As per case facts, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for possession of a commercial quantity of heroin after being apprehended with a co-accused, each carrying a separate quantity of ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
2025 INSC 993 1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025)
NADEEM AHAMED ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
WEST BENGAL ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The accused-appellant Nadeem Ahamed
1 has
approached this Court, through these appeals by
special leave, assailing the common judgement dated
17
th January, 2025, passed by the Division Bench of
High Court of judicature at Calcutta
2, whereby C.R.A.
(DB) 362 of 2024 preferred by the accused-appellant
under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
1
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘accused-appellant’.
2
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘High Court’.
2
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
Procedure, 1973
3, was rejected on the ground of
being time barred and delayed.
4. The accused-appellant stood convicted for the
offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of
the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985
4, vide judgment dated 24
th August, 2021
passed by the Judge, Special Court under NDPS Act
and Additional Sessions Judge, 12
th Court, Alipore,
24-Parganas (South), West Bengal
5. By the order of
sentence dated 26
th August, 2021, the trial Court
sentenced the accused-appellant to 10 years of
rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-.
In default of payment of fine, the accused-appellant
was sentenced to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for six months. As stated above, the
High Court refused to entertain the regular appeal
against conviction preferred by the accused-
appellant and dismissed the same on the ground of
delay alone.
3
For short, ‘CrPC’.
4
For short, ‘NDPS Act’.
5
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘trial Court.’
3
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
Facts of the case
5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 16
th
July, 2018, at about 17:30 hours, seizure officer S. I.
Subrata Saha, i.e., PW-2
6 received a source
information that two male persons would be coming
to supply heroin in the vicinity of Pragati Maidan
P.S.
7 area in the evening of the same day. The
information was reduced into writing, and a copy
thereof was forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the
Narcotic Cell. The seizure officer (PW-2) took
permission of the officer-in-charge, and formed a
raiding team. He carried the weighing scale, testing
kit, packing materials, etc. and reached near Laxmi
Store, which fell under the jurisdiction of the police
station, at about 19:30 hours. The source informant
led them to the prescheduled location, and they
maintained a watch. At about 20 :00 hours, the
source informant pointed towards two male persons
coming along the Metropolitan from south to north
direction. Both of them were detained by the seizure
officer (PW-2) with the help of the members of the
raiding team.
6
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘seizure officer (PW-2).’
7
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘police station.’
4
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
6. Two independent persons were requested to
stand as panchas in the search. The purpose of
detention was disclosed to the detenues. The
detenues disclosed their identities as Amit Dutta @
Rakesh
8 (the co-accused) and Nadeem Ahamed (the
appellant herein). They were informed about their
right of being searched in the presence of either a
Magistrate or a Gazetted officer, as per Section 50 of
the NDPS Act. The detenues exercised the option to
be searched in the presence of a Gazetted officer.
However, no such officer was immediately available
in the vicinity. Therefore, the seizure officer (PW-2)
informed his superior officers.
7. At about 21:30 hours, Inspector Anand a
Swarup Nayak, Additional officer-in-charge, i.e.,
PW-4
9 came to the spot in uniform. He was
introduced as a Gazetted officer to the detenues, and
a re-confirmation was taken from both of them as to
whether they desired to be searched at the spot in the
presence of Gazetted officer (PW-4), to which they
agreed.
8
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘co-accused’
9
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘Gazetted officer (PW-4)’
5
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
8. After observation of necessary pre-search
formalities, the search of the co-accused Amit Dutta
was conducted and, from his possession, narcotic
drug, suspected to be heroin, weighing about 130
gms., some cash, a ring and a key, being personal
properties, were recovered. The accused-appellant
was also searched and narcotic drug, suspected to be
heroin, weighing 125 gms. was found stashed on his
person, along with some cash, being his personal
property. A small portion of the narcotic drug
recovered from each of the detenues was tested by
the drug testing kit, which gave a positive indication
for the presence of heroin.
9. The gross weight of the narcotic substance
recovered from both the detenues came to be about
255 gms. and thus, the seized contraband was
treated to be of commercial quantity. The drug
packets so recovered were seized, and sampling
procedure was carried out . One sample each,
weighing 10 gms., was collected from the individual
packets recovered from the detenues. The drug
packets were then packed, sealed and labelled as
Mark A and Mark B. The samples collected from both
the sealed packets were marked as S1 and S2.
