Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/2 vs Union Of India And Anr on 19 November, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/20
GAHC010051812023
2024:GAU-
AS:11261-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./97/2023
DEBESWAR BASUMATARY
S/O SRI ANANTA BASUMATARY VILLAGE KACHARISON, PS ORANG, DIST
UDALGURI, ASSAM
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
REPRESENTED BY NCB, ZONAL UNIT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM
2:LHUNKHOLAL
INTELLIGENCE OFFICER
NCB IMPHAL. SUB ZONE
S/O SEISEKHOHEN
RESIDENT OF IMPHAL PS IMPHAL WEST
MANIPU
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M BISWAS, S K DAS,MR M BASUMATARI,MS M DAS
Advocate for the Respondent : S C KEYAL, SC, NCB,
Linked Case : CRL.A(J)/91/2022
SHAJAN KARKI
S/O. SITARAM KARKI
VILL. LOKHRA
P.S. CHARDUAR
DIST. SONITPUR.
Page No.# 2/20
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM
REP. BY PP
ASSAM
------------
Advocate for : MR. ASHIM CHAMUAH
(LEGAL AID COUNSEL)
Advocate for : PP
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
:::BEFORE:::
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA
Date of hearing : 30.10.2024
Date of Judgment & Order : 19.11.2024
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(M. Thakuria, J)
By this common judgment and order, it is proposed to dispose of two
Criminal Appeals, being Crl. A. No. 97/2023, preferred by appellant- Debeswar
Basumatary, & Crl. A.(J) No. 91/2022, preferred by appellant- Shajan Karki, as
Page No.# 3/20
both have arisen out of a common judgment and order dated 08.07.2022,
passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in Special (NDPS) Case No.
06/2019, whereby both the accused/appellants have been convicted under
Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 12 (twelve) years and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-
(Rupees one lakh) only, in default S.I. for another 6 (six) months for the
offence.
2. Heard Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No.
97/2023 and Mr A. Chamuah, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant in Crl.
A.(J) No. 91/2022. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Special Public Prosecutor,
NCB for the respondents.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 13.09.2018, at about 9.30 a.m.,
an information was received by one Phani Narzary, Intelligence Officer, NCB
Guwahati from one Santosh Kumar, DC, SSB, 61 BN SSB Bhairabkunda, District
Udalguri, Assam that 900 Chain BOP, SSB had intercepted 102.500 kg ganja in
17 packets along with two persons, namely Debeswar Basumatary and Shajan
Karki, with two vehicles bearing Registration No. AS-12AC-4091 Mahindra
(Bolero Pickup 2WD) and AS-01BU-0537 Maruti Suzuki (Swift Dzire VZI). Upon
receipt of the said information, on 13.09.2018 at about 11:30 am, a team of
NCB, Guwahati moved for Bhairabkunda and on reaching the said place, they
seized Ganja from the possession of said two suspected persons namely,
Debeswar Basumatary and Shajan Karki, along with two vehicles. Thereafter,
one Shri Ulunkholal, Intelligence Officer, NCB Guwahati submitted written
Page No.# 4/20
compliant before the Court for initiation of trial against the two accused
persons. Accordingly, the learned Court below took cognizance of the case and
framed charges under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and the
contents of the charge were read over and explained to the accused, to which
they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 7(seven) numbers of
witnesses including the Investigating Officers and the initial informer- Santosh
Kumar, DC, SSB. However, the defence did not examine any witnesses. The
accused were also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
5. Thereafter, the learned Special Judge, Udalguri, after hearing the parties
and on perusal of records vide judgment and order dated 08.07.2022, passed in
Special (NDPS) Case No. 06/2019, found the accused/appellants guilty and
convicted them under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act and sentenced them as
aforesaid.
6. On being highly aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
and order dated 08.07.2022, passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in
Special (NDPS) Case No. 06/2019, the present appeals have been preferred by
the accused/appellants.
