Delhi District Court
Notices. Decision In Om Prakash vs . State Iii (2014) Ccr on 4 April, 2018
1
IN THE COURT OF SH.NARINDER KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE2 NDPS ACT
(CENTRAL DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURT, DELHI
Case No. 27625/16
SC No. 80/13
FIR No. 13/13
PS Special Cell
State v. Mukesh & Ors.
U/s 21, 25 & 29 of NDPS Act
In the matter of:
State
Versus
1. Mukesh @ Ajay,
S/o Sh. Pappu
R/o H.No. C6/109, Sultanpuri,
Delhi.
2. Validad Khan @ Balidas,
S/o Sh. Sultan Khan,
R/o H.No. Bisalpur Road,
Mirdhan Mohalla Faridpur,
Bareilly, UP
Also at:
Village Behra PS Faridpur, Bareilly, UP.
2
3. Mohd. Yasin
S/o Mohd. Safi,
R/o H. No. 1763, Gali Ghantewali,
Pharai Bhojala, Turkman Gate,
Bazar Chitlikabar,
Delhi 110006. ....Accused Persons
Date of Institution : 12.08.2013
Date of Judgment : 04.04.2018
JUDGMENT
Accused Mukesh has been facing trial for offences under Section 21 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) on the accusation that on 17.03.2013, at about 1.10 pm, when apprehended by Special Cell in waiting hall of Old Delhi Railway Station, he was found in possession of 1 kg of heroin and further that on 18.03.2013, at about 5 pm, he led the police party to his tenanted house no. 6C/109, Sultanpuri, Delhi and got recovered from there 500 grams of heroin, from an iron box lying there.
3Second mentioned accusedValidad @ Balidas Khan accused has been facing trial for offence under Section 21, 25 and 29 of the Act. Accusation levelled against him, in brief, is that on 19.03.2013, he was apprehended, at the instance of accused Mukesh, and found in possession of 625 grams of heroin at his house situated in village Faridpur, Bareilly, UP; and further that on the said date, he was found in possession of 490 grams of heroin which he got recovered from scorpio car, bearing registration no. DL 1CJ 3566; and also that he had entered into criminal conspiracy with coaccused Mukesh.
Mohd. Yasin, the third accused, is said to have been apprehended on 20.03.2013, at about 6.45 pm, in the area of Jama Masjid, Delhi on the basis of information provided by coaccused Validad Khan and at that time, he was found in possession of 550 grams of heroin.
2. Case of the prosecution is that in the year 2013, mobile phones of various persons, suspected to be indulging in drug supply, were under lawful interception in case FIR 4 No.26/12 of Police Station Special Cell. During interception of conversation of Mukesh and Validad, on their respective mobile phones i.e. no. 7895906081, 8859457790 of Validad and 9289586800 of Mukesh, it transpired that one Tamur Khan, was in touch with Validad, used to supply heroin to Mukesh.
On 16.03.2013, on interception of calls of Mukesh and Validad, it transpired that Mukesh accused was going to meet Validad at Faridpur, UP and then it transpired that Mukesh had reached Faridpur, UP Faridpur by an Express train.
SI Parveen recorded this information and communicated it to Inspector Attar Singh, who in turn, is stated to have brought the same to the notice of ACP.
It is also case of the prosecution that on 17.03.2013 on interception of phone calls of Mukesh, it transpired that he was returning to Delhi from Faridpur. Raiding party comprising of SI Parveen, ASI Bhushan, ASI Prabhodh, HC Rajbir, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Sumer and HC Harpreet was constituted.
5HC Rajbir, Ct. Sandeep and HC Harpreet were sent to Ghaziabad Railway Station. Ct. Sandeep and HC Harpreet were directed to board the aforesaid Train at Ghaziabad and search Mukesh accused.
ASI Bhushan and Ct. Sumer were sent to Sarai Rohilla Railway Station in search of Mukesh accused.
ASI Prabodh was sent to Old Delhi Railway Station in search of accused Mukesh.
Arrest of Mukesh and recoveries from him
3. Case of the prosecution is that Mukesh accused alighted from train at Old Delhi Railway Station and started proceeding towards waiting hall of Old Delhi Railway Station. On signal of Ct. Sandeep, Mukesh was apprehended by SI Parveen. He is said to have swallowed railway travelling ticket.
Mukesh was served with notice under Section 50 of the Act and after his refusal to avail of the legal rights, explained vide this notice, when his pithu bag was subjected to search, it led to recovery of 1 kg of heroin. The 6 contraband was found to be heroin when tested on field testing kit.
Two samples each of 5 grams were drawn from the lot. Then, the sample parcels and parcel containing residue were sealed and seized. That is how, rukka was despatched and present case was registered.
Case property recovered from Mukesh was produced before Inspector Rajinder Sherawat, who also put his seal to and then deposited the same with MHC(M).
After registration of case, SI Rakesh was assigned investigation of the case and he reached the spot.
On personal search of Mukesh, some items were recovered. Same were seized by SI Rakesh. Mukesh was then produced before the SHO at PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony.
ACP was also apprised of the arrest and recovery from Mukesh. Report under Section 57 of the Act was prepared by SI Parveen.
Separate report under Section 57 of the Act was prepared by SI Rakesh, who happened to reach the spot 7 after registration of FIR.
On interrogation, Mukesh accused disclosed before SI Rakesh that he could get recovered more heroin from his tenanted house no. C6/109, Sultanpuri, Delhi. That is how, 500 grams of heroin was recovered from the house of Mukesh accused at his instance.
Two samples were drawn from this quantity, and turned into parcels. Sample parcels and parcel containing residue were sealed and then produced before Inspector Rajinder Sehrawat, who, in turn, put his seal thereon. Inspector deposited all these items also with the MHC(M).
SI Rakesh prepared report under Section 57 of the Act and communicated the same to the ACP in respect of this recovery as well.
Arrest of Validad @ Balidas and recoveries from him
4. Prosecution case is that in pursuance of disclosure statement made by Mukesh, on 18.03.2013, at about 9.30 pm, party headed by SI Rakesh departed from the office and reached Faridpur, UP, at about 5.20 pm on 8 19.03.2013. There, Validad was found present at his house. From his possession, 625 grams of heroin was recovered.
Two samples each of 5 grams were drawn from the lot. Then, the sample parcels and parcel containing residue were sealed and seized.
Validad accused made disclosure statement and in pursuance of there of, he got recovered 500 grams heroin more from a scorpio car, which was lying parked on the ground floor near his house. Two samples were drawn from this lot, sealed and seized vide memo. Two mobile phones were also recovered from Validad.
Validad was brought to Delhi, produced before Special Judge and his custody by way of police remand was obtained.
Case property recovered from Validad was produced before Inspector Rajinder Sehrawat, who, in turn, affixed his seal on all the parcels and then deposited the same with MHC(M).
SI Rakesh prepared report under Section 57 of the Act in respect of Validad accused. The report was put up 9 before Inspector who communicated the same to ACP.
Case of prosecution is that in furtherance of disclosure statement made by Validad accused it transpired that he used to supply heroin to Yasin and Chamman through his carrier Radhey and that Mohd. Yasin had purchased 700 grams of heroin from him, but afterwards complained about poor quality of heroin; and that Validad had told Mohd. Yasin that he would send a person, after festival of Holi, and he could return the remaining quantity of heroin lying with him and exchange it with better quality of heroin.
In view of this disclosure statement, SI Rakesh asked Validad accused to contact Mohd. Yasin on phone. Accordingly, Validad so contacted Mohd. Yasin. This conversation was recorded.
Arrest of Mohd. Yasin and recoveries
5. Thereafter, Inspector Attar Singh deputed SI Bhushan. The Sub Inspector, constituted a raiding party. The party reached gate no. 1, Jama Masjid at about 4 pm and 10 apprehended Mohd. Yasin, after HC Dilawar Singh posed himself to Mohd. Yasin as the person sent by Validad.
After service of notice under Section 50 of the Act Mohd. Yasin was subjected to search and he was found in possession of 550 grams of heroin kept in a transprent polythene contained in a yellow colour polythene.
Two samples each of 5 grams were drawn from the lot. Then, the sample parcels and parcel containing residue were sealed and seized.
Mohd. Yasin was then brought to PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, where he was produced before Inspector Rajinder Singh, with the case property, and the Inspector, in turn sealed the same with his seal and deposited it with MHC(M).
Report under Section 57 of the Act was prepared by SI Bhushan. It was communicated to the office of ACP through Inspector.
Case of prosecution is that efforts were made to trace suspects Sultan Singh and Sawasra, but they could not be traced out.
11Electronic and Expert Evidence
6. During investigation, electronic evidence was also collected. Six sample parcels referred to above were got despatched to FSL for analysis, and on analysis their reports were collected.
It is also case of prosecution that voice samples of three accused persons were also taken during investigation at FSL and then got analyzed. Experts prepared reports in this regard.
On completion of investigation, challan was before the Court.
Charge
7. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for the above mentioned offences, was framed against the accused. Since the accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed trial.