6
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
10. As the detenues failed to give a satisfactory
explanation for the possession of the contraband,
both of them were arrested at about 00:30 hours on
17
th July, 2018. After investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed against both the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS
Act. The samples collected from the recovered drug
packets were forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory
10 for analysis. The test report concluded
that both the samples tested positive for the presence
of heroin.
Proceedings before the trial Court
11. The trial Court framed charges against the
accused-appellant and the co-accused for the
aforesaid offences. They pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as
6 witnesses, exhibited 21 documents and produced
22 muddamal articles in order to prove its case.
12. After hearing the arguments advanced by the
Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, the trial
Court proceeded to convict and sentence the
10
For short, ‘FSL’.
7
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
accused-appellant, as well as the co-accused, as
above, vide judgment dated 24
th August, 2021.
Proceedings before the High Court
13. The accused-appellant seems to have been
prevented from filing an appeal in time, and the
appeal against conviction under Section 374 (2)
CrPC, assailing the judgment of the trial Court, was
presented in the High Court with a delay of 1183
days.
14. It was pleaded in application for condonation
that the delay was caused due to the accused-
appellant’s financial crisis. However, the High Court
refused to condone the delay in filing of the appeal.
The High Court also took note of the fact that during
the intervening period, the appeal of the co-accused,
being Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2021, had been
rejected vide judgment dated 23
rd September, 2022.
Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the accused-
appellant was dismissed solely on the ground of
delay. The said judgement dated 17
th January, 2025
has been assailed in the present appeals by special
leave.
8
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
15. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant has
advanced the following arguments to challenge his
conviction: -
i). That there was a total non-compliance of
the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act in
conducting the search and seizure.
ii). That the search and seizure proceedings
are full of contradictions and inherent
improbabilities and the same do not inspire
confidence.
iii). That the prosecution case is vitiated
because the seizure officer (PW-2) failed to
comply with the mandate of Section 52A of the
NDPS Act, inasmuch as neither were samples
drawn in presence of a Magistrate, nor was any
inventory prepared as per the requirement of
law.
iv). That the trial Judge committed a grave
error in holding that the recovered contraband
weighed more than the commercial quantity. In
this regard, it has been fervently contended
that there is no evidence on record to show that
the accused-appellant and the co-accused
were known to each other from before, or that
9
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
either of them had the prior knowledge of the
contraband allegedly possessed by the other.
16. He further submitted that conviction of the
accused-appellant for the offence punishable under
Section 29 of the NDPS Act is absolutely illegal, for
the simple reason that there is no evidence to justify
the charge of conspiracy.
17. The respondent-State of West Bengal, though
duly served, has chosen not to put in appearance
before this Court.
18. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the accused-
appellant at the bar, and have gone through the
impugned judgment and the material placed on
record.
Discussion and Analysis
19. At the outset, we may note that the rejection of
the appeal preferred by the accused-appellant by the
High Court, simply on the ground of delay, was
uncalled for.
20. Given the fact that the accused-appellant was
incarcerated in prison from the date of his initial
apprehension, the rejection of the appeal on the sole
ground of delay was too harsh and unjustified in our
10
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
opinion. The High Court should have condoned the
delay and decided the appeal on merits, keeping in
view the fact that the accused-appellant was in
custody, and did not have the financial wherewithal
to file the appeal. We could have remanded the matter
to the High Court for reconsidering the appeal on
merits, but that would cause further delay. Thus, we
have proceeded to consider the merits of the matter.
21. Upon examination of the material placed on
record, we are of the firm opinion that the view taken
by the trial Court, that the contraband recovered in
this case was more than the commercial quantity, is
unjustified and illegal on the face of the record.
22. Merely because the two accused, walking side-
by-side, were apprehended simultaneously, and both
were carrying narcotic drug concealed on their body,
the said coincidental happening, by itself, would not
give rise to an inference that either of them had the
knowledge about the contraband being carried by the
other. These facts may give rise to a suspicion, but
suspicion, however, cannot take place of proof.
23. If at all the prosecution intended to bring home
the charge of conspiracy, and club the contraband
recovered from both the accused persons together,
11
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
then positive proof to support the charge of
conspiracy had to be presented. Such proof could not
be substituted with mere inferences or conjectures.
