Akil Abdul Hamid Kureshi, J.

1. These proceedings arise out of a judgment dated 31.8.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Valsad in Spl. NDPS Case No. 1/2003. Originally, the four accused were charged for commission of offence under section 22 read with section 29 and for offence under section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("the NDPS Act" for short). Accused No. 3 Prabhakar Vishnubhai Salvi expired during the trial. Remaining three accused were convicted for offence under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 12 years. Fine of Rs. 1 lakh was also imposed. The three accused had filed individual Criminal Appeals. The Narcotic Control Bureau ("NCB" for short) had also filed Criminal Appeal No. 305/2011 for enhancement of sentences. By the time, these appeals could be taken up for hearing before the High Court, all the three accused had served out the entire sentence. Original accused No. 2 and 4 did not press their appeals against conviction. Likewise, the Narcotic Control Bureau did not press the Criminal Appeal No. 305/2011 for enhancement of sentence qua these accused, as was recorded by the Court in order dated 18.1.2016.

2. Learned Additional Central Government Standing Shri Kartik Pandya for the Narcotic department pointed out at the outset that in the present appeal also, the accused has served out the entire sentence and he is already released. His suggestion therefore, was that this appeal also should be disposed of as infructuous. Learned counsel Ms. Kruti Shah for the accused however, submitted that number of immovable properties of the accused have been attached due to his involvement in the present case. The question of confiscation of these properties would depend on his conviction in the present case. She therefore, requested that his appeal be decided on merits.

3. When the question of conviction is related to other issues, we are bound to decide the appeal on merits even though the convict may have served out the sentence in the meantime. There is yet another reason why we cannot dispose of the appeal of the accused as infructuous. The department's appeal for enhancement is pending before us. The question of enhancement of the sentence cannot be gone into without first deciding the correctness of the conviction.

4. Broadly stated, prosecution version was that the present accused No. 1 Mansukhbhai Chhaganlal Bhatt was a resident of Dubai and had links with international drug dealers. He had in connivance with the other three accused decided to manufacture methaqualone, a substance used for manufacture of banned drug called Mandrax. On a prior intelligence, the officers of Narcotic Control Bureau carried out a raid at a factory at Vapi called Garden Colours on 1.9.2002 from where all the four accused were apprehended and their statements under section 67 of the NDPS Act were recorded. From the factory, sizeable quantity of methaqualone powder was seized. Such interrogation led to further information that similar manufacturing activities were going on at three more establishments i.e. Prem House, Harshal Chemicals and Bony Chem, all situated at Vapi. Combined catch of narcotic drugs from these four premises was more than two tonnes.

5. A charge to this effect was therefore, framed at exh,7 alleging that all the four accused had hatched a conspiracy and also committed offence punishable under section 22(c) read with section 8(c) of the NDPS Act.

6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted all the three surviving accused for offence under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment of 12 years and imposed a fine of Rs. 1 lakh each.

7. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution mainly revolved around the depositions of the officers of the raiding party and some panch witnesses. We may refer to the gist of such evidence.

8. Divyakant Ratilal Patel, PW-1, exh.55, was the panch witness to the raid at