12Prosecution Evidence
8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following 37 witnesses: PW1 : ASI Pyara Singh PW2 : ACP Satyavir Singh PW3 : HC Sanjeev PW4 : HC Rajbir Singh PW5 : Ct. Sandeep PW6 : SI Dharambir PW7 : SI Bijender Singh PW8 : Sh. Vishal Gaurav PW9: HC Ramesh Kumar PW10 : Sh. Israr Babu PW11 : HC Dilawar Singh PW12 : SI Ranjit Singh PW13 : SI Jitender Tiwari PW14 : Sh. Rajeev Ranjan PW15 : Inspector Rajender Sehrawat PW16 : HC Hawa Singh PW17 : ASI Radha Krishan PW18: Inspector Attar Singh PW19 : Sh. Dinesh kumar PW20 : Sh. Sunil 13 PW21 : Sh. Rajesh PW22 : SI Bhushan Kumar PW23 : Sh. Brij Mohan PW24 : Sh. Deepak Mathur PW25 : SI M. Baxla PW26 : Sh. Mool Chand PW27: Mohammad Zamil PW28 : HC Deepak Kumar PW29 : V. Lakshmi Narsimhan PW30 : Dr. Kanak Lata Verma PW31 : Sh. Sunil Kumar PW32 : Sh. Vinod Kumar PW33 : Sh. Pawan Singh PW34 : ASI Suresh Kumar PW35 : Wasim Akhtar @ Shanu PW36: SI Parveen Kumar PW37: SI Rakesh Kumar Statement under section 313 CrPC
9. When examined under section 313 Cr. P.C., all the accused have denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them, to have entered into criminal conspiracy, the factum of recovery of heroin, the 14 proceedings conducted by the police at each spot and subsequent thereto.
As regards taking of voice sample, Mukesh accused has admitted that he and Validad were taken to FSL, Rohini for this purpose.
Validad accused also admitted that once police had taken took him to FSL, Rohini for this purpose.
Mohd. Yasin accused has displayed ignorance about this fact.
Defence Evidence
10. Only Validad accused has led defence evidence by examining DW1 Mohd. Feroz Khan, DW2 Sameer from his village and DW3 Ms. Anjum, his wife. Other two accused have however, opted not to lead any evidence in defence, despite opportunity.
11. Arguments heard. File perused.
15Discussion Interception of phone calls
12. As noticed about, case of prosecution is that in the year 2013 mobile phones of various persons, suspected to be indulging in drug supply were being intercepted in case FIR No.26/12 of Police Station Special Cell. In this regard prosecution has proved on record order Ex PW19/A. As per certificate Ex PW1/A, interception order and related documents for the year 2012 and 2013 regarding interception of phones, pertaining to this case, were destroyed and could not be produced.
It is in the statement of PW31 Sh. Sunil Kumar, Principal Staff Officer Ministry of Home Affairs that interception orders and related documents for the year 2012 and 2013 were destroyed as per certificate Ex PW31/A. In the course of arguments, no contention has been raised on behalf of accused that no reliance can safely be placed on Ex.PW19/A. 16 Undisputedly, mobile phone no. 9289586800 finds mention in this order passed to intercept incoming and outgoing messages, calls to or from any person on such phone.
Conversation between Mukesh and Validad accused
13. According to PW36 SI Praveen during monitoring of the mobile phone numbers, it transpired that a person namely Tamur Khan wanted in case FIR No.26/12 was in touch with coaccused Validad, who used to supply heroin to accused Mukesh. In this regard, prosecution has relied on interception of conversation between two mobile phone numbers i.e. 7895906081 and 8859457790 of said Validad Khan and mobile phone No. 9289586800 i.e. of Mukesh.
Both these accused have disputed that they were having any such mobile phone connections. Prosecution has led evidence in the form of statements of Nodal Officers of concerned Mobile phone service providers.
17PW14
14. According to PW14,Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, as per original CAF in respect of mobile no. 9289586800 in the name of Mukesh son of Pappu R/o AB34, Amar Puri,Nabi Karim, Pahar Ganj, Delhi and photocopy of election I D in the name of Mukesh. Photocopies of the relevant documents are Ex. PW14/C. CDR of the aforesaid mobile for the period from 15.02.2013 to 21.03.2013 is Ex. PW14/D. Cell ID Chart with location of the aforesaid mobile phones for the aforesaid period is Ex. PW14/E. In this regard, Certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act is Ex PW14/F. So prosecution has proved that mobile phone number 9289586800 was of Mukesh accused, and that the calls made from it and on it were legally allowed to be intercepted.
In view of the above evidence, court finds from cogent and convincing evidence that Mukesh has come up with a false plea in this regard.
8859457790 and 7895906081 phone which were recovered from Validad accused.
18PW8 Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. proved customer application form of mobile numbers 9589516683, 7895906081 and 7895906144 in the name of Tej Singh, Ved Ram and Shakuntala. Customer application forms, ID proof and CDR are Ex PW8/B (collectively).
PW 10 Sh. Israr Babu, Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services proved customer application form of mobile no. 8859457790 in the name of Arvind as Ex PW10/A, CDR of said mobile phone number for the period from 15.02.2013 to 21.03.2013 is Ex PW10/B and certificate under Section 65B of the Act is Ex PW10/C. According to PW14 Sh. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd., as per original CAF in respect of mobile no. 9213142429, it was in the name of accused Mohd. Yasin, son of Mohd. Safiq Khan R/o 1762, Ghante Wali Gali, Chahdi wali Pahari Bhujla Bazaar, Sita Ram, Delhi. Photocopies of the relevant documents are Ex. PW14/A. CDR of the aforesaid mobile for the period from 25.02.2013 to 21.03.2013 is Ex. PW14/B. 19
15. Ex PW37/I is the transcription of the conversation between two callers i.e. the one from mobile phone no. 9289586800 and the other mobile phone 7895906144. As per prosecution version, the second mentioned number was being used by Validad accused. It is true that prosecution has not produced on record any evidence to suggest that this second mention mobile phone connection got issued by Validad and as per statement of PW8 Sh. Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel, this mobile phone connection was in the name of one Shakuntala, prosecution has placed on record tapes Q1, Q2 and Q3 to establish conversation between Validad and Mukesh on comparison of their voice samples with the voices already recorded during interception.
It is case of prosecution that on 20.03.2013, PW37 alongwith HC Suresh, Ct. Vikas took accused Mukesh and Validad to FSL, Rohini for the purpose of taking of their voice samples. On the way, two persons namely PW21 Rajesh and PW20 Sunil were joined.
20At FSL Rohini, voice sample of accused Mukesh and Validad were taken by the expert in two separate cassettes. The expert prepared one copy each of voice sample of accused Mukesh and Validad, in two separate cassettes and delivered to PW37 all the four cassettes. PW37 prepared four parcels of these four cassettes and sealed them with seal bearing impression BK. The cassettes pertaining to accused Mukesh were given Mark S1 (Ex PW20/P3) and S2 (Ex PW20/P1) and the cassettes pertaining to accused Validad were given Mark S3 (Ex PW20/P4) and S4 (Ex PW20/P2). These were seized vide seizure memo Ex PW20/A. Further, it is case of prosecution on 03.04.2013, voices of accused Validad and Mukesh, were already lying recorded by way of interception of calls during recording of their conversation by way of legalized interception, were lying preserved in the computer system at their office in Rohini. PW37 copied the said recorded conversation in a CD and assigned it Mark Q1 Ex PW37/P1.
It is case of the prosecution that accused Mohd.
21Yasin was arrested on 20.03.2013 from the area of Jama Masjid.
Recording of voice sample of Mohd. Yasin
16. According to PW13 SI Jitender Tiwari of Special Cell, NR Delhi, on 22.03.2013 at about 10AM, he and HC Ramesh took accused Mohd. Yasin to FSL Rohini for his voice sample, as directed of Insp. Attar Singh. At about 10.30AM when they reached near Rohini west Metro Station. PW23 Brij Mohan joined the party. Thereafter, they reached FSL Rohini at about 10.45AM. There, voice sample of accused Mohd. Yasin was taken in the physics department by the concerned FSL official. One Tseries cassette containing voice sample was prepared with one extra copy. These were given mark S5 and S6. Both these cassettes were kept in two separate envelopes which were then sealed with the seal of US. After use, seal was given to Brij Mohan. PW13 the seized both these envelopes vide seizure memo vide Ex. PW13/A. On return to the office, PW13 got deposited both the sealed envelopes with MHC(M), through HC 22 Ramesh.
As noticed above, voices of all the accused, already recorded during recording of their conversation by way of legalized interception, were lying preserved in the computer system at Rohini. PW37 copied the said recorded conversation in a CD and assigned it Mark Q2 Ex PW37/P2. Voices of accused Mohd. Yasin and Validad, already recorded during recording of their conversation by way of legalized interception, were lying preserved in the computer system at Rohini. PW37 copied the said recorded conversation in a CD and assigned it Mark Q3 Ex PW37/P3.
All these three CDs Q1, Q2 and Q3 were turned by PW37 into three separate parcels, sealed with seal bearing impression RK and seized them vide memo Ex PW37/G. Case of prosecution is that on 05.04.2013, voice samples Mark S1, S3, S5 and Q1, Q2 and Q3 were got deposited at FSL, Rohini through PW17 HC Radha Krishnan, for analysis. After deposit at FSL and on return, he handed over copy of Road Certificate and 23 acknowledgment of FSL to MHC(M).
Transcript Ex PW37/I of the conversation recorded in the above mentioned CDs running into 24 sheets was prepared by PW37 in the handwriting of Ct. Sandeep on his instruction and dictation in his presence.
These were then sent to FSL, Delhi for comparison with sample voice S1 i.e. of Mukesh, sample voice S3 i.e. of Validad and sample voice S5 of Mohd. Yasin.
17. In the course of arguments, no contention has been raised on behalf of any of the accused as to why no reliance should have placed on the interception and recording of conversation and analysis of the said conversation, on comparison with the sample voice of each of the accused. Therefore, Court can safely rely on the report Ex PW29/A. According to PW29 V. Lakashmi Narsimahan - expert from FSL on comparison and examination of the contents of parcels 1, 2 and 3, which were found containing CDs, and contents of parcels 4, 5 and 6, which were 24 containing audio cassettes having voice samples of all accused. Report Ex PW29/A was prepared.
Opinion of the expert in report Ex PW29/A is as under: "1. The voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit Q1" and "Exhibit S1" are the voice of the same person (i.e. Mukesh)
2. The voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit Q2" and "Exhibit S3" are the voice of the same person (i.e. Balidad @ Balidas)
3. The voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit Q3" and "ExhibitS5"
are the probable voice of the same person (i.e. Mohd. Yasin.) The auditory analysis of recorded speech samples of speakers marked "Exhibit Q1" & "Exhibit S1" and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) revealed that the voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit Q1" is similar to the voice exhibits of speaker "Exhibit - S1" in respect of their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features.
Similarly, the auditory analysis of 25 recorded speech samples of speakers marked "Exhibit Q2" & "Exhibit S3"
and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) revealed that the voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit Q2" is similar to the voice exhibits of speaker "Exhibit - S3"
in respect of their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features.
Similarly, the auditory analysis of recorded speech samples of speakers marked "Exhibit Q3" & "Exhibit S5"
and subsequent acoustic analysis of speech samples by using CSL (Computerized Speech Lab) revealed that the voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit Q3" is similar to the voice exhibits of speaker marked "Exhibit - S5" in respect of their acoustic cues and other linguistic and phonetic features."
This electronic evidence lends corroboration to the prosecution version.
18. On 16.3.2013, PW36 SI Parveen informed PW18 Inspector Attar Singh about conversation between the two 26 accused namely Mukesh and Validad. According to PW36, he also apprised the Inspector of a call, intercepted on mobile phone of accused Mukesh, Mukesh telling his co accused Validad that he (Mukesh) would come to Faridpur by Express train.
From the transcript of the conversation between Mukesh and Validad, on 14.03.2013, it stands proved that Mukesh informed Validad that he shall be leaving for his place on the night of Saturday and reach him by 4.00 am and that too secretively.
From the transcript of the conversation between the two, recorded on 16.03.2013, it transpires that Mukesh was advised not to bring bag and further about the manner in which he should bring cash. On the same day, in 30 second conversation, Mukesh inquired from Validad if he used to possess Ganja. In the subsequent conversation, they talked about quantity and other items. On 17.03.2013, Mukesh talked Validad and told him that he was still in Bareilly. On the same day, at about 3.15 asked Validad to open the gate. This goes to show that Mukesh reached the 27 destination and met Validad, where the latter was.
Compliance with provisions of Section 42 of the Act
19. PW36 SI Parveen Kumar is said to have recorded information about interception of call on 16.03.2013 from the mobile phone of Mukesh in which he expressed to Validad about his visit to Faridpur by Express train and put up the same before PW18 Inspector Attar Singh, who in turn forwarded the same to the office of ACP.
The original information received in the office of ACP is Ex.PW6/A. Its receipt has been proved by PW6 Reader of the concerned ACP and PW2 - ACP Satyavir Singh himself. PW2 Satyavir Singh ACP stated to have gone through contents of Ex.PW36/A, vide his endorsement Ex PW6/A and directed for action as per law.
Movement of Mukesh to Faridpur(UP), and return to Delhi with heroin
20. It is in the statement of PW36 SI Parveen that supervision / monitoring of phone also revealed that 28 accused Mukesh had reached Faridpur (UP) by Shaheed Express Train. He recorded this information by way of Ex PW36/B and informed ACP Satyavir Singh Dagar and Inspector Attar Singh. Both these witnesses have also supported the evidence of PW36 in this regard. Ex PW6/B is the endorsement made by PW2 on 18.03.2013 at 12.30 pm, regarding perusal of contents of Ex PW36/B, on its receipt from SI Parveen Kumar through Inspector Attar Singh.
In the course of arguments, no contention has been raised by learned counsel for the accused persons that this is case of noncompliance with provisions of Section 42 of the Act, so far as Ex PW36/A is concerned.
Further, case of prosecution is that on 17.03.2013, at 9.17 am, one phone call was intercepted by PW36, during monitoring and as per the conversation accused Mukesh had with his wife. During conversation, Mukesh told his wife that he was returning to Delhi from Faridpur, UP.
29SI Parveen Kumar inquired from the railways and found that Mukesh was referring to AlHazrat Express Train. The SI recorded this information. He then got this information forwarded to the ACP. In this regard PW36 recorded DD No. 5 Ex PW36/C. The original information received in the office of ACP is Ex.PW36/C. Its receipt has been proved by PW6 Reader of the concerned ACP and PW2 - ACP Satyavir Singh himself. PW2 Satyavir Singh ACP is stated to have gone through contents of Ex.PW36/C, vide his endorsement Ex PW6/C and directed for action as per law.
PW2 and PW18 have also deposed about this fact.
21. As per directions of the ACP, Inspector Attar Singh, PW36 SI Parveen Kumar constituted a raiding party comprising of himself, ASI Bhushan, ASI Prabhodh, HC Rajbir, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Sumer.
It is in statement of PW36 that he sent HC Rajbir, Ct. Sandeep and HC Harpreet to Ghaziabad Railway Station by a govt. vehicle gypsy bearing no. DL1CM 1346.
30HC Rajbir was directed to reach Old Delhi Railway station and meet ASI Prabodh leaving Ct. Sandeep and HC Harpreet at Ghaziabad Railway Station.
Ct. Sandeep and HC Harpreet were directed to board the Train namely AlHazrat Express at Ghaziabad and search for accused Mukesh and that in case they found them, they shall inform him (PW36).
It is in the statement of PW4 HC Rajbir Singh that on 17.03.2013, at about 10AM, he along with HC Harpreet and Ct. Sandip started from their office by government vehicle. He dropped HC Harpreet and Ct. Sandeep at Ghaziabad Railway Station at about 11AM. Then, he went to ODRS and reached there at about 12.30noon and reported to ASI Parbodh, outside PS ODRS. He parked the vehicle near PS, ODRS. SI Parveen also met ASI Prabodh.
According to PW36 SI Parveen, he obtained information about the arrival of the above train and it was revealed that train was running late by one and a half hour. After collecting this information, PW36 sent ASI Bhushan 31 and Ct. Sumer to Sarai Rohilla Railway Station in search of accused Mukesh.
ASI Prabodh was sent to Old Delhi Railway Station for the same purpose.
As regards his own arrival, PW36 has deposed that at about 12.15 pm, he proceeded from his office by a govt. vehicle bearing no. DL 1CJ 3566 to Old Delhi Railway Station, after collecting investigating kit, field testing kit and electronic weighing machine from the office. At about 1 pm, he reached Old Delhi Railway Station. There, ASI Prabodh and HC Rajbir met him.
Further according to PW 36, at about 1.05 pm, Ct. Sandeep informed HC Rajbir from the above train that the said train had reached Old Delhi Railway Station. At that time, he was accompanying HC Rajbir. Ct.Sandeep informed that he had seen accused Mukesh in the train. Ct. Sandeep also told HC Rajbir and the HC informed that accused Mukesh was having a pitthu bag on his shoulders. Ct. Sandeep continued following Mukesh and kept on informing HC Rajbir after alighting from the train. He 32 further informed that after having alighted from the train accused Mukesh was proceeding towards Waiting Hall of the station. Thereafter, on seeing SI Parveen, Ct. Sandeep gave a signal pointing out towards accused Mukesh. That is how, Mukesh was apprehended by them at the Railway station.
PW4 HC Rajbir and PW5 Ct. Sandeep have deposed in line with the statement of PW36.
PW28 HC Deepak Kumar has deposed about the entries recorded in the log book. Copy of relevant page of the log book is Ex PW28/A. In view of the entries available in the log book, there is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for Validad and Mukesh that prosecution has not proved on record log book entries regarding this vehicle.
The record regarding movement of the said vehicle lends corroboration to the case of prosecution narrated by the abovesaid PWs.
It is in the statements of prosecution witnesses that immediately after accused Mukesh was apprehended, 33 he swallowed a railway travelling ticket.
Mukesh has not brought on record any evidence to the contrary, to suggest that he did not travel from Delhi to Faridpur or on return journey. Learned Addl. PP submits that the CDR Ex PW14/D and location chart Ex PW14/E establish this fact. No argument to the contrary has been advanced by learned defence counsel in this regard so as to doubt the testimony of the aforesaid PWs.
Recovery of heroin from Mukesh
22. According to PW36, he then removed the pitthu bag from shoulder of accused Mukesh, checked its contents and found that it was containing one grey colour polythene which was further found containing one transparent polythene containing matiala colour powdery substance.
He then tested small quantity of the said substance on the field testing kit and the same was found to be Heroin. He then weighed the substance with transparent polythene, and it weighed 1 kg.
34Then, he (PW36) took out two samples, each of 5gms, from the recovered substance and kept the same in two separate transparent pouches and converted them into two separate cloth parcels which were marked as A1 and A2.
The remaining heroin which was inside the transparent polythene was kept in the same polythene and then converted into a cloth parcel given Mark A. Further according to PW36, Pithu bag was converted into separate cloth parcel and given Mark A3.
He then sealed all four parcels with his seal bearing impression PK. He also filled in FSL Form at the spot and affixed impression of said seal on it. After use, he delivered the seal to HC Rajbir. Thereafter, he seized the parcels and FSL form vide seizure memo Ex PW4/C. PW36 has also deposed to have prepared rukka Ex PW36/D and to have handed over the same along with FSL form with four sealed parcels and the copy of seizure memo, to Ct. Sandeep with the direction that rukka was to be handed over to the duty officer and the remaining items 35 were to be handed over to SHO PS Special Cell.
Compliance with Section 50 of the Act
23. According to PW36, he introduced himself and other staff members to Mukesh . He also told accused Mukesh regarding his legal right to the effect that some Magistrate or Gazetted Officer could be called to the spot, if he so desired and his search could be conducted in their presence. PW36 also told accused Mukesh that he could conduct search of police officials before his search was conducted.
Accused Mukesh expressed that he did not want to get himself subjected to search in presence of any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate and that he also did not want to search persons of the members of the party.
Thereafter, PW36 prepared notice under section 50 NDPS Act Ex PW4/A. Copy of the said notice was served upon accused Mukesh. He gave his reply Ex. PW4/B. Learned counsel for Mukesh and Validad accused contended that reply of these two accused to the notices 36 under Section 50 of the Act are almost in same words and that it is not believable two persons would use exactly same words replying to any such notices, and that this fact creates doubt if any such notice were served upon the accused persons.
Another contention raised by learned counsel is that words "nearest Magistrate" do not find mention in these notices.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has pointed out that the words used by these two accused in reply to respective notice under Section 50 of the Act are not same and as such there is no merit in the contention raised by learned defence counsel.
As regards, nonmentioning of words 'nearest', learned Addl. PP submits that omission of this word does not come to the aid of the accused when both of them were apprised of their legal rights under Section 50 of the Act but they refused to exercise the same.
As rightly submitted, had the accused opted to exercise this legal right, then the matter would have been 37 otherwise. Since they refused to exercise their legal rights, nonmentioning of word 'nearest' in this notice, does not adversely affect the case of prosecution particularly when accused persons were duly apprised of the contents of the notices. Decision in Om Prakash Vs. State III (2014) CCR Del cited by learned counsel for accused persons does not come the aid of the accused persons.
In Om Prakash's case (supra), accused was taken to nearest police officer which was at a distance of 20 km was away whereas the nearest police station was in Rani Bagh and as such nonexplanation in this regard was observed to be noncompliance with the mandatory requirement under Section 50 of the Act.
On perusal of the reply of Mukesh and Validad accused to the notices under Section 50 of the Act, court finds that the words used therein are not same. Therefore, it cannot be said that these notices were not at all served upon these accused.
In Ram Prakash Vs. State 2014 (146) DRJ 629, adverse inference was drawn against the prosecution as no 38 CCTV footage was collected from nearby CCTV cameras.
Herein, there is nothing on record to suggest that any CCTV camera was lying installed near the place of arrest of Mukesh accused.
Even otherwise, in the course of arguments, learned defence counsel has not been able to point out any contradiction in the statements of witnesses to the arrest of and recovery from Mukesh accused. There decision in Ram Prakash's case (supra) does not come to the aid of the accused.
Production of case property before PW15
24. It is in the statement of PW15 Insp. Rajender Sehrawat that on 17.03.2013, at about 6.30PM, Ct. Sandeep handed over to him four pullandas mark A1, A2, A3 and A, bearing seals of PK, FSL form bearing impression of same seal and carbon copy of seizure memo. He then put his seal of RSS on all the parcels, recorded FIR number thereon and FSL form. He deposited all the parcels and documents with MHC(M) ASI M Baxla vide entry in 39 register no. 19 and also put his signatures in the relevant entry, in addition to recording of DD No. 9A.
Compliance with provisions under Section 57 of the Act
25. On 18.03.2013 report u/s 57 NDPS Act Ex PW6/D from SI Parveen Kumar forwarded by Inspector Special Cell (NR) was received at the office of ACP. The ACP went through their contents.
On 18.03.2013 written information dated 17.03.2013, copy of DD no 5 dated 17.03.2013 Ex.PW6/C, report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding recovery of narcotic drugs, another report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused, photocopy of disclosure statement of accused Mukesh were also put up before the ACP.
PW37 has proved DD No.16 Ex.PW37/B. He has also proved report u/s 57 NDPS Act Ex.PW6/E regarding arrest of accused Mukesh and to have sent the same to ACP through Inspector in charge. This report was received at the office of ACP on 18.03.2013. It stands proved on record that the ACP had gone through their contents. According to 40 PW2 ASI Satyavir Singh, he was apprised of arrest of accused Mukesh, vide Ex.PW6/A. Thereupon, he assigned investigation of the case to SI RakeshPW37.
It stands proved on record that after registration of the FIR, at about 4.45 pm PW37 SI Rakesh came to the spot for investigation. While leaving the Special Cell, he recorded DD NO.11 Ex.PW37/A. At the spot, he found accused Mukesh present there with SI Parveen Kumar and his staff. PW36 handed over all the documents to the SI, prepared by him at the spot. Accused Mukesh was also produced before PW37.
According to PW 37, SI RakeshIO he prepared site plan Ex.PW36/E at instance of PW36. He also interrogated accused Mukesh, arrested him and subjected him to personal search vide memos Ex. PW4/E and Ex. PW4/F. Case is registered
26. On the basis of rukka, PW1 ASI Pyara Singh recorded FIR Ex.PW1/A appended endorsement Ex.PW1/B 41 thereto and then handed over copy of the FIR with original rukka to Ct.Sandeep. In this regard, he also recorded DD No.7A Ex.PW1/C. Case of prosecution is that Mukesh accused was apprehended at about 1.10 pm, rukka was complete by 4.30 pm and FIR came to be registered at about 5 pm. Soon thereafter, SI Rakesh - PW37 reached the spot. According to PW36, SI Rakesh interrogated the accused and arrested him at about 5.30 pm. This goes to show that there was no delay in getting the case registered and as such nonjoining of witness from public does not come to the aid of the accused.
On his personal search, a carbon copy of notice under section 50 NDPS Act Ex PW36/I, carbon copy of body inspection memo Ex.PW36/H, one key, amount of Rs. 400/ and one mobile phone make Karbon Ex P4 containing Sim bearing connection number 9289586800 were recovered. In this regard seizure memo Ex.PW36/G was prepared.
42Disclosure statement by Mukesh accused before SI Parveen Kumar
27. It is case of the prosecution that PW37 interrogated accused Mukesh once again and he disclosed vide Ex.PW36/F in presence of PW36 that he had collected the recovered heroin from his coaccused Validad R/o Faridpur, Bareilley.
It is in the statement of PW37 that he and other members of the party, in company of accused Mukesh at about 6.30PM and reached PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony at about 7PM. There, accused Mukesh was produced before the SHO. He deposited personal search articles of accused Mukesh with MHC(M) except the mobile phone which, according to him was required for the purpose of investigation to trace source of contraband. Thereafter, they reached office of Special Cell, Sector6, Rohini.
Disclosure statement made by accused Mukesh
28. Case of prosecution is that on the same night i.e. in the intervening night of 1718.3.2013, PW37 further 43 interrogated accused Mukesh and thereupon he disclosed that previously he had brought two types of heroin from said Validad Khan and some part of the said heroin had been sold, while remaining heroin, of both types, was still lying in the box at his house no.C6/109, Sultanpuri, Delhi.
Accused Mukesh further disclosed that the key Ex PW16/P6 which was recovered from his personal search was the key of the lock of the box containing the contraband.
PW37 recorded disclosure statement of accused Mukesh Ex.PW34/A. He apprised Inspector Attar Singh of the said disclosure and also got forwarded its copy to PW2 ACP.
PW2 ACP Satya Vir Singh and PW18 Inspector Attar Singh have supported the case of prosecution in this regard.
It is case of the prosecution that in pursuance of directions of Inspector Attar Singh, PW37 constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, ASI Prabodh Kumar, ASI Bhushan, HC Hawa Singh, HC Suresh and Ct.Sumer. PW37 44 in company of accused Mukesh and in the company of staff proceeded from the office to the disclosed place vide DD Ex.PW37/C. According to PW37, initially, they reached at police station Lodhi Colony and collected the key Ex.PW16/P6 from the malkhana. Thereafter, at about 4:45 p.m they reached at C6/109, Sultanpuri, New Delhi.
It is in the statements of the witnesses that on reaching the said house, accused Mukesh pointed out his residence on the first floor of the said rented house. On reaching the first floor of his house, accused Mukesh got opened the door of his house, which was opened by his wife. After entering the house, accused Mukesh pointed out one locked box lying in the room. PW37 opened lock of the box with the aforesaid key recovered on his personal search. It led to recovery of one light green colour cloth bag (theli) and same was the said cloth was found containing two transparent polythenes. One polythene was containing light brown colour powdery substance and the other polythene was containing offwhite colour powdery substance.
45PW37 weighed the transparent polythene containing light brown colour powdery substance and it was found to be 500 gms. He drew two samples, each of 5 gms from the recovered substance. Both the samples were turned in two parcels and given Mark B1 & B2. The remaining substance in the transparent polythene was also converted into a cloth parcel and marked as Mark B. According to PW37, then he weighed the other polythene which was containing offwhite colour powdery substance and it was found to be 500 gms.
He drew two samples, each of 5 gms from the said substance. Both the samples were turned in two separate parcels and given Mark C1 & C2. The remaining substance in the transparent polythene was also converted into a cloth parcel and marked as Mark C. He filled in FSL form and then affixed his seal bearing impression RK on all the six parcels and the FSL form.
According to PW37, he seized all the aforesaid 6 parcels and FSL form through seizure memo Ex.PW16/A. 46 He also seized the lock, after turning the same into a sealed parcel, photocopy of voter I Card of accused Mukesh Ex.PW37/D and one Rent Agreement Ex.PW26/A in original recovered from the box, vide memo Ex.PW16/B. According to PW37, after use he handed over the seal to HC Suresh Kumar.
It is in the statement of PW26 Mool Chand that he had let out first floor of house no. C6/109, Sultanpuri Delhi to Mukesh on the basis of rent agreement Ex PW26/A. It is significant to note that the Mukesh accused has admitted that the said house was on rent with him during the relevant period.
Ex PW16/A i.e. the memo bears attestation of HC Hawa Singh and HC Suresh Kumar. Both these witnesses while appearing in Court as PW16 & PW34 have deposed in line with the statement of PW37.
29. Learned defence counsel contended that this is a case where there is no corroboration to the version of the police official regarding arrest of and recovery from Mukesh 47 accused and that nonjoining of independent witness creates doubt if any such recovery was made from accused Mukesh.
On the point of evidentiary value of police officials, Hon'ble Apex Court observed in decision in Ajmer Singh vs. State of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 746, as under: "The submission that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be relied upon as their testimony has not been corroborated by any independent witness cannot be accepted. It is true that a charge under the Act is serious and carries onerous consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is imprisonment of 10 years and a fine. In this situation, it is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. It may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute. If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, 48 the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence."
In the course of arguments, learned defence counsel has not pointed out any contradiction or discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses on the point of recovery from Mukesh and Validad accused.
30. Learned defence counsel for Mukesh accused has pointed out that prosecution failed to bring on record any entry in the log book of vehicle no. DL 1CJ 3566 which creates doubt if any such party was led to the house of Mukesh or if any such recovery was made from there.
It is true that prosecution has not proved on record any log book of vehicle no. DL 1CJ 3566. But prosecution has fully proved about departing of the party headed by SI Rakesh Kumar for the house of Mukesh by 49 govt. vehicle no. DL 1CJ 3566 by way of DD No. 19 Ex PW37/C, recorded by SI Rakesh Kumar on 17.03.2013. Had this entry not been containing the number of the vehicle, then the things would have been otherwise. But in view of this documentary evidence, court does not find any ground to disbelieve the testimony PWs regarding use of this vehicle in reaching the house of Mukesh accused.
Further according to PW37, he informed Inspector Attar Singh and ACP of Special Cell, NR at about 5.40 am regarding the recovery of above substance from the house of accused Mukesh.
PW18 Inspector Attar Singh has also deposed about this fact.
It is in the statement of PW37 that after having left the spot with accused Mukesh, they reached to police station Special Cell Lodhi Colony. There, he produced all the six parcels, FSL form and one copy of seizure memo of substance before PW15 Inspector Rajinder Sehrawat, SHO, PS Special Cell. The SHO, in turn affixed his seal bearing impression RSS on all the six parcels and FSL form. He also 50 put his signatures on these items, got recorded DD No.2A and then he deposited the parcels with FSL form, in the malkhana.
According to PW37, he himself deposited the parcel containing lock, in the malkhana and then left PS Special Cell, reached office at Rohini. On reaching there, he recorded DD no.5 Ex.PW37/E. PW37 has proved reports u/s 57 NDPS Act Ex.PW6/G and Ex PW6/F regarding recovery of contraband substance at instance of accused Mukesh.
PW37 has also proved report Ex.PW6/H regarding house search i.e. at the house of Mukesh between sunset and sunrise. Report Ex PW6/F is the report prepared by PW37 and sent to office ACP through Inspector Attar Singh.
PW2 and PW18 have supported the statement of PW37 in this regard.
It is in the statement of PW15 Insp. Rajender Sehrawat that on 18.03.2013, at about 7am, SI Rakesh produced before him, at his office three parcels Mark C1, C2 51 and C3 all bearing seals of R.K., FSL form and copy of seizure memo. He then put his seal of RSS on all the parcels, recorded FIR number thereon and FSL form. He deposited all the parcels and documents with MHC(M) ASI M Baxla vide entries in register no. 19 and also put his signatures in the relevant entry, in addition to recording of DD No. 2A.
Case of prosecution is that PW37 produced accused Mukesh before the concerned court and obtained his custody by way of police remand for four days.
According to PW37, on 18.3.2013 at about 9:30 pm, he, ASI Bijender Singh, HC Ramesh, HC Rajbir, HC Suresh Kumar, HC Harpreet, Ct.Sumer, Ct. Vikas in company of accused Mukesh departed from their office vide DD No.36 Ex.PW37/F. Contents of this DD entry lend corroboration to the version of prosecution regarding departure of this party for Faridpur, District Bareilly, UP.
52Arrival of the police party at Faridpur, District Bareilly, UP
31. According to PW37 SI Rakesh, at about 5:20 a.m on 19.3.13 they reached Faridpur, District Bareilly, UP by government vehicle no.DL 1CJ 7367 driven by HC Rajbir Singh.
It is in the statement of PW28 HC Deepak Kumar that on night intervening 181903.2013 Govt. vehicle no. DL 1CJ 7367 Tavera was used for investigation so as to reach Bareilly, UP, and on return journey by SI Rakesh Kumar and in this regard entry was recorded in the log book. Copy of the relevant page of the log book is Ex PW28/B. PW28 HC Deepak Kumar has deposed about the entries recorded in the log book. Copy of relevant page of the log book is Ex PW28/A. In view of the entries available in the log book, there is no merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for Validad and Mukesh that prosecution has not proved on record log book entries regarding this vehicle.
53The record regarding movement of the said vehicle lends corroboration to the case of prosecution narrated by the abovesaid PWs.
Arrest of Validad accused and recovery from him
32. According to PW37, when he and other staff accompanied by Mukesh accused reached Vishalpur Road at Faridpur, accused Mukesh pointed out the house of accused Validad Khan. PW37 then knocked the door of said house of Validad Khan. Wife of accused Validad opened the door. On seeing them, wife of Validad raised alarm.
According to PW37, he and his staff entered the said house and reached the first floor. On reaching upstairs, PW37 noticed accused Validad coming out of the room and entering the toilet. Mukesh identified his coaccused as Validad Khan. At that time, accused Validad was holding a white colour polythene in his hand. After entering the toilet said Validad Khan tried to bolt the door but PW37 along with staff forcibly opened the door and then apprehended him. During this process, Validad Khan sustained some 54 minor abrasions on his forehead.
It is in the statement of PW37 that he introduced himself and staff members to accused Validad Khan. He also apprised Validad Khan about the information given by Mukesh in respect of providing the contraband substance by accused Validad Khan to Mukesh.
PW37 told accused Validad Khan that there was possibility of apprehension of recovery of some contraband substance from his person. He also apprised Validad Khan of his legal right that if he wanted to get his search conducted in presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, then he could be taken to them. He also told Validad Khan that before his search he could conduct search of police party. He also served notice u/s 50 NDPS Act Ex.PW7/A upon said Validad Khan in respect of his above legal rights by delivering him carbon copy of notice. But Validad Khan refused to exercise his legal rights. Accused Validad Khan gave his reply in writing on the above notice. Since Validad Khan was unable to write down his reply, at his instance, he (PW37) wrote down the reply Ex.PW7/B as 55 per instructions of Validad.
It is in the statement of PW37 SI Rakesh Kumar that he took over white colour polythene from the hands of accused Validad and checked it. The said polythene was further found containing one transparent polythene and it was containing light brown colour powdery substance. He tested the substance on field testing kit and found that it was heroin.
According to PW37, he weighed the said substance with the transparent polythene and it was found to be 625 grams. Two samples, each of 5 grams were drawn from the said substance and turned into cloth parcels and given Mark E1 and E2. The remaining substance alongwith the transparent polythene and the polythene bag recovered from accused Validad, were converted into a cloth parcel and given Mark E. PW37 deposed that he filled in FSL form, affixed seal having impression JT, on all the three parcels, FSL form and then seized the parcels and the FSL form vide seizure memo Ex PW7/C. After use, seal was handed over to ASI 56 Bijender.
PW37 interrogated accused Validad and recorded his disclosure statement Ex PW9/A wherein he disclosed that a Scorpio car was lying parked on the ground floor and he could get recovered 500 grams more heroin from the said car.
In pursuance of the said disclosure statement accused Validad led the police party to ground floor of his house at Bisalpur Road, Faridpur. PW37 took key Ex PW7/P10 of the garage from accused Validad and opened the same. One Scorpio car bearing registration no. DL 1CJ 5361 was found lying parked in the garage. On opening the door of the car, towards driver seat, PW37 found one polythene of light blue colour lying under the seat of the driver. On opening the polythene, matiala colour powder was found in it.
According to PW37, small quantity of the powder, when tested on field testing kit was found to be heroin. He weighed the substance with polythene and it was found to be 490 grams.
57He took out two samples each of 5 grams, turned the same samples into two separate cloth parcels and assigned them Mark F1 and F2. Remaining substance was also turned into a cloth parcel alongwith recovered polythene, and was given Mark F. According to PW37, he filled in FSL form, sealed the three parcels with seal bearing impression JT and also affixed impression of the seal on FSL form. After use, seal was handed over to ASI Bijender Singh. All these were then seized alongwith Scorpio Car vide seizure memo Ex PW7/D1. Key of the garage was also seized vide seizure memo Ex PW7/F. One registration certificate Ex PW7/13 of motorcycle bearing no. UP 25AL 7750 in the name of accused Validad was recovered from the dashboard of the Scorpio car and the same was also seized vide seizure memo Ex PW7/E. Accused Validad was arrested arrest memo Ex PW7/H, his personal search was conducted vide memo Ex PW7/I and from his possession a sum of Rs.250/ in cash, one carbon copy of notice under Section 50 of the Act Ex 58 PW7/P14 and one carbon copy of body inspection memo were recovered. Two mobile phones one make Nokia Ex P7/P11 and the other make Lephone Ex PW7/P12, were also recovered from the possession of accused Validad and seized vide memo Ex PW7/G. PW37 interrogated and recorded disclosure statement Ex PW7/J of accused Validad.
It is in the statement of PW35 Wasim Akhtar that in the year 2011, he took a shop on rent from accused Validad. Said shop was on the ground floor on Bisalpur road, Bareilly. He used to park aforesaid Scorpio car either at his house or at the rented shop. On 19.03.2013 while the said car was parked at the said rented shop, police took away the car. House of accused Validad was situated above the said shop.
It is case of prosecution that at about 8.15 am police party headed by SI Rakesh left the house of accused Validad and took him and the case property to police station Faridpur, Bareily. Thereafter police party left for Delhi. At about 4 pm on 19.03.2013, the party reached Tis Hazari Court and produced accused Validad before Special Judge, 59 Delhi and his custody by way of police remand was obtained.
PW37 alongwith staff and accused Mukesh and Validad reached PS special Cell, Lodhi Colony. There he produced aforesaid parcels alongwith the FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memos before the SHO Inspector Rajinder Singh Sehrawat, who affixed his seal bearing impression RSS on all the sealed parcels and also on the FSL form.
It is in statement of PW15 Insp. Rajender Sehrawat that on 19.03.2013, at about 5PM, SI Rakesh produced before him six parcels mark E1,E2, E and F1,F2 and F, lying sealed with the seal of JT, two FSL forms having impression of same seal and two carbon copies of seizure memo. He then affixed his seal on all the parcels and also put its impression on the FSL forms.
According to the inspector PW15, he also deposited all the parcels with MHC(M) ASI M Baxla, put his signatures in register no. 19 and also recorded DD number 8A at about 5.05PM in this regard.
6033. Case of prosecution is that from Police Station Special Cell Lodhi Colony, PW37 alongwith HC Rajbir, HC Suresh, Ct. Sumer, Ct. Vikas, while accused Mukesh and Validad were in custody, left for Special Cell, NR Office at Rohini.
According to PW37, he prepared a report under Section 57 of the Act regarding arrest of accused Validad and recovery of heroin from him. He also prepared report regarding search of the house of accused Validad during the concerned period i.e. after sunset and before sunrise, and sent both the reports Ex PW6/I and Ex PW6/J to ACP through Inspector Attar Singh.
It is case of prosecution that on 19.03.2013, ACP was informed on telephone by SI Rakesh Kumar from Faridpur Bareilly that he had apprehended Validad and conducted search of his house and recovered 625 grams of heroin from his possession and further that 490 grams of heroin had been recovered from the Scorpio car.
It is in prosecution evidence that in the same evening SI Rakesh produced before the ACP, report u/s 57 61 NDPS Act regarding seizure and arrest of accused Validad.
34. Learned counsel appearing for Mukesh and Validad accused argued that this is a case of non compliance mandatory provision of Section 42 of the Act as SI Rakesh was neither authorized nor he obtained any permission from senior police officers, under Section 41 (1) of the Act to conduct search between sunset and sunrise, and further that if the concerned officer had reasons to believe that a search warrant or authorization could not be obtained without affording opportunity for escape of offender, such officer was required to record grounds of his belief, but herein PW37 neither obtained any search warrants nor recorded any ground of belief and as such no reliance can be placed on the evidence led by the prosecution to the recovery of contraband said to have been got recovered by Mukesh and Validad from their respective house.
In support of this contention, learned counsel for has referred to decision in State of Rajasthan V/s. Jag Raj 62 Singh @ Hansa IV (2016) SLT 557.
In Jag Raj Singh @Hansa's case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that sec 42 (1) indicates that any authorized officer can carry out search between sun rise and sun set without warrant or authorisation. The scheme indicates that in event the search has to be made between sun set and sun rise, the warrant would be necessary unless officer has reasons to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording the opportunity for escape of offender which grounds of his belief has to be recorded. That was a case where no ground for belief as contemplated by proviso to Subsection (1) of Section 42 or Subsection (2) of Section 42 was ever recorded by Station House Officer who proceeded to carry on search."
On the same point, learned defence counsel has also referred to decisions in State of Rajasthan V/s. Chhagan Lal 2014 (4) JCC (Narcotics) 213; Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (4) JCC Narcotics 170 and Chunna @ Mehtab Vs. State of M.P., 2009 Supreme 63 Court cases 363.
As regards recovery from the tenanted house of Mukesh, PW37 alongwith other staff and Mukesh accused reached C6/109, Sultanpuri, at about 4.45 pm. Before departing for the said house, PW37 apprised Insepctor Attar Singh of the disclosure statement made by Mukesh accused and submitted to him copy of said disclosure statement for being communicated to the office of ACP. According to PW37, as per directions of Inspector Attar Singh his party left by recording DD no. 19 Ex PW37/C in the company of Mukesh accused.
In his crossexamination PW37 admitted to have not obtained any written permission from any Gazetted officer to search house of Mukesh. He volunteered to have apprised the Inspector of the disclosure statement and that the Inspector informed the ACP and then he was orally directed to take necessary action.
As noticed above PW2 ACP Satyavir Singh has supported the case of prosecution. PW18 Inspector Attar Singh have also supported PW37 on this case. PW18 stated 64 that copy of disclosure statement of Mukesh was placed before ACP Satya Vir Singh. PW2 ACP Satya Vir Singh stated in his chief examination that on 18.03.2013, photocopy of disclosure statement of Mukesh was also put up before him. He was not crossexamined by learned defence counsel, as to by whom the said copy was put up before him. Had he been crossexamined in this regard, PW2 might have explained in this regard.
The fact remains that oral instructions regarding search at house of Mukesh after sunset and before sunrise were given by the ACP to Inspector Attar Singh for further necessary action and the Inspector communicated the same to PW37.
Ex PW6/H is the report under Section 57 of the Act submitted by SI Rakesh Kumar to Inspector Attar Singh on 18.03.2013. The Inspector forwarded the same to the office of ACP and the ACP went through its contents on the same day at about 1 pm. In this report, Ex PW6/H, SI Rakesh Kumar clearly recorded the ground of belief to leave for the house 65 of Mukesh accused, without search warrant or permission in writing. PW37 recorded that as per verbal approval of senior officers to take immediate search of the house to recover contraband, he reached the said house. He also specifically mentioned therein to have apprised the two senior police officers about the disclosure and the urgency to take house search between sunset and sunrise, as there was strong apprehension of removal of contraband from the said house, if delay was caused in taking permission for house search.
Even while appearing in Court as PW37 explained in this regard in crossexamination by stating in the manner as:
"On having reached the house of Mukesh accused, I did not prepare any document stipulating therein the grounds of my belief that permission could not be obtained from the ACP or Magistrate for house search. However, I subsequently, on having reached Special Cell, NR, prepared report under Section 57 of the Act and also another report Ex PW6/H mentioning therein the grounds as to why 66 permission could not be obtained from the ACP for house search after sunset and before sunrise."
In Jag Raj's case (supra) SHO had never recorded ground of belief. But here is a case where PW37 recorded grounds of belief at a later stage and submitted the same to senior police officer.
As regards Validad accused, according to PW37, he prepared report under Section 57 of the Act Ex PW6/I and also house search report Ex PW6/J. In Ex PW6/J, which he prepared on 19.03.2013, after the recovery from Validad accused, PW37 specifically mentioned that recovery justified immediate search of the house conducted at about 5.30 am. This sentence used by PW37 in this report may appear to have been not been happily worded, but it appears that by writing this sentence in this report Ex PW6/J submitted to the senior police officers, he intended to express grounds of belief which made him to leave the office for the house of Validad and that too after due information to them.
6735. In view of all this, Court does not find any merit in the contention raised by learned defence counsel that this is a case of noncompliance of provisions of Section 41 (1) or 42 of the Act either in respect of house search of Mukesh or in respect of the recovery from the possession of Validad and from the scorpio car.
Nonjoining of independent witness Efforts to join witness from public
36. Learned defence counsel contended that this is a case where there is no corroboration to the version of the police official regarding arrest of and recovery from Mukesh and Validad accused and that nonjoining of independent witness creates doubt if any such recovery was made from accused Mukesh.
In support of his contention learned counsel has referred to decisions in Inder Dev Yadav Vs. The state of NCT of Delhi Ors. 2014 (3) JCC Narotics 129; Rajesh Kumar @ Sanjay Vs. State NCT of Delhi 2014 (3) JCC Narcotics 156; Ritesh Chakavarti Vs. State of M.P (2006) 68 12 Supreme Court cases 321; Gurjant Singh @ Janta Vs. State of Punjab 2013 (13) Scale 295; and Tamaso Bruno & Another V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) SCC 198.
It has come in evidence that immediately after Mukesh accused was apprehended and he swallowed travelling ticked, 56 persons from the public gathered there. PW36 requested them to join the party but none of them came forward to join the party.
It is true that PW36 SI Parveen admitted in cross examination that at the time search of Mukesh was conducted, persons from the public were passing by that side and that he did not call any railway official, but non joining of the witness from the public does not affect the case of prosecution, particularly when no contradiction has been pointed by learned defence counsel in the statements of prosecution witnesses to disbelieve their testimony regarding the manner in which Mukesh was apprehended and recovery of contraband was made from him, in the Waiting Hall.
69PW37 stated in his chief examination that on reaching C6/109, Sultanpuri, accused Mukesh pointed out his residence at the first floor. Further, according to PW37, he requested 23 neighbours to join the proceeding, but none agreed. In his crossexamination also PW37 deposed that there were houses adjoining the house of Mukesh and that before entering the house of Mukesh, 23 persons from the neighbourhood were requested to join the party, but none agreed, and further that he did not record their names and addresses.
It is true that even in case of recovery from the house of Mukesh accused, the testimony of the police official does not find any corroboration from any independent source, but it is significant to note that learned defence counsel has not been able to point out even a signal contradiction and discrepancy in the statements of the police officials so as to doubt the version narrated by them regarding the recovery of contraband got made by Mukesh accused from his house.
70As regards, Validad accused, PW37 stated in his chief examination that on 18.03.2013 at about 9.30 pm, he alongwith ASI Bijender Singh, HC Ramesh, HC Rajbir, HC Suresh Kumar, HC Harpreet, Ct. Sumer, Ct. Vikas alongwith accused Mukesh departed from their office vide DD No. 36 Ex PW37/F. As per PW37, at about 5.20 am on 19.03.2013 they reached Faridpur, District Bareilly, UP by government vehicle no. DL 1CJ 7367. When they reached Vishalpur Road at Faridpur, there accused Mukesh pointed out house of Validad Khan. PW37 asked 23 neighbours to join the proceedings but none agreed.
In crossexamination PW37 also deposed that he asked 23 persons from the neighbourhood of Validad, but none agreed. He did not record their names and addresses.
On the point of evidentiary value of police officials, Hon'ble Apex Court observed in Ajmer Singh vs. State of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 746, as under: "The submission that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be relied upon as their testimony has not been corroborated by any independent witness cannot be accepted. It is true that a charge under the Act is serious and 71 carries onerous consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is imprisonment of 10 years and a fine. In this situation, it is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. It may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute. If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence."
In the course of arguments, learned defence counsel has not pointed out any contradiction or discrepancy in the statements of the witnesses on the point of recovery from Validad accused as well.
Therefore, nonjoining of witnesses from the public at the time of recoveries from Mukesh and Validad 72 does not adversely affect the case of prosecution or come to the aid of the accused persons.
Defence evidence on behalf of Validad accused
37. According to DW1, he makes prayer in congregation as Imman in Masjid GulshaeRaza at Faridpur, Bareilly, UP for the last 12 years.
On the intervening night of 1819.03.2013, in between 4 am to 5 am, he came out of Majsid after Namaaz of Fajr and was going to have stroll on the road. At that time he saw 56 persons at the gate of house of Validad , which falls on the said road. They were pulling Validad out of his house. He asked these persons as to why they were pulling him out forcibly. But they did not tell him anything.
When he asked again as to where they wanted to take Validad, those persons told him that they were taking him to local police station for some inquiry and they would send him back after making inquiries.
73Many other persons who were coming out of Masjid after prayernamaaz gathered there. Further according to DW1, nothing was recovered from the house of Validad. Police also did not check the said car while taking away Validad.
38. As stated by DW2 on the intervening night of 18 19.03.2013, in between 4 am to 5 am, he was going to reach my tea stall in front of house of Validad. He saw 56 police officials forcibly pulling Validad out of his house. He also noticed those police officials, having brought one car out of the shop, forming part of the building of Validad accused, which was on rent with one Shanu. Nothing incriminating was recovered by those police officials from the said car or from the house of Validad.
When he inquired from those police officials as to where they were taking away Validad, they told him that they were taking him to local police station.
On the same day, he and many others including wife of Validad reached police station Faridpur to inquire about Vaildad. There police officials asked them to go 74 away.
As further stated, Wife of accused Validad had sent some complaint to the Senior Police officers, against the police officials, who took the accused Validad without any cause.
39. According to DW3 Ms. Anjum on the intervening night 1819.03.2013 in between 3 am to 4 am, she was present with my family at her house on the first floor.
At about 4 - 4.15 am, two persons reached the first floor of their house by climbing papad tree and then they knocked the door of their house on the first floor. She asked as to who were they. They asked her to open the door. When she opened the door, both of them entered the house and inquired about her husband. In the meantime, her husband Validad reached the house after offering Fazr Namaaz. Immediately, on his arrival, said two persons started pulling him out of the house. She raised hue and cry for help. Number of persons gathered there.
Said persons represented themselves as police officials and told that they were taking her husband to 75 police station for some inquiry. At that time, Feroz Khan, Tea Seller and Immam of masjid had also searched there.
Nothing incriminating or any sort of substance was recovered from the possession of her husband or from her house or from the scorpio car of their tenant.
Thereafter, she went to local police station to see her husband. She was told that her husband had not been brought there. On the same day, she sent complaints regarding picking up of her husband from her house to various authorities including Human Rights Commission, Prime Minister, Delhi Women Commission, New Delhi, Chief Secretary, New Delhi, District Officer, Bareilly, Governor, Delhi and Police Commissioner of Delhi.
There is nothing in the statements of DW1 and DW2 or wife of Validad that at any point of time, they ever appeared before any police officer in support of Validad or to apprise them that Validad was picked up by the police from his house in their presence or that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession.
76According to DW3 Ms. Anjum, wife of Validad accused, she had sent complaints to competent authorities that her husband had been picked up from his house. Undisputedly, no copy of any such complaint has been proved on record. In absence thereof, it cannot be said that wife of Validad accused sent any complaint to any competent authority alleging that her husband had been picked up from his house and was falsely implicated in this case.
Arrest of Mohd. Yasin and recovery of contraband from him
40. It is case of prosecution that on 20.03.2013 at about 2 pm, after coming from FSL, PW37 further interrogated accused Validad and he disclosed that apart from accused Mukesh, he also used to supply heroin to Yasin and Chaman through his carriers Radhey. He further disclosed that some days before his arrest, Yasin had purchased 700 grams of heroin from him, but afterwards he had complained him about the quality of heroin, whereupon 77 he (accused Validad) is said to have told Mohd. Yasin that his person would visit him after the festival of Holi and that at that time he could return the remaining quantity of the said heroin, so that he could improve the quality and return the same him.
According to PW37, he recorded disclosure statement Ex PW11/H of accused Validad. On the same day, he asked accused Validad to contact Mohd.Yasin from his phone so that their conversation could be recorded.
Case of prosecution is that accused Validad contacted Mohd. Yasin from his cell phone 7895906081 and talked to him on his cell phone number '9213142429'. Their conversation was recorded, their phones having already been kept under interception. Regarding this conversation PW37 has proved DD No. 25 dated 20.03.2013 Ex PW37/H recorded at about 03.05 pm. According to PW37, he also apprised Inspector Attar Singh and ACP Sh. Satbir Singh about these facts.
