be legible. This envelope along with test memos should be kept in another envelope which should also he sealed and marked "Secret Drug sample/Test memo", to be sent to the chemical laboratory concerned.” 22. From perusal of Instruction 2.4, it is evident that it is advisable to draw one sample in duplicate from each package/container in case of seizure of more than one package/container. Instruction 2.5 provides an exception to Instruction 2.4. It has been provided in Instruction 2.5 that when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings, and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages/containers may be carefully bunched in lots of ten packages/containers except in the case of ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of 17 / 22 packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn. 23. Thus, in the aforesaid situations, a representative sample can be drawn after bunching together the contents of numerous packages. The essential requirement before such an action of drawing a representative sample can be undertaken is that the contents of each package have to be subjected to colour test by U.N. drug testing Kit. Once the test is conducted and the result indicates that all the packages are identical in all respects, then a representative sample can be taken out after bunching the packages. Hence, the Investigating Officer was under an obligation to collect separate samples from each of the packets so that the analysis of the contents of each of the packets could be performed individually. As the investigating officer before drawing the samples, proceeded to mix the contents of the all the packets without subjecting them to the test by the U.N. Kit, the accused has a right to contend that one of the packets might not have contained contraband ganja. If at all the prosecution desired to prove that all the packets contained ganja, then it was essential for the samples to have been collected and analysed individually from all the packets or else, the test by U.N. Kit should have been carried out on the material present in all the packets. 24. Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the identical issue in Simarnjit Singh (supra) observed in para 8 as under :- 18 / 22 “8. In paragraphs 15 to 17 of the decision of this Court in Mohanlal’s case, it was held thus : “15. It is manifest from Section 52-A(2) include (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of (a) certifying the correctness of the inventory, (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true, and (c0 to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples to drawn. 16. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the police station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty-bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. 17. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub- 19 / 22 sections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure.” 25. In the light of above, in the instant case also, it is apparent that the Executive Magistrate (PW-6) had first mixed the entire contraband ganja and after mixing (samras) whole contraband, prepared inventory under Ex.P-35. It is also clear from this inventory that all the contraband ganja was first mixed and after mixing, prepared two sample packets of 60-60 gram each, as such the Executive Magistrate failed to comply with Standing Order 1/89. The prosecution has failed to prove the fact that sample packets were taken out from each 09 sacks of contraband ganja. 26. It is also apparent from the evidence of Nemichand Bhandari (PW-10), Constable, that on 19.03.2018, he received two sample packets marked X1 and X2 related to Crime No. 62/18 of Section 20B of NDPS of Kondagaon Police Station from Head Constable Maalkhana Clerk Tekram Dhruv (PW-7) for depositing the same and he received one draft (Ex.P-65) dated 14.03.2018 of Superintendent of Police, Kondagaon, and he deposited the sample packets and draft in FSL, Raipur, and received acknowledgment receipt thereof which is Ex.P/66. That apart, both the independent witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) 20 / 22 have not supported the search and seizure proceeding of contraband. Further, the registration documents related to the suspicious vehicle seized by the prosecution nowhere spells about the ownership of the appellant and he is not a registered owner of the said vehicle. 27. The Investigating Officer (PW-9) has admitted in para 21 of his evidence that he went to Amritsar to inquire about the ownership of vehicle bearing registration No. PB-11-BN- 4017 and gave a report on 19.08.2018 to District Transport Officer, Amritsar, and according to the RC book received from the District Transport Officer, Amritsar, the owner of the said vehicle was Karam Singh, S/o Chanan Singh, R/o village Rattar Chattar, Tahsil Dera Baba Nanak, District Gurdaspur. It has also come in the evidence of this witness that when he went to the said address to know about the whereabout the owner, the owner found to be absconded and prepared a absconding panchanama to this effect which is Ex.P-63. 28. From the above evidence of Investigating Officer (PW-10), it is evident that the prosecution has utterly failed to proved this fact that the appellant is owner of the seized vehicle. It has also failed to comply with Standing order 1/89 issued by the Central Government. 29. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, material available on record and also 21 / 22 considering the evidence of Executive Magistrate (PW-6), Investigating Officer (PW/10) and also considering the fact that instructions given in Standing Order No. 1/89 issued by the Central Government has not been followed in the instant case. This Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the learned trial Court has also committed grave legal error in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. As such, the judgment impugned deserves to be set aside. 30. For the foregoing reasons, this appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act. The appellant is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case. 31. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the Court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period fo six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 22 / 22 32. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge pekde Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE