JUDGMENT :

Ndrajit Mahanty, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the Superintendent of Central Excise and Customs (Preventive) seeking to challenge the order of acquittal dated 31st January, 1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.502 of 1992 for the offences under Section 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act" for short) punishable under Section 20 (b)(i) , 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act as well as under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act.

2. It would be necessary, at the outset, to take note of the fact that Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Shri Justice S.S. Parkar and Shri Justice S.R. Sathe), by judgment dated 28th and 29th September, 2004, had allowed Criminal Appeal No.213 of 1994 and convicted Respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Section 20(b)(i) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act as well as under Section 66(1)(b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, as well as for the offence punishable under Section 25 of the NDPS Act and ordered necessary directions imposing punishment of imprisonment and fine.

3. It appears from the record that the Appellants (present Respondents) had moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal No.783 of 2005 and the said Appeal came to be allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order and judgment dated 23rd March, 2006 with the following directions :

" The Appeal abovementioned being called on for hearing before this Court on the 23rd Day of March, 2006, UPON perusing the record and hearing Counsel for the parties herein, THIS COURT dOtH in allowing the appeal ORDER THAT the impugned Judgment dated 28th/29th September, 2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.213 of 1994 be and is hereby set aside and the above mentioned matter be and is hereby remitted back to the Court to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. The appeal shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible."

In view of the aforesaid directions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the matter has come up for hearing afresh and it would be appropriate at the outset to also take note of the fact that during the pendency of the Appeal, Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have expired and consequently, the appeal stood abated against the said Respondents.

4. It would also be necessary to note here that although Respondent No.1 appeared through his Counsel noted hereinabove, since no counsel appeared for Respondent No.4, this Court appointed Mr. Ashish Satpute as amicus curie to represent Respondent No.4 and consequently we proceeded to hear the matter.

5. Shri H.S.Venegavkar, learned counsel for the Union of India appeared on behalf of the Appellant and submitted that one Mr. Ramhari Tonpe while working as Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, Preventive, at Pune, noted information on 10th March, 1992 at about 3.30 p.m. from one informant that one Tata Tempo bearing No.MNQ 2858 would carry 300 kgs. Ganja and it will start from Natepute and will reach Jejuri in between 11.00 p.m. to 5.00 a.m. and that the destination of the Ganja was at Pune.

It is further the prosecution case that the Inspector wrote down the information and took signature of the informant, he also signed on it and kept the information in a sealed packet and wrote down DRI1 Report. The said sealed report and DRI1 Report was placed before the Assistant Collector Shri Tare. Shri Tare is stated to have called the concerned officers and asked them to help Inspector Tonpe in the raid. Accordingly, Mr. Barge, Superintendent was also directed to accompany Inspector Tonpe in the raid.

It is further prosecution case that Inspector Tonpe called two panchas to his Office and substance of the information was informed to them and they were given an idea that they will have to wait during whole night for the purpose of raid. Thereafter, Inspector, Superintendent Barge, police as well as panchas proceeded in two