7. Mr. M. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 97/2023,
and Mr A. Chamuah, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant in Crl. A.(J) No.
91/2022, submitted that the learned Trial Court below miserably failed to
appreciate the evidence of prosecution witnesses in its true perspective and
Page No.# 5/20
thus arrived at a wrong decision convicting the accused/appellants. The PW-1,
in his deposition before the learned Trial Court below, has stated that the seized
vehicles along with the suspected contrabands were taken to main camp of SSB
Headquarter at Bhairabkunda and thereafter the seized contrabands were
weighed and seizure list was prepared.
8. They further raised the following issues during the course of hearing:
(i) It is not proved that the contraband which was alleged to have
been seized from the possession of the accused/appellants was
ganja.
In this context, Mr. Biswas submitted that though the PW-4, i.e. the
FSL Expert, stated that Exhibit DN-246/2014 (a) to DN-246/2014 (c) gave
positive test of cannabis (ganja), but as per his own statement, the
samples received in the instant case by the FSL were DN 488/2018 (a1) to
DN 488/2018 (a17), respectively. Further, none of the prosecution
witnesses had exhibited the FSL Report. Though the PW-4 stated that the
Exhibit-4 is the FSL Report, but the same is a Forwarding Report of the
contraband to FSL. Though the FSL Report was marked as Exhibit-3, but
the same has not been exhibited by any witnesses. Mr. Biswas further
submitted that as per the so called Exhibit-3, the Report of Forensic
Expert, it speaks that the parcel was received through speed post, but as
per the PW-4, the FSL Expert, he received the parcel through the
messenger which also contradicts the own statement of PW-4 regarding
receiving of samples of the contrabands.
Page No.# 6/20
(ii) The evidence of one Santosh Kumar (PW-2) has to be discarded,
who was discharging his duty as Deputy Commandant, SSB.
Mr. Biswas submitted in this regard that the evidence of PW-2 has to
be discarded as the deposition made by PW-2 is not signed by him and
same has signed by one Dhani Ram Ghosh, whose name does not figure
out in the records of the case and thus, the evidence of the PW-2, who
was considered to be the vital witness of the prosecution, has to be totally
discarded as no signature was put by him in his so-called deposition.
(iii) There is total non-compliance of Section 52 A of NDPS Act.
It is submitted by the learned counsels for the appellants that the
samples, which were alleged to have been sent to FSL, were not drawn
before the Magistrate. No list of samples or photographs of contrabands
were prepared nor there is any certification of Magistrate, which is
necessary for compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act. In this context, Mr.
Biswas relied on following decisions:
(i) Union of India Vs. Mohan Lal & Ors [(2016) 3 SCC 379]
(paras- 15 to 18 & 31.1)
(ii) Mangilal Vs. State of M.P. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 862] (paras-
Page No.# 7/20
3, 5, 6 & 14)
(iii) Simarnjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 570]
(iv) Mohammed Khalid & Anr. Vs. State of Telangana [(2024) 5
SCC 393] (para-26)
In the case of Mangilal (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has
expressed the view that when there is non-compliance of Section 52A
NDPS Act, where a certification of a Magistrate is lacking, any inventory,
photograph or list of samples would not constitute primary evidence.
As per the guideline of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Mohanlal
& Anr. (supra), as relied by the learned counsel for the appellants, it is
observed that the officer concerned should approach the Magistrate with
an application under Section 52-A (2) of the Act which shall be allowed by
the Magistrate which may be required under Section 52-A (3) of the NDPS
Act. It is also provided that the sampling should be done in presence of
Magistrate and it should immediately be brought before the Magistrate for
sampling.
In the case of Mohammed Khalid (supra), in paragraph No. 26 of
the judgment as relied by the learned counsels for the appellants, the
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "admittedly, no proceedings
Page No.# 8/20
under Section 52A of the NDPS Act were undertaken by the Investigating
Officer PW-5 for preparing an inventory and obtaining samples in
presence of the jurisdictional Magistrate. In this view of the matter, the
FSL report(Exhibit P-11) is nothing but a waste paper and cannot be read
in evidence. The accused A-3 and A-4 were not arrested at the spot.
