Delhi District Court
Sc No. 43A/06 Dri vs Sylva Osisioma on 4 June, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.K.NAGPAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH & SOUTH-EAST
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Through Sh. Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer
Versus
Sylva Osisioma
S/o Sh. Patric Sylva
R/o 105, Abiola Estate,
Mofuluku, Lagos, Nigeria.
Local Address : A-278, Dhaka Johad,
1st Floor, Parmanand Colony,
New Delhi.
SC No. : 43A/06
U/S : 21 NDPS Act
Date of institution : 31.08.2006
Date of reserving judgment : 02.06.2011
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.06.2011
J U D G M E N T
The proceedings of this case have been initiated on a complaint filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (hereinafter referred to as DRI) through Sh. Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer, against the accused Sylva Osisioma for the offence punishable U/S 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 on allegations that on 12.03.2006 at about 07.22 AM he was intercepted on the Main Road, Opposite DTC Depot, Banda Bahadur Marg, Near Outram Lane, Delhi and at that time he SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 2 was in possession of 5 packets containing 5.001 KG (net weight) of heroin, in contravention of the provisions of Section 8 of the NDPS Act.
2. The story of the prosecution/DRI, in brief and as per the complaint, is that on 11.03.2006 at about 05.30 PM a secret information was received by PW2 Sh. Madan Lal, Intelligence Officer of DRI that a person of African origin, aged about 40 years, about 5' 6" height, clean shaven and of strong built, would be waiting at the above said place and he would be holding a blue and white colour polythene carry bag containing some narcotic substance. PW2 Sh. Madan Singh had discussed the above information with PW6 Sh. Pankaj K. Singh, Deputy Director (Int.) and on his directions a raiding team of DRI officers was constituted and the same had reached at the above spot in the morning of 12.03.2006.
3. It is alleged in the complaint that at about 07.15 AM they had spotted a person matching with the above description and carrying a blue and white colour polythene carry bag and that person was waiting for someone to come. The members of the raiding team had kept a vigil on the said person and when no one had reached there and that person had become suspicious regarding his being under observation, he started walking towards the Batra Cinema (wrongly typed as Bata Cinema in the complaint), Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi and apprehending that he may run away from there, he was stopped by the DRI officers and they had also given their SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 3 introduction to him by showing their identity cards. He was also asked by the DRI officers regarding his identity and the contents of the above polythene bag and he had then disclosed his name as Sylva Osisioma and also that he was a Nigerian national and had come to India on a business visa. He had also disclosed that he was carrying only his personal items in the above polythene bag. Two public witnesses namely Sh. Ramesh Chand and Sh. Montu were also joined at the spot after disclosing the details of the secret information to them and then in the presence of the public witnesses the accused was apprised about the secret information regarding his being in possession of some contraband substance, but he had again replied in negative.
4. It is the case of the DRI that since the place of interception of the accused was not conducive for conducting his thorough examination, he was brought to the DRI office situated at D Block, 7th Floor, IP Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi, alongwith the public witnesses, and there the accused had disclosed his further details, including his local address of A-278, Dhaka Johad, 1st Floor, Parmanand Colony, Delhi. Then a notice U/S 50 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/A was served upon the accused apprising him of his legal rights to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and vide his written reply given on the said notice the accused had refused for the same and had offered his search to the officers of the DRI. The search of the accused was conducted thereafter but nothing incriminating was recovered. However, during the search of the above SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 4 polythene bag carried by the accused 5 transparent polythene bags, knotted on the mouth of the bags, containing some off white coloured granular powder were recovered. The above 5 polythene bags were opened and the contents of the same were tested with the help of a Narcotic Drug Detention Kit and the same had answered positive for heroin and the total weight of the substance of above polythenes was found to be 5.014 KG and the net weight to be 5.001 KG and the above five polythenes were marked as X1 to X5. Since the possession and carrying etc. of the above substance was in violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, the same were seized and two representative samples for 5 Grams each were also drawn from the above contraband substance of the said polythenes and the same were given markings as X1A to X5A and X1B to X5B. The above samples were then put in brown colour paper envelopes and were sealed with the seal of DRI No. 10 and a paper slip bearing the signatures of the seizing officer, the accused as well as of the above two public/panch witnesses was affixed on each of the said pullandas. The remaining contraband substance was put in the same polythenes and five separate cloth pullandas thereof were prepared and similar paper slips were also pasted thereon and then the above pullandas of the case property were kept in a steel trunk and the same was also wrapped with white cloth and sealed with the above seal and a similar paper slip was also pasted thereon. The panchnama Ex. PW1/B of the above proceedings was drawn and the facsimile of the above seal was given on the last page thereof. The test memo in triplicate was also prepared at SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 5 the same time and the facsimile of the above seal was also appended upon the same. The photographs Ex. PW1/C1 to C5 of the above contraband substance and the accused were taken by the seizing officer.
5. It is also alleged in the complaint that after the conclusion of the panchnama proceedings, the summons Ex. PW1/D U/S 67 of the NDPS Act were served upon the accused and in response to the same he had also tendered his voluntary statement Ex. PW1/E before the seizing officer and therein he had disclosed, inter-alia, that his friend namely Okiki Sampson based at Lagos had telephonically called him in the previous evening and had informed him that he had a friend in India who would be sending him a consignment of heroin of about 5 KG in weight and had also told him that the above consignment would be brought by an Indian of the given description, at the park located in the Outram Lane Area, just opposite the BBM Depot, at about 7 AM on 12.03.2006 and the above Mr Okiki had requested him to collect the above consignment on his behalf. The accused had also disclosed in his above statement Ex. PW1/E that after collecting the above consignment he had to deliver the same to one African person on the main road just opposite the BBM Depot and Mr Okiki promised him to pay something for that service when he will meet him later at Lagos. He had also admitted therein his interception by the officers of the DRI with the above consignment and at the abovesaid place before the same could be delivered to the above African person, whose details he was not able to tell, and SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 6 also the seizure and sampling proceedings etc. conducted with regard to the same. He had also surrendered his Nigerian passport number A-2617703 vide Ex. PW1/F and was subsequently arrested in this case vide arrest-cum- jamatalashi memo Ex. PW1/G and intimation regarding his arrest was conveyed to the Ministries of External and Home Affairs. Summons U/S 67 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/I & PW1/J were also served upon the above two public witnesses Sh. Montu and Sh. Ramesh Sharma respectively on the same day, i.e the day of incident.