Positive and tangible evidence was necessary to
establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that both
accused persons had prior knowledge of the
contraband in the other’s possession. However, upon
carefully analysing the evidence available on record,
we find that, apart from the bald allegation that both
the accused were seen walking together and were
searched one after the other, not even a semblance of
evidence was led by the prosecution, which can
substantiate the charge of prior conspiracy between
the two accused persons.
24. Rather, upon going through the judgment of the
trial Court, we find that, without there being any
such evidence, the trial Court simply raised a
presumption as to the culpable mental state by
proceeding on an assumption that both the accused
were conscious and aware of the contents of the
packets stashed on the other’s person. Such
assumption is erroneous and absolutely unjustified
on the face of the record for want of evidence to
substantiate the same. Reference in this regard can
12
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of
Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat
11
.
The relevant observations from the aforesaid
judgement are reproduced below:-
“7. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant urged only one contention in support
of the present appeal. He contended that the
High Court fell into an error in taking the total
quantity of the offending substances recovered
from the two accused jointly and holding that the
said quantity was more than the commercial
quantity, warranting punishment under Section
21(c) of the NDPS Act. He contended that as far
as the appellant is concerned, the High Court
erred by assuming that there was criminal
conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of
the NDPS Act, and erroneously proceeded under
the said section. The High Court fell into a
further error of assuming that because Section
29 was applicable, the total quantity of opium
recovered was 920 grams plus 4 .250 kg. The
counsel urged that because of this error the High
Court took the wrong view that the total opium
recovered was of “commercial quantity” and,
therefore, attracted Section 21(c) of the NDPS
Act.
8. Although, at first blush, the argument of the
learned counsel appeared attractive, on careful
appreciation of the facts on record we are
satisfied that the High Court judgment is fully
justified and needs to be upheld. It is true that
the High Court proceeded on the footing that
there was a criminal conspiracy between the
appellant and the deceased Danabhai Virabhai
Rabari. In our view, however, there was no
warrant for this conclusion at all as there is
11
(2005) 7 SCC 550
13
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
no evidence to suggest that there was any
such abetment and/or criminal conspiracy
within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS
Act. The appellant and Danabhai Virabhai
Rabari were found together, but individually
carrying the recovered substances. Hence, it
was not possible for the High Court to take
the view that Section 29 was attracted.”
(Emphasis supplied)
25. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that
the trial Court committed a grave factual error in
concluding that the contraband heroin recovered
from two distinct individuals could be clubbed
together, so as to be covered under the commercial
quantity (above 250 gms.).
26. That apart, we find certain glaring infirmities
and discrepancies in the process of seizure, and
collection of samples undertaken by the seizure
officer (PW-2). Before we delve into these
inconsistencies, it is imperative to set out the
sequence of events commencing from 16
th July, 2018,
when the seizure officer (PW-2) received source
information regarding two individuals suspected of
carrying heroin, who were expected to be coming near
Laxmi Store, Pragati Maidan, Kolkata with the
contraband. Upon locating the suspected persons,
14
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
the seizure officer (PW-2) proceeded to search them,
which yielded to the discovery of a heat-sealed
transparent polythene packet containing a brown
powder/granular substance weighing 125 gms. from
the accused-appellant Nadeem, along with certain
Indian currency notes. A similar packet was
recovered from the co-accused Amit Dutta, which
weighed 130 gms. Both packets were punctured, and
one sample each was drawn from the same for the
purposes of sealing, marking, and labelling.
27. Upon returning to the police station, the seizure
officer (PW-2) handed over the seized contraband to
Ashish Das, the Officer-in-charge
12, directing him to
prepare an inventory list. The contraband was
thereafter deposited in the malkhana by S.I. Sandip
Datta (PW-1). The investigation was subsequently
entrusted to S.I. Debashish Barman (PW-6)
13, along
with custody of the seized contraband and the
collected samples. On 20
th July, 2018, investigation
officer (PW-6) attempted to deposit the samples at the
FSL. However, they were not accepted as he arrived
12
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘officer-in-charge’
13
Hereinafter, referred to as ‘investigation officer (PW-6)’
15
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
after the stipulated time. It was only on 23
rd July,
2018 that investigation officer (PW-6) succeeded in
depositing the samples for analysis.