(iv) Seized Ganjas were never produced before the Court during
Trial.
In this regard, the learned counsels for the appellants submitted that
the seized ganjas, which were the most vital piece of evidence, were not
produced before the Court during trial. The prosecution failed to produce
either the contraband or the duplicate samples or the remnants of the
original samples before the learned Trial Court below during the trial of
the case. Thus, it is argued that it cannot be said as to whether any ganja
was at all seized from the possession of the accused/appellants. The
learned counsels also placed reliance on the following judgments in this
regard:
(i) Vijay Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2013) 14 SCC 527]
(Para-12)
(ii) Jitendra & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2004) 10 SCC
562] (Para-6)
Page No.# 9/20
(iii) Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab [(2008) 16 SCC 417] (para-86)
Citing those judgments, it is submitted by the learned counsel for
the appellants that it is necessary to produce the seized contraband before
the Court and mere oral evidence as to their features and production of
Panchnama will not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the
prosecution.
Para-86 of the judgment passed in Noor Aga (supra), as relied by
the learned counsel for the appellants, reads as under:
"86. Indisputably, the cardboard carton was not produced in court being
allegedly missing. No convincing explanation was rendered in that behalf. The
High Court, in its judgment, stated:
"The case set up by the prosecution is that the appellant being a member
of a crew party, was in possession of his luggage, which included the cardboard
carton, from which the recovery of heroin was allegedly effected. The appellant
himself had presented the said carton along with the other luggage for custom
clearance. From these facts, at least one thing is clear that the carton which
was carrying the contraband, was under his immediate control. The argument
advanced by Mr. Guglani is that the luggage which was being carried by the
crew members, had no specific identification slips as in the case of an ordinary
passenger travelling in an aircraft. So what was being carried in the carton was
within the knowledge of the appellant alone and, therefore, the element of
possession and control of the contraband qua the appellant is writ large and the
presumption of culpable mental state under Section 35 and 54 of the Act has to
be drawn against him."
The inference was drawn only on the basis of a mere assertion of the
witness that the cardboard carton wherefrom the contraband was allegedly
recovered as the one which had been in possession of the appellant without any
corroboration as regards the purported "apparent practice of crew members
carrying their own luggage" and there being no identification marks on the
same. No material in this behalf has been produced by the respondent. No
witness has spoken of the purported practice. For all intent and purport another
presumption has been raised by the High Court wherefor no material had been
brought on record. No explanation has been given as to what happened to the
Page No.# 10/20
container. Its absence significantly undermines the case of the prosecution. It
reduces the evidentiary value of the statements made by the witnesses referring
the fact of recovery of the contraband therefrom."
(v) The prosecution failed to relate the seized samples sent to FSL
with the contraband allegedly seized from the accused.
Mr. Biswas the learned counsel submitted in this regard that
according to the prosecution story, the samples were drawn on
13.09.2018 and the same was received by the FSL on 15.09.2018. But
from the records and orders passed by the learned Trial Court below, it is
seen that vide order dated 26.10.2018 & 30.10.2018, i.e. after 43 days
from the date of seizure and after 41 days from the samples received by
the FSL, the prayer was made before the learned Trial Court to allow them
to draw samples in the presence of the Court and to certify the
correctness of the list of samples so drawn to facilitate disposal of the
seized drugs by retaining the certificate. The learned Trial Court vide order
dated 30.10.2018 also allowed destruction of the contrabands. Thus, the
samples which were received by the FSL on 15.09.2018 does not relate to
the instant case as the prayer for drawing samples in the instant case was
made only after 41 days from the date it was received in FSL. In this
context also, Mr. Biswas the learned counsel has relied on the following 2
(two) decisions:
(i) Vijay Pandey Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2019) 18 SCC 215
(ii) State of Gujrat Vs. Ismail U Haji Patel & Anr. [(2003) 12 SCC
Page No.# 11/20
219]
(vi) No witness deposed to have seen the appellant carrying the
contraband.
Raising this issue, it is submitted by Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for
the appellant in Crl. A. No. 97/2023, that no one was present at the time
of alleged interception and the PW-1 himself stated before the learned
Trial Court that he could not recognize the accused person in the dock and
no other witness from the intercepting team was also examined by the
prosecution.
(vii) Non-compliance of Section 55 of the NDPS Act.
It is submitted by the learned counsels for the appellants that
Section 55 of the NDPS Act provides for the manner in which the seized
contrabands/samples were to be kept/stored and further, that the Officer-
In-Charge of the Police Station shall inter alia take charge and keep in safe
custody all the articles seized within his local jurisdiction and shall also
affix the seal in such articles/samples. But, here in the instant case, the
search cum seizure procedure was started at 7.30 p.m. on 13.09.2018, but
the PW-5, in his cross-examination, has stated that he handed over the
seized articles to Udalguri P.S. Godown only on 14.09.2018. As per PW-7,
the Superintendent of NCB, he received the articles in the NCB Godown
only on 14.09.2018 at 11.00 p.m. and there is no explanation made by the
PW-5 as to why he kept the contrabands in his personal custody from 9.30
Page No.# 12/20
p.m. of 13.09.2018 till 11.00 p.m. of 14.09.2018.
In this context, the learned counsels for the appellants also relied on
3 Judge Bench decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in case of
Mohan Lal Vs. State of Punjab [(2018) 17 SCC 627].
The learned counsels further submitted that there is also
contradictions in the statement made by the prosecution witnesses and
the exhibits, as the Forwarding Report (Exhibit 3) says that the samples
were forwarded to FSL on 13.09.2018, whereas as per PW-5, the sample
packets were sent for FSL examination on 15.09.2018.
In this regard, Mr. Biswas also placed reliance on the following
decisions:
(i) State of Gujrat Vs. Ismail U Haji Patel & Anr. [(2003) 12
SCC 291]
(ii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Tara Singh [(2011) 11 SCC 559]
(iii) State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh [(2005) 3 SCC 59]
(viii) No independent witnesses were examined.
Page No.# 13/20
In this context, it is submitted by the learned counsels for the
appellants that the prosecution did not make any attempt to record the
evidence of any independent witnesses at the time of search and seizure.
9. Mr. Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. No. 97/2023, also
submitted that though the conviction was made under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of
the NDPS Act, but there is no mention about the detail of amount of ganja
recovered from each of the vehicle and also not properly mentioned about the
amount of contraband seized individually from the possession of the
accused/appellants and both the accused/appellants were also not charged
under Section 29 of the NDPS Act to convict both the accused/appellants in a
case under the commercial quantity.
10. Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Special Public Prosecutor, NCB submitted in this
regard that the Panchnama was prepared by the Investigating Agency which is
also exhibited as Exhibit-2 during trial wherein every detail of the seized articles
as well as the investigation have been mentioned as to how and on what basis
the investigation was carried out and the accused/ appellants were intercepted
and the contraband was accordingly recovered from the possession of the
accused/appellants. Further he submitted that some time might have been
required for production of the seized articles before the police station at
Udalguri as the search and seizure was made at Bhairabkunda and the place of
interception was at Anglingmore, which is about 47 KM from Bhairabkunda.
Further he submitted that the application was made before the learned Special
Page No.# 14/20
Judge regarding pre-trial disposal of the articles on 26.10.2019, which was
allowed only on 30.10.2019.
11. Mr. Keyal further submitted that the Exhibit-3 is the FSL Expert Report and
Exhibit-4 is the Forwarding Report, but inadvertently the Exhibit-3 was not
exhibited through the FSL Expert which may be an inadvertent mistake during
the trial of the case. He further submitted that there may be some discrepancy
in description of samples which were received for FSL Examination, but the FSL
Report speaks about the correct description of the articles which was sent for
examination to FSL. However, he admitted that there is a discrepancy of the
articles described by the FSL Expert while adducing the evidence before the
Court. He further submitted that though there may be some discrepancies in the
description of the articles mentioned by the PW-4, but the facts remain same
that both the accused /appellants were intercepted at Anglingmore with two
vehicles loaded with cannabis/ganja and after observing all formalities, they
were produced before the Court and the articles were also produced before the
Malkahana and after observing all necessary/required formalities, the Charge-
Sheet was filed by the prosecution. Accordingly, he submitted that the learned
Trial Court below rightly passed the judgment and order convicting the
accused/appellants.
12. The submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides have been
duly considered and we have also perused the case records as well as the
exhibits along with the record.
Page No.# 15/20
13. Without going by the detail discussion of the prosecution witnesses, it is
the admitted position that the description made by the PW-4 in his deposition
does not tally with the description made in the FSL Report (Exhibit-3). At the
same time, it is also surprising that the FSL Expert did not exhibit the FSL
Report, rather he exhibited only the Forwarding Report as Exhibit-4. Moreover,
the FSL Report, which is the most vital evidence of the prosecution case, is also
not been exhibited by any of the prosecution witnesses, though it is seems to
be marked as Exhibit-3 and the signature of the learned Special Judge is also
reflected in the same. Thus, it is seen that the most vital documents and the
most vital evidence of the FSL Expert cannot be relied on due to the
discrepancies of description of the articles as well as non-exhibition of the FSL
Report by the FSL Expert. In absence of any such report, it cannot be held that
the contraband, which was alleged to have been recovered from the possession
of the accused/appellants, gave the positive test for cannabis.
14. Further it is seen that the PW-2, who is one of the most vital witnesses of
the prosecution as well as the informant of this case, did not put his signature in
his Deposition Form, rather it is seen that it was signed by one Dhani Ram
Ghosh, who is no way related to the case of the prosecution nor his evidence
has been recorded as a witness by the prosecution. Thus, in absence of the
signature of PW-2 in his deposition sheet, it cannot be held that he adduced his
evidence before the Court as PW-2, who is stated to be the informant of this
case and also considered to be one of the vital witnesses of the entire
prosecution case. Thus, there is no alternative but to expunge the evidence of
PW-2. At the same time, it is also surprising that the learned Trial Court below
had passed the judgment and order without even proper perusal of the
Page No.# 16/20
deposition which is stated to be made by the PW-2, one Santosh Kumar, who is
the informant of this case.
15. On perusal of the entire record and the exhibits, we have also seen that
there is no compliance of Section 52 A of the NDPS Act. There is no inventory
prepared by the Investigating Officer to use the same as primary evidence and
thus, the question of certification of the inventory does not arise which is
mandatorily required under Section 52 A of NDPS Act. It is admitted that the
entire seized contrabands, which is of huge quantity, cannot be produced before
the Court at the time of trial, but the prosecution failed to prepare any inventory
or to take any photographs so that those can be used as primary evidence at
the time of trial after pre-trial disposal of the contraband.
16. Further from the record, it is also seen that after drawl of the samples on
13.09.2018, it was sent for FSL examination, which was stated to be received by
the FSL on 15.09.2018. But, after more than 40 days, a formal prayer was made
before the learned Trial Court below for drawl of samples from the original and
also prayed for certification of the same as well as for disposal of the
contraband. After 43 days, the order was passed by the learned Special Judge
whereby the order for disposal of the seized contraband was only allowed, but
there is no mention about the prayer for drawing of samples in presence of
Magistrate or for certification of the inventory etc. Moreover, even after
obtaining such order, the Investigation Agency did not approach the Court with
another application praying for certification of correctness of inventory or
another prayer for drawing of samples from the original. Thus, in spite of a
Page No.# 17/20
petition filed by the Investigating Agency, there was no order for preparation of
inventory or the certifying or correctness of the same and to draw the samples
etc. in presence of Magistrate and without obtaining the order from the learned
Special Judge, the Investigating Agency filed the Charge-Sheet and the case
proceeded accordingly, is the result of the perfunctory investigation on the part
of the Investigating Agency and without proper compliance of Section 52A(2),
the Charge-Sheet was filed.
17. Section 52A (2) of the NDPS Act mandates a competent officer to prepare
an inventory of such narcotic drugs with adequate particulars. This has to be
followed through an appropriate application to the Magistrate concerned for the
purpose of certifying the correctness of inventory, taking relevant photographs
in his presence and certifying them as true or taking drawl of samples in his
presence with due certification. Such an application can be filed for anyone of
the aforesaid three purposes. The objective behind this provision is to have an
element of supervision by the Magistrate over the disposal of seized contraband.
Such inventories, photographs and list of samples drawn with certification by
the Magistrate would constitute as a primary evidence. Therefore, when there is
non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, where a certification of a
Magistrate is lacking any inventory, photograph or list of samples would not
constitute primary evidence. [Criminal Appeal No. 1651 of 2023 (Mangilal
Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh)]
18. As per the guidelines of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Union of India
Vs. Mohanlal & Anr., reported in (2016) 3 SCC 379, it is observed that the
Page No.# 18/20
officer concerned should approach the Magistrate with an application under
Section 52-A (2) of the Act which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as
may be required under Section 52-A (3) of the NDPS Act. It is also provided that
the sampling should be done in presence of Magistrate and it should
immediately be brought before the Magistrate for sampling.
19. As per Section 54 of the NDPS Act, presumption can be taken that the
accused has committed the offence under this Act unless and until the contrary
is proved and provides a reverse burden to prove upon the accused. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gorakh Nath Prasad Vs. State of Bihar, (2018)
2 SCC 305, has held that reverse burden of proof lies upon the accused,
contrary to the normal rule of criminal jurisprudence for presumption of
innocence unless proved guilty. However, this rule shall not dispense with the
requirement of the prosecution to having first establish a prima facie case, only
whereafter the burden will shift to the accused.
20. But, here in the instant case, it is seen that the prosecution has totally
failed to established the case against the accused/ appellants in regards to the
commission of the offence to shift the burden of the accused to prove their
innocence.
21. So, considering the entire discussions made above, it is seen that the
prosecution case suffers from material and procedural irregularity and there is
total non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Further, from the
discussion made above, the informant/PW-2, who was one of the vital witnesses
of the prosecution, cannot be relied upon and his entire evidence has to be
Page No.# 19/20
expunged due to non-availability of his signature on his deposition sheet. At the
same time, the prosecution also failed to establish the fact that the samples
which were sent or received by the FSL are the contraband which were seized
from the possession of the accused/appellants due to the discrepancies of
description of the articles made in the Exhibit-3 with the deposition made by the
FSL Expert (PW-4). Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the fact that the
contrabands which were seized from the possession of the accused/appellants
gave positive test of cannabis.
22. In view of above, we find sufficient merit in these appeals and therefore
the same stand allowed. Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 08.07.2022,
passed by the learned Special Judge, Udalguri in Special (NDPS) Case No.
06/2019, convicting the accused/appellants under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS
Act, stands set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges. Bond, if
any, shall stand discharged. The appellants be released from jail forthwith if not
required in connection with other case.
23. Send back the case record along with a copy of this judgment and order.
24. A copy of this judgment and order may also be sent to the concerned jail
authorities for necessary compliance.
25. Before parting, we put on record the appreciation for the valuable
assistance rendered by Mr. A. Chamuah, learned Legal Aid Counsel for the
Page No.# 20/20
appellant in Crl. A.(J) No. 91/2022, and we recommend that the prescribed fee,
as per the notified rate, be paid by the State Legal Services Authority.
26. In terms of above, these criminal appeals stand disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