6. It is also mentioned in the complaint that on 12.03.2006 itself the complainant/seizing officer had deposited the remaining case property in intact sealed condition with Sh. Alok Aggarwal/PW8 and on 13.03.2006 the complainant/PW1 had collected the same and had deposited the same in intact sealed condition with Sh. A.C. Wadhwa/PW7 Inspector, Valuable Godown, New Customs House, IGI Airport, New Delhi. The pullandas of the samples were kept in the safe custody of PW3 Sh S.K.Sharma, alongwith the test memos, and on 13.03.2006 the complainant/PW1 had also taken the five sample pullandas of the series X to CRCL, alongwith a forwarding letter given by PW3 Sh. S.K. Sharma, SIO, DRI and the test memo in duplicate, and the same were deposited with PW5 Sh. K.K. Singh, Lab Assistant of CRCL in intact conditions.
7. It is also alleged in the complaint that in the follow up action the DRI officers had also conducted a raid SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 7 at the above tenanted house of the accused in Parmanand Colony, Delhi, in the presence of Sh S.R.Aggarwal who was the husband of his landlady and two panch witnesses, but in that raid nothing incriminating was recovered from the above premises, except one Nigerian passport no. A-3050859A in the name of one Mr Okonkwo Uche Danial, which was taken into possession in this case. The complainant/PW1 had also sent the report U/S 57 NDPS Act Ex. PW3/C to PW3 Sh. S.K. Sharma, who was his immediate senior officer, on 13.03.2006. Subsequently, on 20.03.2006 & 29.03.2006 respectively the above Sh. Ramesh Chand and Sh. Montu had also tendered their statements U/S 67 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/K & PW1/L respectively before the complainant/IO. The statement U/S 67 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/R in response to summons Ex. PW1/Q of the above Sh. S.R. Aggarwal was also subsequently recorded by the complainant/PW1 on 25.03.2006 and he had also surrendered some documents Ex. PW1/R1 to R6 before the complainant/PW1, which are the photocopies of the rent agreement, tenant verification form and a passport of the accused.
8. It is further the case of the prosecution/DRI as per the complaint that the above two passport Nos. A-2617703 & A-3050859, i.e. the one which was in the name of the accused himself and was surrendered by him and the other which was recovered from his residential premises, were sent for verification to the office of the High Commissioner of Nigeria and the above passport No. A-3050859 was found to be tempered with and the SHO, PS IP Estate was directed to initiate criminal proceedings in this regard. The above SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 8 samples deposited with the CRCL were examined vide the test report dated 22.05.2006 Ex. PW10/A and the same had given positive test for diacetylmorphine (heroin) and the purity percentage of the same was opined to be ranging between 73.5% to 83.9%. After the conclusion of the entire investigation and other formalities, this complaint Ex. PW1/U was filed against the accused in this court on 31.08.2006 for the offence punishable U/S 21 of the NDPS Act.
9. The cognizance of the above offence was taken by this court on 04.09.2006 and a prima facie case for the offences U/Ss 21(c)/23/29 of the NDPS Act was observed to be made out against the accused and charges for the said offences were also framed against him.
10. The prosecution/DRI in support of its case has examined total 12 witnesses on record and their names and the purpose of examination is being stated herein below :-
11. PW1 Sh. Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer of DRI, is the complainant and the main Investigating Officer of this case and he was leading the raiding team which had apprehended the accused with the above contraband substance. He has broadly deposed on the lines of the complaint and has brought on record and exhibited various documents connected with the investigation of the case. He has also identified the accused as well as the above paper slips pasted on all the pullandas, the remnants of the samples, the second set SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 9 of samples, the remaining case property and the other packing material etc. used in the sealing process.
12. PW2 Sh. Madan Singh is also the Intelligence Officer of DRI and he is the person who had received the above secret information and had reduced it into writing as Ex. PW2/A. PW3 Sh. S.K. Sharma, SIO had issued the seal of DRI 10 to PW1/complainant on the day of incident and the pullandas of samples, alongwith the test memos, were also kept with him in his safe custody on that day and on the next day, i.e. on 13.03.2006, he had handed over the same to the complainant/PW1, alongwith the forwarding letter Ex. PW3/B for depositing the same with the CRCL. Subsequently, one report Ex. PW3/A was also submitted to him by PW1/complainant regarding the above seizure and the possibility of further recovery of some contraband substance from his residential premises and the information U/S 57 NDPS Act Ex. PW3/C was also received by him from the IO/complainant.
13. PW4 Sh. R. Roy was the In-charge of the raiding team which had conducted search of the tenanted residential premises of the accused in Delhi after having been authorized vide the search authorization Ex. PW4/A. Nothing incriminating was recovered further from such search, except the above passport No. A-3050859 which is not relevant in this case. He has brought on record the panchnama proceedings Ex. PW4/B prepared by him regarding the above search and also his report Ex. PW4/C submitted regarding the SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 10 same.
14. PW5 Sh. K.K. Singh is the Lab Assistant of CRCL and he had received the five sealed sample packets of this case in intact condition, alongwith the above forwarding letter and the test memo in duplicate, on 13.03.2006 from the complainant/PW1 after being directed by his senior officer Sh. S.K. Mittal, In-charge of the Narcotic Section at CRCL. He has proved on record the acknowledgment receipt Ex. PW1/O issued by him in this regard to the complainant/PW1.
15. PW6 Sh. Pankaj K. Singh was the Deputy Director of DRI on the date of receiving of the above information and the above information Ex. PW2/A was put up before him by PW2 Sh. Madan Singh, IO at about 05.45 PM on 11.03.2006 and after discussing the matter with his senior officer, he had made an endorsement on the said information and assigned it to PW1 Sh. Jyothimon for effecting of the seizure etc.. Subsequently, he was also a member of the raiding team of the DRI officers led by PW1 which had apprehended the accused with the above contraband substance, but he had not participated in any further investigation after the accused was brought to the DRI office.
16. PW7 Sh. A.C. Wadhwa was posted as Inspector of the Valuable Godown, New Customs House and with him the sealed packet of the case property in intact condition was deposited by the complainant/PW1 on 13.03.2006 vide deposit memo Ex. PW1/P and he had also made an endorsement thereon SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 11 with regard to receipt of the same.
17. PW8 Sh. Alok Aggarwal, the then Assistant Director of the DRI, had sent letter Ex. PW8/A dated 12.03.2006 to the Ministry of External Affairs regarding the arrest of the accused and had also subsequently issued the above search authorization Ex. PW4/A on 13.03.2006 for searching the residential premises of the accused and the report Ex. PW4/C was submitted to him by PW4 Sh. R. Roy. He is also a signatory to the above deposit memo/inventory Ex. PW1/P (wrongly typed as PW1/B in his statement) of the case property.
18. PW9 Sh. S.R. Aggarwal is the husband of the land lady of the above rented accommodation of the accused and on being called by PW4 Sh R. Roy, he had reached there and signed the search authorization Ex. PW4/A and had participated in the search proceedings conducted vide panchnama Ex. PW4/B. Subsequently he had tendered his statement U/S 67 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/R in this regard on receipt of summons Ex. PW1/Q and had also tendered the above documents Ex. PW1/R1 to R7.
19. PW10 Sh. S.K. Mittal, Chemical Examiner of CRCL had directed PW5 Sh. K.K. Singh on 13.03.2006 to receive the above sample packets and on 16.05.2006 on his directions and under his supervision the above samples were examined and tested by Sh P.R. Meena, Chemical Assistant vide report Ex. PW10/A, which is duly signed by above Sh P.R. Meena and this SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 12 witness.
20. PW11 Sh Vijay Kumar was one of the panch witnesses joined by PW4 Sh R.Roy at the time of search of residential premises of the accused and though he has admitted the conduction of search in his presence and also his signatures on the panchnama Ex. PW4/B, but he has stated that he do not remember if the search authorization was also got signed from him or whether any passport was also recovered in the said search, though some household articles were recovered. Though he has also denied the contents of panchnama but he has stated that same was read over to him before taking his signatures thereon. PW12 HC Malkhan Singh has brought on record copy of the FIR NO. 57/07, U/Ss 419/420/468/ 471/474 IPC of PS I.P. Estate which was registered regarding the above passport No. A-3050859 recovered from the residence of the accused.
21. It is necessary to mention here that during the course of recording of the prosecution evidence, vide order dated 24.11.2009 of this court fresh samples were directed to be drawn from the remaining case property in view of some discrepancies observed in colour of the case property and condition of the seals etc. and accordingly five fresh samples were drawn out of the remaining case property on 18.12.2009 and the same were sent to CRCL and vide report dated 01.02.2010 the percentage of diacetylmorphine in the above five samples has been reported to be only ranging between 6.1% to 7.9%.
SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 13
22. After the conclusion of the evidence of the DRI all the incriminating evidence brought on record was put to the accused in his statement recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C. and the same was claimed by him to be incorrect and hence denied. He has claimed himself to have been falsely implicated in this case while stating that he was picked up from outside his house on 11.03.2006 at about 05.00 AM, when he was having morning walk there, by some officers in plain clothes as he had expressed his inability to tell about some drug paddler being asked by them. He was brought to the DRI Office and there his signatures were forcibly taken on various blank documents of different sizes and he was also made to right something on dictation. He has claimed himself to be innocent and has denied the recovery of any incriminating substance from his possession and has also chosen to lead defence evidence.
23. Subsequently, on his application U/S 315 Cr.P.C he has also examined himself on oath in his defence and while deposing so he has again reiterated that he was on his morning walk near his house when he was approached by some officers and asked about a Nigerian drug paddler. He has also stated that he had told them that he did not know any such drug paddler and he was a businessman, but he was forcibly taken by the DRI Officers to their office and was falsely implicated in this case after they had beaten him and forcibly obtained his signatures on various documents. He has also denied the recovery of the above contraband substance from him and has proved on record his retraction SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 14 dated 12.03.2006 itself as Ex. DW1/A.
24. It is also necessary to mention here that when after the conclusion of the defence evidence of the accused the final arguments were being heard by this court, it was observed that the charges against the accused were not properly framed and after hearing the submissions of Sh. Satish Aggarwal, Ld. SPP for DRI as well as the Ld Defence Counsel Sh. A.K. Sahu for the accused it was observed vide order dated 05.02.2011 of this court that sections 23 & 29 of the NDPS Act were not attracted against the accused and charge for the offence punishable U/S 21(c) of the NDPS Act only was required to be framed against him and accordingly an amended charge against the accused for the said offence was also framed on the same day.
25. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. Satish Aggarwal, Ld. SPP for DRI and Sh. A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel representing the accused and I have also gone through the entire record of the case, including the written arguments/submissions filed on behalf of the parties.
26. The first challenge put by the Ld. Defence Counsel to the story of the prosecution/DRI is that there is a violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act as no notice under the above said section was served upon the accused prior to his search and the alleged notice U/S 50 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/A given to the accused is a fabricated document because the same was given to the SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 15 accused subsequent to his search as well as the search of his bag and this fact is very much clear from the fact that in the above notice the complete address of Nigeria of the accused has been given whereas it is case of the prosecution and has also been deposed by the complainant/PW1 that the accused had only disclosed himself to be a Nigerian national and presently residing at the above address of Delhi. In this regard the contention of Ld. SPP for DRI is that the same may only be attributed to some lapse or omission on the part of the complainant/PW1 in not mentioning the Nigerian address of the accused in the complaint because since the secret information by them was received in the evening of the day prior to the actual apprehension of the accused, by that time the complete identity details of the accused might have been collected by him and the other officers of the DRI. He has also argued that even otherwise the above discrepancy cannot be given much weight as the above notice was not legally required to be served upon the accused as the recovery of the contraband substance had been effected from his bag and not from his person.
27. The law in this regard is now well settled and in terms of the prepositions of law as laid down in the cases of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh JT 1999(4) SC 495, State of H.P. Vs Pawan Kumar 2005 (4) SCC 350, Madan Lal Vs State of H.P. 2003 Crl.L.J 3868 and Ajmer Singh Vs State of Haryana 2010 (2) SCR 785 (Crl. Appeal No. 436/09), it is now settled that the notice U/S 50 NDPS Act is required to be served only if the recovery of a contraband substance is SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 16 effected from the ' p erson ' of an accused and it is not mandatory if the same is effected from some bag, luggage, jhola or thela etc. being carried or held by the accused. Hence, since in the instant case the recovery of the contraband substance was effected from the above bag being carried by the accused and not from his person the above notice Ex. PW1/A was not mandatorily required to be served or given to the accused before conducting the search of his above bag and hence the alleged discrepancies, if any, in the above notice or connected with the same cannot be given much weight.
28. Though, the Ld. Defence Counsel has also argued that as per the secret information reduced into writing as Ex. PW2/A the said person about whom the information was received was to carry a bag containing some narcotic substance, but in the above notice U/S 50 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/A served upon the accused it is recorded that the DRI officers were having a specific information and reasons to believe that the accused would be carrying a narcotic drug, i.e. heroin, and this fact also shows that the above notice Ex. PW1/A was prepared and given to the accused subsequent to his alleged apprehension. However, for the reasons already discussed above in the previous paragraphs this argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is also of no use as any such discrepancy in the above notice is liable to be ignored as the same was not mandatory in this case.
29. The next argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is that SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 17 the alleged statement U/S 67 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/E given by the accused before the complainant/IO is not his voluntary statement and the same was written by him as he was forced and pressurized etc. by the DRI officers to give the above statement and the same was virtually extracted from him. It is also his argument that the same was retracted by the accused vide his retraction statement Ex. DW1/A at the very first opportunity, as the same was given by him on the day of his apprehension itself when he was produced in the court. Hence, he has argued that the same cannot be considered against the accused and cannot be made the basis of his conviction.
30. On the other hand, the Ld. SPP for DRI on this aspect has argued that there is nothing on record to prove the allegations of the giving of any beatings or threats etc. to the accused for making him to give the above statement and the statement Ex. PW1/E given by the accused is his voluntary statement and can very well be considered on record against the accused to corroborate the evidence led by the prosecution with regard to the recovery of the above contraband substance. He has also argued that the allegations of the physical torture given to the accused by the DRI officers are not substantiated from his MLC of the RML Hospital placed on record and further his retraction Ex. DW1/A is only an after-thought and had been made or given on legal advice.
31. On perusal of the evidence led on record it is SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 18 observed that the statement Ex. PW1/E of the accused recorded U/S 67 of the NDPS Act is though in the hands writing of the accused and also contains his personal details and the facts and circumstances leading to his coming into the conscious possession of the above contraband substance, but when the evidence led on record is appreciated in entirety it leads to an inference that the same was not a voluntary statement of the accused and he was forced or pressurized to give the above statement on the dictation of the complainant/PW1. The alleged MLC of the accused of RML Hospital, which is being referred to by Ld. SPP for DRI to negate the commission of any physical cruelty upon the accused, has only been marked as Mark A during the evidence of the prosecution and the same has not been proved on record according to the provisions of the Evidence Act and hence the same cannot be read and considered in evidence. Even otherwise the same could have been relevant only for viewing the physical injuries on the person of the accused and could not have been relevant for finding out any pressure, coercion or force etc. made or given by the DRI officers to the accused to make him write the same.
32. As per the prosecution story the panchnama proceedings were concluded at about 12.00 noon and the summons Ex. PW1/D were served upon the accused under the above section for his appearance at 12.30 PM. It is in response to these summons that the accused is alleged to had made the above statement Ex. PW1/E and subsequent to the same he was arrested in this case at about 02.15 PM vide his SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 19 arrest memo Ex. PW1/G. It is also a matter of record that the accused was produced in the court of the Ld. Duty MM on the same day and it is there that he had filed on record his short retraction statement Ex. DW1/A which reads as under :-
" Retraction of Statement The statement recorded from me is not my voluntary and was made under torture and duress.
Osisioma Sylva Signature.....
12.03.2006 "
33. A copy of the order of even date of the Ld. Duty MM concerned is also a part of the judicial file vide which the above retraction statement was taken on record and the objection of the Ld. SPP for DRI is also recorded in the said order in which he had denied the allegations made in the retraction statement.
34. Ld. SPP for DRI has argued that the above retraction statement of the accused is liable to be rejected as the same is a result of an after-thought and had been tendered on legal advice because one counsel Sh. S.P. Singh was representing the accused at the above time when he was produced before the Ld. Duty MM. I find no force in the above argument of Ld. SPP for DRI because the accused was produced before the Ld. Duty MM within few hours of his arrest and he was still in the custody of the DRI officers at the time of his production in the court. It is not the case of DRI that prior to his production in the court they SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 20 had allowed any legal meeting between the accused or his counsel and even in the court the accused was not supposed to conversate with his counsel, except with the permission of the court. There is nothing on record to suggest that any such legal meeting or conversation between him or his counsel was allowed in the court nor the DRI officers could have permitted him to have any talks with his counsel and hence there is nothing on record to show that the above retraction of statement was the result of any such legal advice. The retraction of the accused of his alleged voluntary statement U/S 67 of the NDPS Act has come just within few hours of the making of the said statement and that too on the very first opportunity which he had got to raise his grievances and to deny his statement before the court or any independent authority or forum as prior to that he was throughout in the custody of the DRI officers. Hence, I have no hesitation in holding that the alleged statement U/S 67 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/E of the accused was not a voluntary statement given or tendered by him before the DRI officers and thus even though such a statement, if made voluntarily, is legally admissible in evidence and can be used against an accused under the NDPS Act, but in the instant case the same is not of any use or help to the case of the DRI and the same is not found to had been voluntarily made as the same stands retracted at the very first opportunity made available to the accused. Though some judgments have been referred to and relied upon by Ld. SPP for DRI regarding the admissibility and relevance of such a statement, but in view of the above discussion the SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 21 same are found to be not applicable to the instant case.
35. The next argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is that there is no independent public or panch witness produced by the prosecution on record to corroborate the version of the official witnesses and the depositions made only by the official witnesses cannot be relied upon and made the basis of conviction of the accused and he is entitled to be acquitted in this case giving benefit of doubt. It is also his argument that even the alleged two panch witnesses namely Sh. Montu and Sh. Ramesh Chand joined by the complainant/PW1 during the investigation of the case were fake witnesses as there presence in the court could not be secured because their whereabouts were not traceable and they had to be dropped by Ld. SPP for DRI. He has also argued that even otherwise the above two panch witnesses were not joined by the complainant/PW1 prior to the apprehension of the accused with the above contraband substance and they were only joined subsequent to the same and this fact also goes against the prosecution. On the other hand Ld. SPP for DRI has argued that the Investigating Officer/PW1 of this case had joined the above two panch witnesses at the spot itself, though after the apprehension of the accused, and it is beyond the control of the IO/PW1 or the DRI as to why the above witnesses could not be traced out at their given addresses and could not be examined on record and because of the same no such inference can be drawn that the same were fake persons. It is also his argument that even otherwise the depositions made by the SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 22 official witnesses cannot be disbelieved merely by reason of their office or their such capacity and they are very much reliable witnesses.
36. On appreciation of the case file it is found that there are specific depositions made by the complainant/PW1 that after the accused was intercepted at the above place, in pursuance of the above secret information and with the above contraband substance, he had joined the above two public witnesses namely Sh. Montu and Sh. Ramesh Chand and the notice U/S 50 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/A as well as the panchnama Ex. PW1/B bear the signatures of both the above witnesses on each of the page of the documents. It is also specifically deposed by the IO/PW1 that on 12.03.2006 itself, i.e. the day of incident, he had served the summons Ex. PW1/I & PW1/J to the above witnesses namely Sh. Montu and Sh. Ramesh Chand respectively and these summons have also been duly received by them and subsequently and they had also tendered their statements U/S 67 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/L & PW1/K before the IO on 03.04.2006 & 20.03.2006 respectively and these summons and statements are a part of the judicial record. The presence of these witnesses could not be secured during the trial for recording of their statements as it was reported that they were not traceable at their given addresses. It is a fact of common knowledge that the public persons always avoid or are reluctant to join the police or other investigations because of the long standing litigation and the difficulties which they may have to face by becoming witness to such proceedings and simply SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 23 because they have been subsequently reported to be not traceable at their given addresses or their presence could not be secured in this court either due to the fact that they had given some false addresses or otherwise, no inference can be drawn that they were fake witnesses or have been intentionally withheld by the prosecution. When the public witnesses are already not interested in joining such investigations, they cannot be expected to give their identity and address proofs to the Investigating Officers at the time when they are called for to join such investigations. Hence, the non examination of the above two panch witnesses is not fatal for the prosecution. Further, there also does not appear to be any merit in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that they should had been joined prior to the apprehension of the accused and not subsequent to his apprehension as they were very much joined prior to the taking of the search of the bag and the person of the accused and even prior to the service of the notice U/S 50 NDPS Act to him. As far as the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel regarding the admissibility or trustworthiness of the official witnesses is concerned, it is now well settled that they cannot be disbelieved and their depositions cannot be discarded merely by reason of their office.
37. It has also been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that no investigation has been conducted by the complainant/PW1 at the spot and the entire writing work and the seizure and sampling proceedings have been conducted in the office of the DRI and the accused stands seriously prejudiced by not SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 24 conducting the proceedings at the spot and the writing work conducted in the office of the DRI cannot be said to be authentic and genuine. In this regard also, it is now well settled that no prejudice is caused to the accused simply by not conducting the spot investigation and taking the accused to the office of the investigating agency like DRI for the purposes of search and seizures etc.. Even otherwise keeping in view the nature of this case under the NDPS Act, it is never practicable to conduct the spot investigations as there are always chances of disturbance in the investigation due to various factors and it is also not possible to conduct such investigations at a public place like an open road, smoothly and effectively. Moreover, the IO/PW1 in his statement has clarified that the place of apprehension of the accused, being a public place and road, was not suitable for the search of the accused and hence the accused was brought to the office of the DRI and on being orally asked in this regard, the accused had also agreed to the same. Though it has also been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that no site plan of the place of apprehension of the accused has also been prepared by the complainant/PW1, but in this regard also it is observed that there was no mandatory requirement of preparation of such a site plan at the spot and hence no prejudice has been caused to the accused by the non preparation of the same.
38. It has also been argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that the IO/PW1 has not offered his search to the accused before conducting his search and hence the possibility of planting SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 25 of the above contraband substance upon the accused by the IO/PW1 himself cannot be ruled out. After perusal of the statement of the IO it is observed that he has clearly stated on record that the raiding party had offered the search to the accused before taking his search, though this fact was not specifically incorporated in the notice U/S 50 of the NDPS Act, and hence this argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is found to be against the record of this case. Even otherwise, keeping in view the fact that recovery of a huge quantity of heroin of about 5 KG in five polythene bags kept in another polythene carry bag was effected, there was no possibility of such a huge quantity of the above substance being carried by the IO/PW1 or any other member of the raiding party on his person for planting the same upon the accused.
39. The next argument of Ld. Defence Counsel is that the case property has been tempered with while the same had been in the custody of the Valuable Godown, New Customs House, CRCL or the DRI and before its production in the court. In this regard he has pointed out that while the case property was produced in this court for the first time during the examination of the complainant/PW1, it was observed that the seals affixed on the envelope containing the remnants of the five samples Mark X1A to X5A examined in the CRCL were found to be in broken condition and the complete impressions of the seal were not there. He has pointed out that it is on record that the seals were in about 50% broken condition and only the impression ' C entral SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 26 Revenue' on two lac seals and on the third lac seal some impression of ' C entral Revenue' was legible and even on the other side of the envelope the lac seals of CRCL were in 50% broken condition and only the words ' R evenue Control Laboratory with Ashoka Emblem' were clear and on the third lac seal only ' C entral Revenue' was clear. In this regard it is observed that the above envelope was only containing the remnants of the five samples drawn out of the case property and sent to the CRCL for examination and merely because some portion of the seals affixed thereon were broken, no inference regarding tempering with the same can be drawn as the above envelope was only the outer envelope in which five other khaki colour envelopes containing the remnants of the samples were kept by the CRCL authorities and it is also on record that the mouth of these envelopes were bearing the complete seals of the CRCL, with Ashoka Emblem, and the same were in intact condition. Even the paper slips pasted on these envelopes were found duly affixed on these envelopes and were found to be signed by the accused, IO/PW1 as well as the panch witnesses and these paper slips have been Ex. P12 to P16 and the remnants of the above samples have been Ex. P17 to P21 and the polythene pouches which were used for keeping the remnant samples has been Ex. P22 collectively. Moreover, by the time the remnants of the above set of five samples were produced in this court for identification before this witness on 08.10.2008, the samples have already been tested in the CRCL long back vide report Ex. PW10/A dated 22.05.2006. The second set of samples marked as X1B to X5B has also been SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 27 duly identified by this witness as Ex. P6 to P10, the five polythene pouches in which the same were kept have been identified as Ex. P11 collectively. The paper slips pasted on the envelopes containing the same have been identified as Ex. P1 to P5. The remaining case property, i.e. the remaining contents of the above five packets, have also been identified as Ex. P31 to P35, paper slips pasted on the packets thereof as P26 to P30, the outer cloth of the steel trunk in which the same was kept as Ex. P23, paper slip pasted on the above cloth as Ex. P24, the polythene carry bag in which the same was being carried by the accused as Ex. P25, the other pieces of cloths in which the above packets were sealed as Ex. P36 collectively and the steel trunk as Ex. P37. The seals as well as the paper slips, with seals affixed thereon, of the remaining case property as well as of the second set of samples have all been found to be in intact condition. The breaking of the seals affixed on the above envelope can only be attributed to the poor handling of the same, as has also been held in the judgment in case Jodha Sahani Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi 2010(4) JCC (Narcotics) 229 being relied upon by Ld. SPP for DRI, and no conclusion with regard to the tempering with the contents thereof has to be inferred from the same. Therefore, the Ld. Defence Counsel has also failed to establish on record any tempering with the case property or the samples at any stage till its seizure and its production in this court.
40. Ld. Defence Counsel has also argued that the SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 28 accused could not have carried 5 KG of weight in a polythene bag, no separate document was prepared by the IO with regard to the alleged surrender of his passport by the accused and further that the IO/PW1 in his statement has not given the complete description of the above polythene bag and has also not stated that the same was in a torn condition, as it was found when it was reproduced during the cross examination of the IO/PW1. There does not appear to be any merit in the argument of Ld. Defence Counsel that a person cannot carry or hold just a small weight of 5 KG in a polythene bag. The prosecution has also brought on record one application Ex. PW1/F vide which the above passport of the accused was surrendered by him and the other discrepancies being pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel is also found to be not material to disbelieve or discredit the version of the prosecution witnesses.
41. There are detailed and specific depositions made by the IO/PW1 Sh. Jyothimon about the apprehension of the accused and the recovery of the above contraband substance from his possession. He is also duly corroborated on all material particulars by the depositions made by PW6 Sh. Pankaj K. Singh, who was also a part of the raiding team which had apprehended the accused with the above contraband substance. The IO/PW1 has also duly proved on record the panchnama proceedings drawn by him as Ex. PW1/B and the same are duly signed by the IO/PW1 as well as the accused, besides some other witnesses. The above panchnama is in English language, which is duly known to the accused and SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 29 this fact is also substantiated from the reply of the accused given to the notice U/S 50 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/A as this reply has been given in the English language. Some photographs of the contraband substance recovered from the accused and also of the accused himself have also been brought on record during the statement of the IO/PW1 as Ex. PW1/C1 to C5 and the IO/PW1 in his statement has claimed that he himself had clicked the above said photographs and these photographs also corroborate the oral depositions of the prosecution witnesses regarding the recovery of the above contraband substance from the accused to a certain extent. In one of these photographs Ex. PW1/C1 the above blue and white colour polythene carry bag has also been shown in which the above contraband substance was being carried by the accused at the time of his apprehension. During the course of suggestions given to the IO/PW1 it was suggested to him by Ld. Defence Counsel that the polythene bag shown in the above photograph is not the same polythene bag which was recovered from the accused or that the same has been planted upon the accused, but there is no material on record to substantiate the above suggestions. Rather it appears from the above suggestions that some polythene bag was found to be in possession of the accused and it was tried to establish that the same was a different polythene from the one which is shown in the above photograph. However, as stated above, there is no material on record to substantiate the same and rather the above suggestion is contrary to the defence taken by the accused otherwise wherein it has been suggested or claimed that he was picked SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 30 up from outside his house while he was on a morning walk. Hence, it can be said on the basis of the evidence led on record that the prosecution has successfully established on record the recovery of the above contraband substance from the accused beyond reasonable doubts and thus even without taking into consideration the statement U/S 67 of the NDPS Act of the accused Ex. PW1/E, there is sufficient evidence led by the prosecution on record to prove the above recovery of the contraband substance. The Ld SPP for DRI in this regard has rightly placed reliance upon a judgment dated 16.12.2010 of our own High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 111/1997 titled as Narcotics Control Bureau Vs Allauddin @ Mir @ Malik and Anr. wherein the Hon' b le High Court had set aside the acquittal of the accused Allauddin @ Mir @ Malik in terms of the judgment of a designated court under the NDPS Act, while upholding the acquittal of another accused, on the grounds that though his statement U/S 67 NDPS Act has not been found to be voluntary, as had also been held by the Trial Court, but there was sufficient evidence on record to prove the recovery of the contraband substance from the above accused and hence the acquittal of the above accused by the Trial Court was set aside and he was held guilty for the offence punishable U/S 21 of the NDPS Act.
42. It also stands established on record from the depositions of the IO/PW1 that all the samples of the above contraband substance as well as of the remaining substance were duly sealed by him at the time of panchnama proceedings and he has also deposed that on the day of incident, i.e. SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 31 12.03.2006, the sealed case property was kept in the safe custody of PW8 Sh Alok Aggarwal. PW8 has also corroborated him with regard to the deposit of the case property with him. On 13.03.2006 PW8 had handed over the sealed parcel of the case property to the IO/PW1, alongwith the deposit memo/ inventory Ex. PW1/P, and the same were duly deposited by the IO/PW1 on the same day in the Valuable Godown, New Customs House with PW7 Sh A.C.Wadhwa and there are consistent and corroborative depositions of the above three PWs in this regard and the same are further corroborated by the contents of the above deposit memo Ex. PW1/P, which is signed or endorsed by all of them. The relevant entry of the Seal Movement Register regarding the issuance of the seal and return thereof has also been proved on record as Ex. PW1/B.
43. On 13.03.2006 the IO/PW1 had also taken the above sample pullanda to the CRCL vide the forwarding letter Ex. PW3/B, which was given by PW3 Sh S.K.Sharma, and the above sealed sample pullandas in intact condition were duly deposited in the office of the CRCL and received by PW5 Sh K.K.Singh and he had also issued the acknowledgment receipt of the same Ex. PW1/O at the time of receipt of the said sample packets. The depositions of the above witnesses, as corroborated by the depositions made by PW10 Sh S.K.Mittal on whose directions PW5 had accepted the above sample packet and also the contents of the above acknowledgment receipt Ex. PW1/O, duly establish on record the safe deposit of the above sample packets in the office of CRCL. As already stated above, though some discrepancies were observed at the SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 32 time of production of the case property in the court as seals of some pullandas sent by the CRCL and containing the remnants of the above samples were found to be partially broken but it has also been held on record that no tampering with the samples or the remaining case property at any stage has been established or can be inferred from the record.
44. The report U/S 57 of the NDPS Act sent by the IO/PW1 to his superior officer has also been proved on record as Ex. PW3/C and this report was sent by him on 13.03.2006 and was duly received by PW3 Sh S.K.Sharma on the same day (though in the statement of IO/PW1 U/S 57 of the NDPS Act has been wrongly typed as U/S 67 of the NDPS Act) and hence the compliance of the provisions of the above section has also been duly proved on record. Though it has also come on record that the above secret information was reduced into writing by PW2 Sh Madan Singh as Ex. PW2/A and it was also put up by him to his immediate superior officer, i.e PW6 Sh Pankaj K Singh, but since the above information was not with regard to the concealment etc. of the above contraband substance in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, the provision of Section of 42 of the NDPS Act has got no applicability to the facts and circumstances of this case. Ld defence counsel has also failed to prove on record the non compliance or violation of any other provisions of the NDPS Act, which were required to be mandatorily complied with in the instant case.
45. Though the defence of the accused had been that he SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 33 has been falsely implicated in this case after being picked from outside his house while he was on the morning walk, but it is observed that there are contradictions in his line of defence as set up during the course of suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses and as taken in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, except his own bald depositions made as a defence evidence there is no material or document on record to substantiate the same. He is a foreign national and no previous enmity or animosity is being alleged or has been proved on record between him and any member of the raiding team of DRI and hence no ground for his false implication in this case has also been made out or proved on record. The above quantity of heroin of 5 KG was a huge quantity and hence, there were also no chances of planting the same by the DRI Officers upon the accused.
46. In view of the above discussion, it is held that though the above statement U/S 67 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/E of the accused has not been found to be a voluntary statement and hence not admissible in evidence, but still the prosecution has been successful in establishing the recovery of the above contraband substance/heroin weighing 5.001 KG in net from the accused Sylva Osisioma beyond reasonable doubts.
47. However, it is also to be observed that in the CRCL report Ex. PW10/A the percentage of diacetylmorphine (heroin) in the above five samples taken out of the above substance has been opined to be ranging between 73.5% to SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 34 83.9% and going by the average percentage of 78.9% of the above five samples, the percentage of diacetylmorphine of the above total substance comes to 3.945 KG and this can be considered to be the percentage/purity weight of the above contraband substance recovered from the accused. However, it is also a matter of record, as also stated above, that during the trial of the case five fresh samples were also drawn out of the remaining case property and the test report thereof dated 01.02.2010 is already on record and according to the same the percentage of diacetylmorphine (heroin) in the said samples has been opined to be ranging between 6.1% to 7.9% and presence of morphine has also been detected therein and its percentage has been stated to be ranging between 10.97% to 12.8% and going by the average percentage of 6.8% of the diacetylmorphine in the above fresh samples, the purity/ percentage of the contraband substance from the accused comes to 34 Grams only. On the basis of the percentage of morphine and going by the average percentage of about 12.03 of the above fresh samples, the purity/ percentage weight of the morphine in the above contraband substance can be taken to be around 60 Grams only.
48. As per the Table contained in the Notification issued U/S 2 of the above Act, which prescribes the ' small ' and ' c ommercial' quantities of various narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances under the said Act, a quantity of 5 Gram has been prescribed to be a ' s mall ' quantity for the diacetylmorphine (heroin) as well as for the morphine and similarly a quantity of 250 Grams has been SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 35 prescribed to be a ' c ommercial' quantity for both the above substances. Hence, even if the the percentage/purity weight of both the above substances, i.e diacetylmorphine as well as morphine, is taken together for finding out the gross purity/percentage weight of a contraband substance in the above total 5.001 KG of the substance recovered from the accused, such weight comes to only about 94.1 Grams. Since, the above fresh samples were drawn in the court itself and were sent for re-testing on the directions of the court, it is the percentage prescribed in the second report dated 01.02.2010 which has to be considered in finding out the purity/percentage of the contraband substance recovered from the accused and the first report Ex. PW10/A in which the percentage of diacetylmorphine was opined to be on a very higher side becomes doubtful and immaterial and the benefit which has been created in the mind of the court regarding the purity of the above substance has to be given to the accused. Though one notification no. S.O. 2941 (E) dated 18.11.2009 has also been issued by the Ministry of Finance, (Department of Revenue) under the above Section 2 of the abovesaid Act which lays down that irrespective of the pure drug content of such a substance the entire mixture of such a substance has to be considered for finding out if the quantity possessed by an accused falls within the term ' small ' quantity or ' c ommercial' quantity prescribed under the previous notification, but since the recovery in the instant case was effected on 12.03.2006, i.e much prior to the date of issuance of this notification, the same cannot be made applicable to the case in hand and it is the SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 36 purity/percentage weight of the substance which has to be considered by this court in terms of various judgments of the Hon' b le Supreme Court and different High Courts on the subject and not the total or gross weight of the substance. Therefore, though the charge (amended charge) against the accused was framed for the offence punishable U/S 21(c) of the NDPS Act which relates to a ' c ommercial ' quantity of a manufactured drug etc., but the charge which stands proved against the accused is only for the offence punishable U/S 21(b) of the NDPS Act which deals with the ' m edium ' or ' intermediate' quantity of such a substance, i.e a quantity which is lesser than the ' c ommercial' quantity but higher than the ' s mall ' quantity of the above substance prescribed under the said Act.
49. In view of the above discussion, it is held that prosecution has successfully brought home the guilt of the accused Sylva Osisioma for the offence U/S 21(b) of the NDPS Act only and the charge framed against the accused stands proved accordingly. The accused is accordingly held guilty and convicted for the above offence. Let he be now heard on the quantum of sentence.
Announced in the open
court on 04.06.2011 (M.K.NAGPAL)
ASJ/Special Judge NDPS
South & South East District
Saket Court Complex
New Delhi
SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma
37
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.K.NAGPAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH & SOUTH-EAST SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Through Sh. Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer Versus Sylva Osisioma S/o Sh. Patric Sylva R/o 105, Abiola Estate, Mofuluku, Lagos, Nigeria.
Local Address : A-278, Dhaka Johad, 1st Floor, Parmanand Colony, New Delhi.
SC No. : 43A/06 U/S : 21 NDPS Act ORDER ON SENTENCE Present : Sh. Vikas Gautam, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Satish Agarwal, SPP for DRI. The convict Sylva Osisioma in J/C with Sh. A.K. Sahu, Counsel.
After having convicted the accused for the offence U/S 21(b) of the NDPS Act vide my judgment of even date arguments have been heard today as advanced by Sh. Satish Agarwal, Ld. SPP for DRI and Sh. A.K. Sahu, Ld. Counsel for the convict.
SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma
38
2. I have thoughtfully considered the submissions
being advanced on the point of sentence. The convict has been found guilty of carrying and possessing a medium or intermediate quantity of about 94 gms. of a contraband substance, i.e. diacetylmorphine (heroin) of about 34 gms. and morphine of about 60.1 gms., which carries a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment extending upto 10 years and a fine extending upto Rs. 1 Lac. The convict is in custody in this case since the day of his apprehension, i.e. 12.03.2006, and thus he has already undergone a custody of about five years and three months in this case.
3. Hence, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case I sentence the convict Sylva Osisioma to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In case of non payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of three months. Fine has not been paid as of now and it is also being directed that in case the above fine is deposited by the convict in jail or in this court subsequent to his sentence by this order, even then the Jail Superintendent shall ensure that he is not set free and he is detained in the Detention Centre of the FRRO till the expiry of the period of appeal against the judgment of this court and this order of sentence.
4. A copy of the judgment and the order on sentence be supplied to the convict free of cost. Let the case property be confiscated and destroyed as per rules, subject to the SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma 39 outcome of the appeal, if any, to be filed against this judgment and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open
court on 04.06.2011 (M.K.NAGPAL)
ASJ/Spl. Judge NDPS
South & South East District
Saket Court Complex
New Delhi
SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma
40
SC No. 43A/06
04.06.2011
Present : Sh. Vikas Gautam, Proxy Counsel for
Sh. Satish Agarwal, SPP for DRI.
The convict Sylva Osisioma in J/C with
Sh. A.K. Sahu, Counsel.
Vide separate judgment announced and dictated in the open court today, the convict Sylva Osisioma has been convicted for the offence U/S 21(b) of the NDPS Act and vide separate order on sentence of even date he has been sentenced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by him and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-. In case of non payment of fine he shall undergo SI for a period of three months. Fine has not been paid as of now and it has also being directed that in case the above fine is deposited by the convict in jail or in this court subsequent to his sentence by the above order, even then the Jail Superintendent shall ensure that he is not set free and he is detained in the detention centre of the FRRO till the expiry of the period of appeal against the judgment of this court and the order of sentence.
A copy of the judgment and the order on sentence have been supplied to the convict free of cost. The case property has been directed to be confiscated and destroyed as per rules, subject to the outcome of the appeal, if any, to be filed against this judgment. File be consigned to the record room.
(M.K. Nagpal)
ASJ/Spl. Judge NDPS/Saket
04.06.2011
SC No. 43A/06 DRI Vs Sylva Osisioma