28. While the above sequence of events appears to
form a continuous chain, the inconsistencies that
emerge therein are of such gravity that they cannot
be disregarded. These are as follows:-
(a) The seizure officer (PW-2) collected only one
sample each from the packets of the contraband
seized from the individual accused. This is in direct
contravention of Clause 2.2 of Standing Order No. 1
of 1989 dated 13
th June, 1989, issued by the Anti-
Smuggling Unit, Department of Revenue, Ministry of
Finance. The said clause stipulates:
“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 panchnama drawn on
the spot.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The said standing order came up for
consideration before this Court in the case of Noor
16
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
Aga v. State of Punjab
14, wherein it was held that
the guidelines mentioned above should not only be
substantively complied with, but in a case involving
penal proceedings, the rigours of such guidelines
may be insisted upon. The manifest non-compliance
of the standing order in the present case is, therefore,
of considerable import.
(b) According to the testimony of the seizure officer
(PW-2), the Gazetted officer (PW-4), the independent
witnesses, and the detenues, including the accused-
appellant, signed the seizure list and the labels
affixed to the seized material, including the loose
labels. However, when the sample packets were
opened before the trial Court during evidence of the
seizure officer (PW-2), the labels contained only the
signatures of the witnesses, the seizure officer (PW-2)
and the panch witness. The signatures of the accused
were conspicuously absent from the packets, as per
the observations recorded in the deposition. To
substantiate this conclusion, we proceed to extract
the relevant excerpts from the seizure officer’s (PW-2)
evidence: -
14
(2008) 16 SCC 417.
17
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
“Thereafter, I seized the contraband as well as
the currency notes and the key under a seizure
list in presence of independent witnesses, the
Gazetted Officer as well as the member of the
raiding team and both the accused persons put
their signature in the seizure list. The GO,
independent witnesses as well as the other
member of the raiding team also put their
signatures in the seizure list.
…
The witness is shown a brown coloured envelope
it is sealed and labeled and marked as S1 he
identify the packet and stated that the packet
contained 10 gms of heroin from the mother
packet.
The brown coloured packet is marked as MAT
EXT - I. The label on the brown packet is
marked as MAT EXT - II and the signature of
the witness in the label is marked as MAT EXT
- II/1.
The brown coloured envelope is opened in
presence of Id. Advocate. From inside the packet
a transparent polythene packet containing
brown coloured powder/granules is brought out.
The witness identifies the powder to be the
sample which he had taken from th e mother
packet.
The packet is marked as MAT EXT - III. A
loose label is also brought out from inside the
brown packet. The label is marked as MAT
EXT - IV and the signature of the witness in
it is marked as MAT EXT - IV/1.
18
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
The witness is shown a brown coloured envelope
it is sealed and labeled and marked as 'S2'. He
identifies the packet and stated that the (sic)
packet contained 10 gms of Heroin from the
mother packet.
The brown coloured packet is marked as MAT
EXT - V. The label on the brown packet is
marked as MAT EXT - VI and the signature of
the witness in the label is marked as MAT EXT
- VI/1.
The brown coloured envelope, is opened in
presence of Id. Advocate. From inside the packet
a transparent polythene packet containing
brown coloured powder/granules is brought out.
The witness identifies the powder to be the
sample which he had taken from the mother
packet.
The packet is marked as MAT EXT - VII. A
loose label is also brought out from inside the
brown packet. The label is marked as MAT
EXT - VIII and the signature of the witness in
it is marked as MAT EXT - VIII/1.
After the sample, of 10 gms was taken out the
remaining portion of the contraband along with
the transparent packet recovered from the
possession of Amit Dutta was sealed labeled and
pack in a brown coloured packet after repairing
the punctured portion. The same was marked as
'A'.
The witness is shown a brown coloured envelope
which is sealed and labeled and marked as A" he
19
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
identifies the packet and stated that it contained
remaining portion of the contraband which was
recovered from the possession of the accused
Amit Dutta (sic). The brown col oured (sic)
envelop is marked as MAT EXT - IX. The label
in it is marked as MAT EXT - X. The signature
of the witness on the label is marked as MAT
EXT - X/1.
The brown coloured envelope is opened in court
in presence of the Ld. Advocate.
A loose label and a polythene packet containing
brown coloured substance is brought out.
The witness identifies the brown substance and
stated that it is the remaining portion of the
contraband recovered from the possession of
Amit Dutta.
The packet containing the brown substance is
marked as MAT EXT - XI. The loose label is
marked as MAT EXT - XII and the signature of
the witness in the label is marked as MAT EXT
- XII/1.
After the sample of 10 gms was taken out the
remaining portion of the contraband along with
the transparent packet recovered from the
possession of Amit Dutta was sealed labeled and
pack in a brown coloured packet after. Repairing
the punctured portion. The same was marked, as
'B'.
The witness is shown a brown coloured envelope
which is (sic) sealed and labeled and marked as
20
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
'B'. He identifies the packet and stated that it
contained the remaining portion of the
contraband which was recovered from the
possession of the accused Nadim Ahmed. The
brown coloured envelop is marked as MAT EXT
- XIII. The label in it is marked as MAT EXT -
XIV. The signature of the witness on the label is
marked as MAT EXT - XIV/1.
The brown coloured envelope is opened in court
in presence of the Ld. (sic) Advocate.
A loose label and a polythene packet containing
brown coloured substance is brought out.
The witness identifies the brown substance and
stated that it is the remaining portion of the
contraband recovered from (sic) the possession
of Amit Dutta.
The packet containing the brown substance is
marked as MAT EXT - XV. The loose label is
marked as MAT EXT - XVI and the signature of
the witness in the label is marked as MAT EXT
- XVI/1.”
A careful perusal of the above excerpt from the
evidence of the seizure officer (PW-2) makes it clear
that neither the mother packet, nor the sample
packets, bore the signatures of the accused-
appellant, when the same were opened and exhibited
as material objects, during evidence of the aforesaid
witness before the trial Court.
21
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
(c) The seizure officer (PW-2) did not prepare any
separate seizure list for the samples drawn from the
accused-appellant. Likewise, no “test memo” or
“weighment chart” was prepared at the spot.
Furthermore, no specimen seal memo was proved by
the seizure officer (PW-2), as is evident from his
deposition at trial.
(d) Although two independent witnesses were
associated with the investigation, only one was
examined by the prosecution, without any
explanation for the omission to examine the other.
(e) Most significantly, there has been a complete
failure by the prosecution to comply with the
important procedural requirement, as provided
under sub-section (2) of Section 52A of the NDPS
Act.
15 A perusal of the record makes it clear that there
15
“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 sub-section (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 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,
22
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
was no effort whatsoever, either by the seizure officer
(PW-2), or the officer-in-charge, to undertake the
procedure of sampling and inventory in presence of a
Magistrate, in light of the aforesaid provision. The
trial Court also noted that the seizure officer (PW-2)
has even failed to state as to whether any inventory
list had been prepared at the time of the raid.
29. In view of the above discussion, this Court is
compelled to hold that there has been a complete and
unexplained failure to adhere to the requirements of
Section 52A. Neither representative samples were
drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, nor was the
inventory list prepared and certified, as required by
law. These lapses strike at the very root of the
prosecution case, rendering the integrity of the
seizure and sampling process wholly doubtful.
30. We may hasten to add that the procedure under
Section 52A of the NDPS Act has not been considered
to be mandatory by this Court, but the facts taken
cumulatively, i.e., the non-drawing of the samples in
light of the Standing Order no. 1 of 1989, and the
photographs of [such drugs, 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.”
23
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
complete non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS
Act, makes the entire procedure of seizure and
sampling a total farce, and thereby, unworthy of
credence.
31. In this view of the matter, we are of the firm
opinion that the FSL report loses significance on
account of the flawed sampling procedure
undertaken by the seizure officer (PW-2), coupled
with the fact that there has been a total failure by the
officer-in-charge to comply with the procedure
provided under Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
32. In the wake of discussion made hereinabove, we
are of the firm opinion that the FSL report cannot be
read in evidence and consequently, there is no
acceptable evidence on record to prove that the article
recovered from the accused-appellant was the
narcotic drug heroin, as defined under the Schedule
to the NDPS Act.
33. Consequently, the impugned judgments do not
stand to scrutiny and are hereby quashed and set
aside. The accused-appellant is acquitted of the
charges. He shall be released from custody forthwith,
if not wanted in any other case.
34. The appeals are allowed accordingly.
24
SLP (Crl.) No (s). 9446-9447 of 2025
35. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
….……………………J.
(ARAVIND KUMAR )
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 05, 2025.
Login with google
Legal Notes
Add a Note....