Prosecution has proved on record transcript of the conversation between Validad and Yasin accused 78 recorded on 20.03.2013. This conversation lends corroboration to the aforesaid version of the prosecution.
According to PW Inspector Attar Singh, on 20.03.2013 he deputed PW22 SI Bhushan Kumar to arrest Mohd. Yasin.
PW22 deposed that he constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, HC Dilawar Singh, Ct. Vikas, Ct. Sandip and ASI Parbodh Kumar. He collected IO kit bag, field testing kit etc. and the party started from the office of Special Cell, NR at about 3PM vide DD no.27 which is Ex. PW22/A, by government vehicle no. DL1CJ7367 driven by Ct. Sandip. They reached gate no.1, Jama Masjid at about 4PM.
On reaching there PW22 directed Ct. Sandip to park the vehicle on the side of the road and to come to him on signal. He briefed the members of the party that suspect namely Mohd. Yasin was expected to come to gate no.1 between 55.15PM to supply heroin to a person of Validad. He also deputed HC Dilawar Singh at gate no.1, with direction that he was to pose as man of Validad. Other 79 members of raiding party were also made to stand at some distance.
According to PW22, at about 5.30PM, accused Mohd. Yasin came from Jama Masjid side and reached near HC Dilawar Singh and asked if he had been sent by Validad. PW11 HC Dilawar Singh replied in affirmative. PW11 then apprehended accused Mohd.Yasin and called other members of the raiding party.
PW22 deposed that he apprised accused Mohd. Yasin regarding his apprehension on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused Validad, and that there was possibility of recovery of heroin from him and for said purpose he was to be subjected to search. He also explained him about his legal rights under Section 50 of the Act and also served with notice Ex PW11/A i.e. under section 50 NDPS Act Further according to PW22, accused Mohd.Yasin stated that he being illiterate could not read contents of the notice. Thereupon, its contents were read over and explained to him. He opted not to exercise his legal rights 80 under Section 50 of the Act. At his instance, reply Ex PW11/B was recorded.
According to PW22, he collected from accused Mohd. Yasin yellow colour polythene from his hand, checked its contents and found that it was containing another transparent polythene which was in turn found containing camel colour powder. He checked the substance on field testing kit and it came to be heroin. Thereafter, he weighed the transparent polythene containing heroin and its total weight was found to be 550 gms.
According to PW22, he took out two samples of 5gms each, from the heroin recovered from accused Mohd. Yasin, turned them into two separate parcels and assigned these parcels Mark G1 and G2. Remaining heroin was kept in the recovered transparent polythene and then polythene was kept in yellow colour polythene, which was also turned into a cloth parcel and assigned mark G. According to PW22, he prepared FSL Form and thereafter affixed his seal bearing impression ASY on all these three parcels and also on FSL Form. After use, seal 81 was given to HC Dilawar Singh.
It is case of prosecution that case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW11/C. Mohd. Yasin was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW11/D and his personal search was conducted. From his personal search, carbon copy of notice under section 50 NDPS Act, an amount of Rs. 300/ were seized vide memo Ex. PW11/E. One mobile make MTS, having SIM of 9213142429 was recovered from him. Same were seized vide memo Ex. PW11/F. All this supported case of prosecution.
Case of prosecution is that all the police officials along with accused Mohd. Yasin left the spot at about 7.45PM and reached PS Special cell , Lodhi Colony at about 8.10PM. PW22 produced all sealed parcels, FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo before PW15 SHO Insp. Rajender Sehrawat SHO, who in turn affixed his seal bearing impression RSS on all the sealed parcels and on FSL form.
82It is in the statement of PW15 that on 20.03.2013, at about 8PM, ASI Bhushan Cell produced before him three parcels mark G1 ,G2 and G lying sealed with the seal of ASY, FSL form having impression of same seal and one carbon copy of seizure memo. According to PW15, he put his signatures and seal bearing impression RSS on all the parcels and on the FSL form. According to PW15, he also deposited all the parcels with MHC(M) ASI M Baxla, who recorded entries in register no. 19. PW15 has proved his signatures in register no. 19 and further stated to have called MHC(M) to his office and produced the case property before him. MHC(M)PW25 has proved entry in register no.19. DD No. 9A has also been proved.
According to PW22, he produced personal search articles and mobile phone recovered from accused Mohd.Yasin before MHC(M). He also produced Mohd. Yasin before the SHO and the ACP.
PW22 has proved report u/s 57 NDPS Act Ex. PW22/B, which was produced before Insp. Attar Singh and then came to be forwarded to the office ACP.
8341. Learned Amicus Curiae for Mohd. Yasin contended that Mohd. Yasin was actually picked up from behind Jama Masjid on 20.03.2018 and then falsely implicated.
Accused Mohd. Yasin has not led any defence to prove that he was picked up by the police from any place behind Jama Masjid on 20.03.2013 or that nothing incriminating was recovered from him and that he was falsely implicated in this case.
PW22 SI Bhushan Kumar and PW11 HC Dilawar Singh have deposed in unison about the manner in which Mohd. Yasin was apprehended, about recovery of contraband from him, about proceedings conducted at the spot including preparing of parcel.
According to PW11 HC Dilawar Singh after use seal was delivered by SI Bhushan Kumar to him and that on 28.03.2013, he the seal to him.
In his crossexamination, PW22 explained that on that date, he was having his seal bearing impression BK at his residence and as such he used the seal bearing 84 impression ASY belonging to Inspector Attar Singh.
As regards nonjoining of public witnesses, PW22 stated that he had asked 45 persons to join the party but none of them case forward to join the investigation. He clearly stated in his crossexamination, not to have made any efforts to join any person from the public before leaving the office or before reaching the spot.
They reached the spot at about 4 pm. Across the Road, there was market but he did not ask any shopkeeper from the said market to be a witness. He volunteered that he had asked persons from the public to join the proceedings only before the proceedings were started.
Learned Amicus Curiae has not been able to point out any contradiction or discrepancy in the statements of witnesses to the recovery from Mohd. Yasin.
In view of decision in Ajmer Singh's case (supra), when there is no contradiction or discrepancy in the statements of the police officials, nonjoining of witness from public does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
85FSL Report Ex.PW30/A
42. It is in the statement of PW30 Dr. Kanak Lata Verma that on 11.05.2013, she analyzed contents of six parcels and prepared report Ex PW30/A which was then forwarded to the police vide letter Ex PW30/B. It is in the statement of PW3 HC Sanjiv that on 22.03.2013 he got sent six sealed parcels along with 5 FSL Form etc. sealed with the seal of PK , RK , JT , ASY and RSS to FSL Rohini through ASI Ranjit Singh vide RC no. 45/21/13 Ex. PW3/A. ASI Ranjit Singh handed over acknowledgment Ex PW3/B regarding deposition of case property issued by FSL office.
It has been argued by learned defence counsel that sample parcels reached FSL on 22.03.2013 and that from the delay in despatch of sample parcels possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out.
As per report Ex PW30/A all the six parcels were sent to FSL on 22.03.2013. Recovery from Mohd. Yasin was made on 20.03.2018. In the given situation when all the six sample parcels pertains to the recoveries in the same 86 transaction, were sent to FSL on 22.03.2013, it cannot be said that there was delay on the part of the IO. Furthermore when expert tallied the seals available on the parcels, the same were found to be intact and their impressions tallied as per forwarding authority specimen seals.
Court finds that prosecution has led cogent and convincing evidence that all steps were taken to rule out the possibility with tampering with the case property during the period same remained in the malkhana and till the sample parcels reached the FSL.
From the report of FSL Ex PW30/A, it transpires that contents of sample parcel C1 were not containing Diacetylmorphine. The same were found to be Phenobarbital. Therefore, it cannot be said that one of the two polythenes recovered from the house of Mukesh contained heroin.
87Conclusion
43. In view of the above discussion, Court finds that prosecution has proved on record that Mukesh accused kept in his possession 1 kilogram 250 grams of heroin i.e. one kilogram at Waiting Hall of Old Delhi Railway Station, Delhi and 250 grams of heroin was recovered from one of the polythenes got recovered by him from his house. Accordingly, Mukesh accused is held guilty of the offence under Section 21 (c) of the Act.
Court finds that prosecution has also proved on record that Mohd. Yasin accused was found in possession of 550 grams of heroin. Accordingly, Mohd. Yasin accused is held guilty of the offence under Section 21 (c) of the Act.
Court also finds that prosecution has proved on record that Validad accused kept in his possession of 1115 grams ( 1 kilograms 115 grams) of heroin i.e. 625 grams of heroin recovered from him and 490 grams of heroin was got recovered by him from the scropio car. Accordingly, Validad accused is also held guilty of the offence under Section 21
(c) of the Act.
88All the three accused are convicted for the offence under Section 21 (c) of the Act only.
Be put up on 05.04.2018 to hear the convicts on the point of sentence.
Digitally
Announced in the open Court signed by
NARINDER
on this 4th day of April, 2018 NARINDER
KUMAR
KUMAR
Date:
2018.04.05
16:37:05
+0530
(NARINDER KUMAR)
SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS - 02 (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI