State vs . Neeraj on 13 July, 2018

[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

State vs . Neeraj on 13 July, 2018

          IN THE COURT OF JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA,
       SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH DISTRICT, ROHINI
                     COURTS, DELHI.


SC No: 57602/16
FIR No. 126/10
U/s. 20/25/27A/29 NDPS Act
P.S. Crime Branch

State Vs. Neeraj

1.        Neeraj
          s/o Sh. Bal Kishan
          R/o Village Kadoli, PS Hardawa Ganj, Distt.
          Aligarh, UP.

2.        Sonu
          S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh
          R/o P-1/C-25, Sultanpuri, Delhi

3.        Ajeet kumar
          S/o Sh. Ram Niwas
          R/o House No. 22, Village Shahipur
          Delhi

4.        Tilak Raj
          S/o Sh. Kale Ram
          R/o House No. 22, Village Shahipur
          Delhi

5.        Anjali
          D/o Sh. Diwakar Sharma
          R/o E-38, Gali no. 3, near Bengali Doctor
          Nihal Vihar Delhi

6.        Dheeraj @ Sahil
          S/o Sh. Dharam Chand
          R/o R-139, Mangolpuri, Delhi


State vs. Neeraj & ors.                                                                     Page 1  of 51
(FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch)
 7.        Varsha Aggarwal
          D/o Sh. Hans Raj Aggarwal
          R/o E-38, Gali no. 3, near Bengali Doctor,
          Nihal Vihar, Delhi

8.        Pradeep
          S/o Sh. Lakhi Ram
          R/o House No. 324, Village
          Siraspur, PS Samaypur Badli

9.        Srikant Samal
          S/o Sh. Akhaya Kumar Samal
          R/o Rangia Garh, PO Jhimini
          PS Paradeep, Distt. Jagatpur,
          Orissa

10.       Puran Chandra Behera
          @ Punia
          S/o Sh. Banambara Behera
          R/o Jobra Talashi
          PO College Square,
          PS Malgodown
          Distt. Cuttack Orissa

11.       Sunny Malik.
          @ Amit
          S/o Sh. Rakesh Malik
          R/o S-908, Mangolpuri
          Delhi

Date of institution                                          : 20.01.2011
Date of arguments                                            : 21.05.2018
Date of judgment                                             : 13.07.2018

JUDGMENT :

1. Accused persons were arrested by police officials of Police Station Crime Branch, New Delhi and were challaned to the court for trial for commission of the offence punishable State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 2 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) under Section 20/25/27A/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act').

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.08.2010 a secret informer reached at police station and informed that one Sahil @ Dheeraj used to bring khep of ganja from Odissa from the last one year and supply the same in Mangolpuri and other areas of Delhi. He further stated that he would come at 9 pm on the said date in his Tavera Vehicle along with his associates and if raid would be conducted, he could be apprehended. The said information was reduced in writing in DD no. 5. Raiding party was formed. At about 7:30 pm, raiding party reached at Katran Market, Mangolpuri. At the pointing out of secret informer, the Tavera car which was loaded with 'khep' of Ganja was stopped. Accused persons namely Neeraj, Sonu, Ajeet Kumar, Tilak Raj, Anjali, Dheeraj @Sahil and Varsha Aggarwal were sitting in the said car. They were told about the secret information and were also served notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act and vehicle was searched. Atop the carrier of the vehicle, two suitcases and one bag were found tied with the help of a plastic rope and those were found containing ganja. Inner rear chamber of the vehicle was also searched and five more bags full of ganja were recovered. There was total recovery of 154.800 kgs of ganja. Samples were drawn from each of the bags and requisite investigation and documentation was done. A case vide FIR No.126/10 u/s 20/25/29 of NDPS Act was registered. The accused persons were arrested. The State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 3 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) samples were sent to FSL which confirmed that the substance recovered was ganja.

3. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing investigation and conducting other necessary formalities, charge-sheet was filed in the court.

4. The copies of the chargesheet were supplied to the accused u/s 207 Cr.PC.

5. Charge u/s 20(b)(ii)(C) r/w Section 29 of NDPS Act against the accused persons Neeraj, Sonu, Ajeet Kumar, Tilak Raj, Anjali, Dheeraj @ Sahil and Varsha Aggarwal was framed on 20.04.2011 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Separate charge U/s 25 of NDPS Act has been framed against accused Pradeep Kumar. Charge U/s 20(b)(ii)(C) read with section 29 of NDPS Act and under section 27A of NDPS Act has been made out against accused Sri Kant Samal and Puran Chandra Behra. Charge U/s 29 of NDPS Act has been made out against accused Sunny Malik.

6. Trial proceeded and in the course of trial, prosecution in order to substantiate its case against the accused, examined forty five witnesses in all.

a) PW-1 Pramod Kumar Madhuli is the Manager in the hotel Monolisa, Badam Bari, Cuttak, Odissa. During his deposition, he produced copy of the bill which was issued in the State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 4 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) name of Versha Aggarwal who had stayed in their hotel for three days along with five persons. He had also produced original notice U/s 91 Cr. PC, seizure memo of notice U/s 91 Cr.PC, original cash memo dated 19.08.2010 to 22.08.2010, original check in register, parking register, CD of CCTV footage and these documents were exhibited as Ex. PW 1/A to Ex. PW 1/E.

b) PW-2 Sayyed Shakir Rasul has deposed that he was working as General Manager in Hotel Ashoka College Square, Ice Factory Road, Cuttack-3. He deposed that on 30.08.2010 police officials of Crime Branch, Delhi came to their hotel and asked about the stay of Versha Aggarwal on 25.07.2010. He further deposed that he had checked the hotel records and handed over to police the attested photocopy of the bill dated 25.07.2010 and attested photocopy of check in register. The documents were seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW 2/A. He also proved the photocopy of bill dated 25.07.2010 to 29.07.2010 in the name of V. K. Roplan(Versha Kapoor Roplan) as Ex. PW 2/C, photocopy of day sheet dated 25.07.2010 as Mark PW 2/D and photocopy of check in register vide entry No. 93 dated 25.07.2010 as Ex. PW 2/E. He also identified the accused Versha Aggarwal present in the court.

c) PW-3 ASI Rishi Ram is the member of the raiding party who deposed regarding constitution of raiding party on receipt of secret information on 24.08.2010 to the effect that a person named Sahil @ Dheeraj used to bring lot of ganja from Orissa and deal in supply of Ganja in Mangoldpuri and other State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 5 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) areas of Delhi and he would come at 9 pm with his associate driver and other associates in Taveera vehicle at Katran Market, Mangolpuri and they could be apprehended if raided. The information was reduced into writing vide DD no. 5 which is Ex. PW 3/A. He also proved the copies of notices issued to the accused persons as Ex PW3/C to Ex. PW 3/I-1. He further identified the case property produced in the court from Ex. P1 to Ex.P26 and also proved the FSL from as Ex. PW 3/J and rukka as Ex. PW 3/K, seizure memo of Tavera Taxi as Ex. PW 3/L.

d) PW-4 HC Mohd Abrar is the official who had deposited the pullandas and FSL form in FSL Rohini vide RC no. 334/21/10.

e) PW-5 R.C.Patekar, General Manager(electronic), National Highway Authority Of India deposed regarding seeking information for crossing of vehicle DL-1YB-6335 from Vrmbypass, Lalangr from 17.08.2010 to 18.08.2010(while going from Delhi to Cuttack) and 22.07.2010 to 24.07.2010 and arrival(coming back i.e. Cuttack to Delhi) on 23.8.2010 and 29.07.2010 to 31.07.2010 on the above said plazas and reply in that regard. He proved the letter as Ex. PW 5/A, documents furnished with the forwarding letter as Ex. PW 5/B to Ex.PW 5/C.

f) PW-6 Ms. Shashi Kala, Manager(Electricals) has also deposed regarding the same fact as deposed by PW 5. She further proved the certificate U/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act mailed by her.

g) PW-7 Dr. Virender Singh examined the various State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 6 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) documents and exhibits in this case and gave his report vide Ex. PW 7/E and PW 7/F and certified data which was taken out from the exhibits after examination has been proved as Ex. PW 7/G-1 to Ex. PW 7/G-56.

h) PW-8 Shiba Shankar Manager, Axis Bank has appeared in the court and has deposed regarding furnishing detailed statement of accounts as desired by the police. He had also furnished account opening form desired by the SIT branch and also enclosed attested accounts opening forms, identification and other paper required at the opening of the account. He proved the forwarding letter along with furnished details as Ex. PW 8/A to PW8/J.

i) PW-9 Abhinav Maharishi has deposed regarding furnishing desired information as required by IO SIT, Crime Branch, through mail. He had also brought certificate of 65B regarding call details of Dheeraj and proved the same as Ex. PW 9/C.

j) PW-10 Sushant kumar is the Assistant Vice President, Axis Bank, has also proved the forwarding letter, statement of accounts, account opening form of accused Shrikant Samal as Ex. PW 10/A to Ex. PW 10/D.

k) PW-11 Sh Sadasiba Tripathy and PW 12 Prashant kumar Mishra also deposed regarding the same facts as deposed by PW 10.

l) PW-13 HC Raj Kumar is the duty officer who proved the registration of case FIR in this case and proved the copy of the same as Ex. PW13/A and endorsement on rukka in State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 7 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) the present case as Ex. PW 13/B. He further proved the DD entries No. 10 and 12 as Ex. PW 13/C and Ex. PW 13/D. He further proved the certificate U/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW 13/E.

m) PW-14 Mr. Kuldeep Negi, Operations Manager appeared in the witness box and deposed regarding handing over 192 deposit slips in response to the notice of IO. He proved the seizure memo in this regard as Ex.PW 14/A. He further handed over joint account opening form of Dheeraj and his wife Upasana, photocopy of PAN card, photocopy of voter IO card of Upasana, photocopy of electricity connection in the name of Dharam Chand and the deposit slips by which money was deposited in the account of Dheeraj and Upasana and proved the said documents as Mark PW14/C-4 and original form No. 60 filled by Upasana as Ex. PW 14/C-2; photocopy of deposit slips of Rs.30,000/- in account of Dheeraj and Upasna as now Mark PW 14/C-4. Six cheques which were returned from FSL as Ex. PW 7/C-1 to Ex. PW 7/C-6. PW 14 further deposed in response to the letter of SI of SIT of dated 08.09.2011, he had submitted his reply vide his forwarding letter Ex.PW 14/G. He also proved the account opening form of Sunny as Ex. PW 14/-G-1. He further proved the photocopy of PAN card, voter ID card of Sunny Malik and electricity bill in the name of Rakesh , photocpy of ration card of Rakesh Kumar and photocopy of the initial deposit slip at the time of opening of account as Mark PW14/E1 to E-5 and reply dated 19.09.2011 in response to the letter of IO of SIT as Ex. PW 14/H. State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 8 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch)

n) PW 15 Ms. Anita Verma, Director PAN card, Database, Department of Income Tax deposed regarding information sought with respect to three PAN card numbers mentioned in the notice U/s 91 Cr. PC received from IO, SIT Crime Branch and proved the notice as Ex. PW 15/A and reply of notice as Ex.PW 15/B.

o) PW-16 Mr. Viashwajit Gayakwad has also deposed regarding the same fact as mentioned by PW 5.

p) PW- 17 Dharmavir , Runner(Courier Boy) is the witness who proved the account opening form of Sunny Malik as already Ex. PW 14/G1, photocopy of election card, ration card, electricity bills, pay-in-slip and various other documents as Mark PW 14/E1 to Ex. PW 14/E5.

q) PW-18 Suman,Branch Head, Axis Bank deposed regarding furnishing of various deposit slips in the name of Pramod Behra, Srikant Kumar Samal, Puran Chandra Behra, Manju Lata Behra. He further proved the two slips which are already exhibited as Ex. PW 7/A2 and Ex. PW 7/A1 to A110 and remaining slips as Ex. PW 18/A-3 to Ex. PW 18/A-61.

r) PW-19 Raj Kumar is the registered owner of Tavera(white colour). He has deposed regarding the fact of giving on rent the Tavera vehicle to accused Pradeep for plying.

s) PW-20 Hari Om is the owner of shop which is situated on the ground floor of F-10/33, Sector-15 Rohini Delhi. He had given his aforesaid shop on the monthly rent to accused Pradeep. In his presence accused Pradeep had taken out from the drawer of table one diary, one register, one copy in which State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 9 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) duty slip and route of booking of vehicles was written one power of attorney and handed over the same to the police. The said documents were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ex.

PW 20/A.
                     t)         PW-21            Deepak,             Alternate             Nodal             Officer

proved the CDR in respect of mobile numbers in the name of Mohan Singh, Ravinder Kumar and Hari Singh as Ex. PW 21/A to Ex. PW 21/O. u) PW-22 Inspector Kuldeep Singh deposed regarding deposit of sealed case parcels along with FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo after putting his seal impression. He got deposited the same in malkhana through HC Jagnarayan. He also proved the entry vide which the pulandas were deposited in malkhana as Ex. PW 22/A.

v) PW-23 Manoj Dave, Manager, National Securities Depository Ltd deposed regarding furnishing of photocopies of three application forms and their supporting documents along with forwarding letter along with three PAN card numbers as sought by SIT Crime Branch in their letter and proved his reply as Ex. PW 23/B. He further proved photocopies ie. 14 pages of annexures with reply as Ex. PW 23/A1 to A-14.

w) PW-24 Ashish, Sr. Manager, has deposed regarding furnishing of the photocopies of application form of PAN card numbers as required and their supporting documents along with forwarding letter with respect to said two PAN card numbers and the reply in that regard as Ex. PW 24/A. He also proved 5 pages of annexures on the judicial record and marked State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 10 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) as PW 24/A1 to A5.

x) PW-25 HC Jag Narayan is the MHC(M) PS Crime branch. He deposed regarding deposit of parcels and regarding making their entry in register no. 19. He further deposed regarding deposit of vehicle Tavera bearing No: DL-1YB6335 and personal search articles of accused persons. He further deposed regarding handing over parcels to HC Mohd Abrar for being depositing at FSL Rohini.

y) PW-26 Srinarain, Assistant Director Chemistry, FSL Rohini, Delhi proved the FSL result in this case as Ex. PW 26/A and PW 30 Ms. L. Babyutio Devi proved the FSL result in this case as Ex. PW 30/A. z) PW-27 Ms. Madhur Wadhwa deposed regarding deposition of 38 deposit slips of the account numbers as asked by the IO. Out of these 38 deposit slips, 14 were deposited in the account of accused Puran Chandra Behera, 12 deposit slips were deposited in the account of accused Srikant Samal, nine deposit slips were deposited in different accounts of accused Puran Chandra Behera and two deposit slip were deposited in the name of Manjulata Behra and one in the name of Alekhchander Behra as Ex PW 7/A7.

za) PW-28 Mr. Sanjay Verma, Inspector Income Tax, ITO proved the notice U/s 91 Cr.PC dated 03.08.2011 from IO Special Investigation Team, Crime Branch, ITO(Ward 21.(1) New Delhi and the reply given by Pratap Chauhan to the notice U/s 91 Cr. PC. He identified the handwriting and signature of Sh. Pratap Chauhan at point A on the letter Ex. PW 28/B. He State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 11 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) further deposed that as per their records for PAN card No. AQAPD675AG, no returns has been filed by the assessee from the year 01.01.2007 to 01.01.2011.

zb) PW-29 Sh. Kulvir Singh, Inspector Income Tax, ITO also deposed regarding the reply given by Hari Prakash to the notice U/s 91 Cr. PC.

zc) PW-31 Mr. R. L. Pathi proved the reply given by Sh. B. C. Behra to the notice u/s 91 Cr. PC. He further proved the returns filed by Puran Chandra Behera for the year 2008-09 and 2009-2010 and Srikant Samal for the year 2008-09, 2009- 2010 as Ex. PW 31/C to Ex. PW 31/G. As per his deposition, no returns have been filed by the assessee Puran Chandra Behera for the year 2010-2011.

zd) PW-32 Dr.Joy Tirkey deposed regarding the directions issued to Inspector Jitender to organize a raiding party and raiding party had been formed. He proved the DD no. 5 dated 24.08.2010. He further proved the special reports under section 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure and arrest of accused persons.

ze) PW-33 HC Vijender proved the arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure statement and supplementary disclosure statement of accused Sunny Malik as Ex. PW33/A to Ex. PW 33/D respectively.

zf) PW-34 Pawan Singh, Nodal Officer proved the CDRs in respect of respective phone numbers registered in the name of Vimal Upadhyay and Dulal Shil, copies of respective customer application forms and their identity proofs as Ex. PW State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 12 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) 34/A to Ex. PW 34/H. Zg) PW-35 Chander Shekhar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd proved the CDRs pertaining to mobile number:

9777357310 registered in the name of Srinibas, mobile number 9937152629 in the name of Akshya Kumar Samal, mobile number 9937838537 registered in the name of Somnath Rao, mobile number 9937957414 registered in the name of Lakshman Sahoo, mobile number 9938604347 pertaining to Ramoni Ranjan Das, mobile number 9717533653 pertaining to Hari Ram, mobile number no. 9717403049 pertaining to Manish Chopra, mobile number 9717359549 pertaining to Manish Chopra, mobile number 9871153478 pertaining to Pradeep Sharma, mobile number 9818054578 pertaining to Sarika.

Zh) PW-36 HC Virpal is also the member of the raiding party which had conducted raid in this case. He deposed as per the lines of the prosecution and proved the various memos as already exhibited.

zi) PW-37 Sh. Rakesh is father of accused Sunny.

He deposed regarding deposition of cash by his son Sunny on asking of accused Dheeraj in Axis Bank. He further deposed that accused Dheeraj has some business of coconut and bead brooms. He further deposed that accused Dheeraj had told that he has a business of coconut and beat brooms. He further deposed that he reached the office of SIT Crime Branch, Sector-18. SI Malik showed him some bank receipts and he identified the signature of his son Sunny.

zj) PW-38 Inspector Jitender Singh is the official State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 13 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) who formed raiding party in this case, PW 40 HC Ghanshyam, PW 41 SI Anil Kumar, PW 44 HC Sanjay were the members of the raiding party who had conducted raid in this case. They deposed as per the lines of the prosecution.

zk) PW-39 WHC Laxmi deposed regarding the proceedings which took place after the apprehension of accused. She further proved the notices U/s 50 NDPS Act as Ex. PW 3/C to Ex. PW 3/I. She further proved the arrest memo of accused Neeraj as Ex. PW36/A, arrest memo of Sonu as Ex. PW 36/B, arrest memo of Anjali as Ex. PW 36/C, arrest memo of Versha as Ex. PW 39/A, arrest memo of accused Dheeraj as Ex. PW 36/D, arrest memo of accused Ajit as Ex PW 36/E, arrest memo of Tilak Raj as Ex. PW 36/E, personal search of accused Anjali as Ex.PW 39/B and personal search of accused Versha as Ex.PW 39/C, disclosure statement of accused Versha as Ex. PW 39/D. zl) PW-42 ASI Jagdish Prasad is the official who conducted further investigation/proceedings after apprehension of accused persons. He proved arrest of accused persons as already Ex.PW 36/A to Ex. PW 36/F. He further proved the personal search of accused Sonu, Neeraj, Tilak Raj, Ajit and Dhiraj as Ex. PW 36/G, Ex. PW 36/J, Ex. PW 36/H, Ex. PW 36/K and Ex. PW 36/L. PW 42 further deposed regarding disclosure statements of accused Dhiraj Kumar, Tilak Raj, Neeraj Kumar and Ajit Kumar as Ex. PW 36/M, Ex. PW 36/N, Ex. PW 36/O, Ex. PW 36/P and Ex. PW 36/Q. He further proved disclosure statement of accused Versha and Anjali as Ex. PW State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 14 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) 36/D and Ex. PW 36/R. He further proved report U/s 57 NDPS Act prepared by him as Ex. PW 32/C. zm) PW-43 Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, Nodal officer proved the CDR, CAF and location chart pertaining to mobile number 9210032942 for the period 01.09.2009 to 6.09.2010 registered in the name of Hariom Sharma. Customer application form was exhibited as Ex. PW43/A, photocopy of driving licence as Ex. PW 43/B and attested call detail records as Ex. PW 43/C. He further proved the CAF, CDR and location chart pertaining to mobile number 9210404057 with respect to accused Sunny Malik. Copy of customer application form is Ex. PW 43/D, photocopy of voter I card is Ex. PW 43/E. Attested Call detail records have been proved as Ex. PW 43/F. Similarly, CAF, CDR and location chart pertaining to mobile numbers of Rajiv, Sarika, Vjay Kumar, Sunny, Ram Chander, Sangeeta, Rakesh, Rajiv, Mukesh Chand, Pradeep, Kalpana Devi, Dheeraj s/o Sh. Dharam Chand, Bajrangi Jha, Upasana, Vijay Kumar Sahu have been proved as Ex. PW 43/G to Ex. PW 43/Z6.

zn) PW-44 HC Sanjay is also the member of the raiding party and deposed as per the lines of prosecution.

zo) PW-45 Sh. Israr Babu appears in the witness box on behalf of witness Deepak. He affirms the testimony of PW21 Deepak which was recorded earlier on 22.08.2012.

7. Statement of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C when an opportunity were given to explain the incriminating evidence against them. Accused persons State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 15 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) pleaded that they have been falsely implicated in this case. Nothing incriminating was recovered from their possession or at their instance. They opted to lead evidence in their defence. In support of their defence, accused persons examined witnesses DW-1 to DW-8.

8. DW-1 is Sh. Prithvi Singh. He proved the report Ex, DW1/1 with respect to accused/inmate Dheeraj @ Sahil with respect to his participation in cultural programs.

9. DW-2 Sh. Satish kumar is the younger brother of Dheeraj. He deposed that on 22.08.2010 some persons came at his house at about 2-2:30 pm. They asked for Dheeraj who is his younger brother. He further stated that accused Dheeraj was with him in the house at that time. One of those persons was Rishi Ram. They claimed that they were from police staff and wanted to take Dheeraj for some inquiry. They took Dheeraj with them claiming that they were from Sector-18. They did not leave Dheeraj till late in the night. He further deposed that he had asked Rishi Ram to let off his brother but he claimed that he had to make some inquiries.

DW-3 is Sh. Lalit Kumar Mahanti. He deposed that he had about 2-3 acres of land in village Kantapura in the name of his father. He further stated that he along with other farmers of the neighbourhood supply 'Jharu, mats" prepared from coconut peels and from trees of Khajoor. They also sell coconut. During the season, they also grow cashew nuts and State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 16 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) sell the same. He further stated that Puran Chandra Behera and Arun Sahu used to visit our village twice every week from Cuttack to collect the prepared articles for selling the same. During that period they used to hand over products to them. About 30-40 people used to hand over products to Puran Chandra. He further deposed that he used to get commission of Rs.1000/- every day from Puran Chandra. He further stated that he used to earn Rs.2000/- per week from him. In January/Feb. 2011, DW3 went to Puran Chandra's house and obtained his dues from father of Puran Chandra.

During cross-examination by ld. Addl. PP, he submitted that he had no receipt in respect of the goods sold to the accused.

DW-4 HC Rajesh Kumar proved the complaint dated 13.04.2009 moved by one Rajender Aggarwal regarding missing /abduction of his wife. He proved the said complaint as Ex. DW4/A. DW-5 SI Eswara Rao, proved the copy of FIR No. 62/09 dated 10.03.2009 PS Charminar, District Hyderabad as Mark DW5/A. DW-6 Rekha Aggarwal(accused Versha) deposed that on 07.03.2009 when she had gone to the market from her residence in Hyderabad for purchasing vegetables. She further deposed that four persons came there and asked her to accompany them else they would finish her off. She accordingly accompanied them. She was taken to some place in Delhi and was locked in a room there. Thereafter, she was shifted to some State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 17 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) other room for about 2-3 days. She further stated that she had been taken to Bombay and Orissa. She was then made to sit in a vehicle along with other accused persons who are facing trial in this case. She was accordingly got arrested in this case by those persons. She further deposed that even prior to her kidnapping on 07.03.2009 she had been kidnapped by some persons but she managed to run from their clutches. She further proved copy of Election Commission Identity card as Mark DW6/A(OSR) and copy of household card as Mark DW6/B. DW-7 is accused Sunny Malik who himself deposed that accused Dhiraj is his Chacha being son of Bua of his father. He deposed that he used to teach Guitar to children. He further deposed that he used to give home tuition to children in this regard for his livelihood. He also used to work as DJ in parties. He further deposed that his Chacha Dhiraj was doing work of supplying of coconut and coconut brooms. He further deposed that his Chacha used to call him and hand over money to him for being deposited in some account.

DW-8 is Sh. Rajender Aggarwal. He appeared in the witness box and had pointed out towards accused Versha and stated that she is his wife. He further deposed that on 07.02.2009 his wife disappeared from home in Hyderabad. He further deposed that she returned back home the next day. He further deposed that she had been taken by a lady and a gent. He further deposed that his wife remained 'gum sum'for about one month thereafter. He further deposed that on 07.03.2009 his wife had gone to the market for purchasing vegetables. She State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 18 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) did not return back thereafter. He searched for her for two days and when she could not be located. He lodged complaint with the police on 10.03.2009 and about one month thereafter, he was informed by police officials that information had been received regarding presence of his wife in Delhi. He accordingly came to Delhi and lodged a complaint with DCP Crime on 13.04.2009. He remained in Delhi for about one week but could not know anything about his wife.

He further deposed that in December, 2012 he received a telephone call from one Sh. Gaurav Advocate. He informed him that his wife lodged in Central Jail.

10. I have heard Sh. J S Malik, Ld. Addl PP for the State Sh. Raman Sahney on behalf of accused Dheeraj advanced arguments at length and ld. Counsel for other accused persons namely Sh Rakesh Chahar, ld. Counsel for accused Srikant Samal, Neelam Singh, ld. Counsel for accused Sonu and Neeraj, Sh. Kulbhushan Mehta, ld. Counsel for accused Ajit and Tilak Raj, Sh. Sachin Dev Sharma, ld. Counsel for accused Versha, Sh. Pradeep Rana, ld. Counsel for accused, Sh. C. M. Sangwan for accused Sunny Malik and Puran Chandra have adopted arguments as advanced by Sh. Raman Sahni, ld. Counsel. Sh. S.K. Sood, ld. Counsel for accused Anjali, has also advanced arguments in the present case. It is argued that there was lapse regarding compliance of Section 41 and 42 of NDPS Act. It is further argued that Ex. P-10, P-12, P-13 and P- 14 were tampered documents. It is further argued that Ex. P-17 State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 19 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) i.e. Sealing of the contraband is doubtful. Sh.Pradeep Rana, ld Counsel for A-8 i.e. Pradeep also advanced arguments that prosecution is not able to prove that vehicle was taken on rent by accused Pradeep and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further argued that the accused persons were already detained prior to the alleged date of incident and they have been falsely implicated. It is further argued that place of apprehension of the accused has been concocted and accused persons were not apprehended from Tavera vehicle. It is further argued that non-joining of the public witnesses itself creates doubt on the recovery of the contraband.

11. Per Contra, Ld. APP for State has contended that there is not an iota of doubt in coming to the conclusion that the accused persons have committed the offence, and, hence, they are liable to be convicted in this case.

APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE.

12. As per the case of the prosecution and evidence produced by the prosecution before this court, this court has to appreciate evidence brought by the prosecution with the following facts:

A. Stay in hotel. As per the prosecution evidence, the accused Versha Aggarwal, Anjali, Sonu, Pardeep, Neeraj and Tilak Raj have stayed at Hotel Monolisa, Badambari, Cuttack, Odissa and hotel Ashoka College Square, Ice Factory Road, Cuttack-3. To prove this fact prosecution has examined PW 1 State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 20 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) and PW 2. Let the evidence of both these witnesses be appreciated.

a) PW 1 proved the presence of accused in Hotel, Monolisa, Badam Bari, Cuttak, Odissa. Ex. PW1/C is the copy of bill bearing GR no. 1812 dated 22.08.2010. The said bill was issued in the name of Ms. Versha Aggarwal i.e. A-7. Check in register is Ex. PW 1/E wherein he proved the entries regarding check in of A-7 along with friends. He further proved Ex. PW 1/D wherein entry of parking of vehicle bearing No DL-1YB-

6335 is mentioned. During cross-examination PW 1 deposed that entry No. 1812 is in the name of accused Versha Aggarwal regarding advance in hand of PW 1. He further deposed that it was written by A-7 in his presence. During cross-examination a suggestion was given that PW 1 had deposed on the basis of CCTV footage and suggestion was denied. However, during cross-examination no suggestion was given that Versha Aggarwal had not stayed in hotel. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Neeraj a suggestion was given that accused Neeraj had not stayed in the hotel and the suggestion was denied. A suggestion was given that CD Ex. PW 1/F was not of Hotel Monolisa, Badam Bari, Cuttak, Odissa and was manipulated and fabricated. The said CD was played on Laptop by the IO and was also seen by the court and defence Counsel. PW 1 submitted that it is the similar CD which he had handed over to the police.

b) PW 2 was working as General Manager in Hotel Ashoka, college Square, Ice Factory Road, Cuttack-3. He State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 21 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) deposed about the visit of Ms. Versha Aggarwal on 25.07.2010. He proved the bill dated 25.07.2010 as Ex. PW 2/C. During cross-examination of PW 2 no suggestion was given that Ms. Versha Aggarwal had never stayed in Ashoka Hotel, College Square, Ice Factory Road, Cuttack-3. Thus, by exhibiting of documents during deposition of PW 1 and PW 2 that Versha Agggarwal had stayed in different hotels in Cuttack (Odissa) and she has not challenged this fact during cross-examination of PW 1 and PW 2. Even testimony of PW 2 remains unchallenged on behalf of other accused.

The testimony of witnesses as referred proves that accused persons Versha Aggarwal, Anjali, Sonu, Pardeep, Neeraj and Tilak Raj stayed in hotel Hotel Monolisa, Badambari, Cuttack, Odissa. Moreover, during cross- examination, PW 1 also deposed that he had seen Puran Chand Behra(A-10) at the time of making entry no.1812.

B.        Preparation of raiding party

          a)         The testimony of PW 3 proves the preparation of

raiding party, recovery and seizure of contraband. He deposed that on 24.08.2010 he received secret information from informer, produced the informer before Addl. DCP in his office at Sector 18, Rohini, Delhi. Additional DCP directed to carry on legal action. Accordingly, PW 3 reduced information into DD no. 5 at 12:30 pm which is Ex. PW 3/A. He further deposed that at about 8:50 pm, Tavera vehicle had come from the Ring road side and on the roof carrier of that Tavera vehicle, bags and suit State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 22 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) cases were loaded and seven persons were sitting in the Tavera Vehicle, out of them two were ladies and five were gents. PW 3 further proved DD no. 9 as Ex.PW 3/B, carbon copy of notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act served upon the accused persons have been proved as Ex. PW 3/C to Ex. PW 3/I1. Two suit cases and one bag were tied with the report on the carrier. First suitcase was checked and was found containing one green colour plastic thaili and ganja was found contained in that thaili in the bag. Same was found containing 15 kgs ganja. Another suit case was checked and was found containing bluish colour plastic thaili and was found containing 15 kg 500 gms ganja. Thereafter bag was opened and checked and it was found containing a black colour polythene containing ganja. Total weight of ganja with polythene came out to be 11.500 ganja. Thereafter, dicky of the car was checked. Rear seat of the car was not there in the vehicle as it was removed and in that space, five boras, polythene black colour were found. He had further given details of the contraband recovered. During cross- examination PW-3 deposed that date of arrest of accused persons is 09.08.2010. During cross-examination of PW 3, he admitted that he did not make a request to the public persons in order to join the public persons in the raiding team near Paul Handloom. However, during further cross-examination witness clarified the date of arrest of accused persons as 25.08.2010. During further cross-examination he deposed that entire writing work and weighing of the case property was done in street lights and while sitting on the takhats which were lying near the State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 23 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) place of recovery.

b) PW 32 Dr.Joy Tirkey deposed regarding the directions issued to Inspector Jitender to organize a raiding party and conducting the raid. He further proved the special reports under section 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of contraband and arrest of accused persons. Thus, he corroborates the testimony of PW-3. He also proved Ex. PW 32/A and Ex. PW 32/B as reports U/s 57 NDPS Act along with Ex. PW 32/D, PW 32/E, PW 32/F and Ex.PW 32/G which all are reports U/s 57 NDPS Act bearing signatures of witness i.e. PW 32. The only defence taken by accused during cross-examination is that no information was brought to the knowledge of PW 32 and that accused persons were already apprehended and were made to sit in the SIT office much prior to 12.30 noon of 24.08.2010. The suggestion has been denied. PW 36 also proved Ex. PW 3/A and Ex. PW 3/B . He further deposed that he was the witness of raiding party. He further deposed that a copy of Ex. PW 3/A was produced before Inspector Jitender for onward transmission to SO to Addl. DCP, SIT. He further proved the carbon copy of notices issued to accused Neeraj, Dheeraj, Sonu, Varsha, Ajit, Anjali and Tilak Raj as Ex.PW 3/C to Ex. PW 3/I respectively. He further proved recovery of the contraband and given detailed sequence of events regarding the seizure of contraband. Various documents have been proved. During cross-examination PW36 deposed that occupants of the car told the raiding party at the time of apprehension that the vehicle Tavera was rented one. He further deposed that he came to State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 24 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) know after opening of Tavera that it was containing contraband. It was not visible from outside. The contraband in the dickey was containing upto the half of glass of dickey. Glass of the dickey was tinted one and hence the colour of the sacks of the contraband was not visible from outside. The dickey was not fully covered with the sacks and it was empty to some extent to accommodate one or two bags of sacks etc. He further deposed the dicky of Tavera was opened at 10:15 pm, where he came to know for the first time that its seats were removed. A suggestion was given that Tavera was having both vertical seats when they got it stopped or that they later on detached both seats and deliberately showed that some contraband was lying in the dickey and some of the roof in order to create false evidence. The suggestion is denied. During further cross-examination PW 36 deposed that he was positioned opposite Paul Handloom from where he could see Paul Handloom and surrounding area. There was temple and 2/3 shops before Paul Handloom. He did not know the name of God to which the temple belong. It was a mid size temple. Ring road was away i.e. 200-250 meters from that place. He further deposed that there were seven occupants in Tavera. Accused Neeraj was driving. Two persons namely Dheeraj and Sonu were sitting on front left seat beside driver seat. Accused Tilak Raj, Ajit, Anjali and Varsha were sitting on the seat behind the driver seat. Writing work in notice U/s 50 NPPS Act was done at the spot. Disclosure statements of the accused were written in SIT office Rohini. In all, there were five boras, 2 suit cases and one bag. Spot was very much in the State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 25 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) residential area. He further deposed that no President, Secretary or member of RWA who was summoned to become the witness of proceedings. Local police was not informed before or after the recovery. Inventory of articles were not sent to local police. A suggestion was given that no such secret informer came to him with the information and no such raiding party was formed. The suggestion was denied that accused Dheeraj was detained at SIT Rohini Sector-28 and nothing was recovered from his possession. Same suggestion was given on behalf of accused Versha Aggarwal. Same cross-examination has been adopted on behalf of accused Anjali, Ajeet, Tilak raj, Sunny Malik. Testimony of this witness has not been challenged on behalf of accused Puran Chand Behera. Thus, testimonies of PW-3, PW-32 and PW-36 read together and thus pointed towards the conclusion that raiding party was prepared and accused were apprehended as deposed by them in accordance with the law. Further, testimony of this witness corroborated with the testimony of PW-44. Notice U/s 50 NDPS Act which were Ex. PW 3/C to Ex. PW 3/I were duly served upon. All such notices carefully perused and these notices have been duly signed and written in the handwriting of concerned persons.

c) PW-40 who was also part of the raiding party supported the testimony of PW-36, PW-38 and PW-39. During cross-examination PW-40 deposed that when the occupants of the Tavera car were interrogated they disclosed that the said Tavera car had been taken on rent by them. The documents and the inquiries suggested that said car was given on rent to State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 26 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) the occupant of the Tavera Car which was intercepted on 24.08.2010. During the said cross-examination, he further stated that they went to the office of Hariom along with accused Pradeep where Hariom was found present. All the proceedings of search and seizure were conducted in the office of Pradeep in the presence of Hariom. During cross-examination a suggestion was given that the rear seats of the car were available in Tavera but subsequently the said seats were removed by the police in order to create false evidence against the accused Pradeep and at the time of recording disclosure statement of accused Pradeep, no public person was asked to join the investigation despite availability. This suggestion was also denied. During cross-examination he deposed that he prepared six notices U/s 50 NDPS Act and his signatures are at the bottom as a witness on the same. He further clarified that he had written notices at the dictation of ASI Rishi Ram and those were written after stopping of Tavera car and after inquiry from the accused. He further stated that entire writing work was done by ASI Rishi Ram and no assistance was taken from any other team member. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Dheeraj, testimony of this witness remained unshaken.

d) PW-41 during examination in chief deposed that at the spot 5-6 public persons were told regarding the information and were asked to join the proceedings. All of them left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. During cross- examination PW 41 further disclosed that 5/6 public persons were asked to join investigation. But all refused stating their State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 27 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) reasons. No notice was given to those persons. PW 41 further deposed that seized vehicle was taken to PS Nehru Place at 5.20 am from the spot and it was parked inside PS premises. He further deposed that he came to know the registered owner of the vehicle at the spot only from the RC. He further deposed that no notice was given to the transport authority to know the registered owner. PW-41 contacted the registered owner of the said vehicle namely Raj Kumar only after arrest of accused Pradeep. The address of Raj Kumar came to his knowledge as it was mentioned in the RC of the said vehicle. A suggestion was given that photograph of the vehicle was not taken at the spot as rear seat was intact or that said seat was lateron removed while said vehicle was lying in police custody.

e) PW-41 in further deposition supported the case of the prosecution as supported by PW-36, PW-38, PW-39 and PW 40. He further deposed that during personal search there was one document showing the name of Sahil on the booking slip when vehicle was taken to Cuttack. The accused were taken to PS Nehru Place from the spot. PW 41 had written only one document and that is FSL form. A suggestion was given that accused Dheeraj was not present in said Tavera vehicle. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Anjali that there was phone connectivity of accused Anjali with Versha before the intercepted date i.e. 24.08.2010. He has admitted that except Versha, there was no connectivity with the other accused persons on mobile phones. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Neeraj, Versha, Sunny Malik and Srikant Samal, a State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 28 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) suggestion was given that no raid was conducted and that is why no photographs of the spot were taken. During cross- examination on behalf of accused Ajeet and Tilak Raj, PW 41 deposed no recovery was affected from the cursory search of accused Ajit and Tilak Raj.

During cross-examination on behalf of accused Sunny Malik, PW-41 deposed that he had personally gone to residence of accused Sunny Malik to call him to SIT Crime Branch on 02.05.2011. The fact that PW-41 had gone to house of Sunny Malik personally to call him to SIT office is mentioned in his case diary.

f) A suggestion was given that father of Sunny Malik had given to PW-41 Rs. 2 lacs and promised to give Rs. 2 lacs by the evening and the suggestion was denied. However, this court made observations that the accused has not brought any document or confronted PW-41 regarding the fact that how and from where he had arranged money of Rs. 2 lacs which is not a small amount and allegedly paid to PW 41. A further suggestion was given that from 02.05.2011 till date, he had gone more than 50 times for demanding the bribe amount and the suggestion was denied. No date of any such visit has been confronted with PW-41. If a person has visited 50 times, then, certainly there may be some witnesses/evidence or noting of date. Even if this court accepts the defence of ld. Defence Counsel that PW 41 for demanding the bribe amount, he visited 50 time, then again accused has not proved what conversation took place for 50 times between Rakesh Malik and PW 41. Further a suggestion State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 29 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) was given that from 02.05.2011 till the date of deposition, PW 41 had talked with Sh. Rakesh Malik on phone more than 50 time. Again this court observes that if PW-41 had spoken to Sh. Rakesh Malik for 50 times, then, definitely there must be call details or CDR or timings of events which could definitely be confronted with PW-41. But nothing has been brought on record. Therefore, this court is of the view that defence taken on behalf of accused is baseless and not tenable and cannot be believed upon.

During cross-examination on behalf of accused Puran Chandra, PW-41 deposed that he went to Cuttack in the year 2013 regarding the present case. PW-41 had searched his house but his father told him that accused was absconding from his house for several months. PW 41 was accompanied by local police officials to his house but he did not found any incriminating evidence against him in his house.

g) PW-41 further admitted that he did not record the conversation on mobile between Dheeraj, Sunny Malik, Pooran Chand Behra and Srikant Samal. There is CCTV footage of accused Pooran Chand Behra entering in hotel Monalisa, Cuttak with other accused. The Hotel was booked by Pooran Chand Behra. A suggestion was given that accused was engaged in the business of supplying cashew nuts, palm papers and nut brooms throughout India. PW-41 admitted that nothing incriminating was recovered from the possession of accused. He clarified that he did not arrest the accused. He had given notice to father of accused at Cuttack to inform the police State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 30 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) whenever accused visited his house.

h) PW-44 deposed that he reached PS at about 1:20 pm with rukka and case property etc. He further deposed that his statement was recorded by ASI Jagdish on computer on 25.08.2010 in the office of SIT in the HP Laptop. During cross- examination on behalf of accused Neeraj, Versha and Srikant, PW-44 deposed that wind screen of the Tavera Car was clear and one can see through the same, however, all other glasses were tinted with black film and no one can see inside the car by peeping through the said glasses. He further deposed that they were able to know about the owner as RC, permit, insurance and other documents of the said car were recovered from dash board. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Sonu PW-44 admitted that when signal was given to stop the vehicle Tavera, Sonu was not driving it at that time.

i) During arguments, Sh. Raman Sahni, ld.

Counsel for accused Dheeraj argued that the present case is vitiated due to non compliance of Section 41 and 42 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. He referred the case i.e. State of Rajasthan Vs. Jagraj Singh @ Hansa Cr. Appeal No. 1233 of 2006 Hon'ble Supreme Court referred earlier judgment and held in para no. 9.

".................This Court in State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh, 1994 (3)SCC 299, in paragraph 15 has made the following observations:

"15. The object of NDPS Act is to make stringent provisions for control and regulation of operations State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 31 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) relating to those drugs and substances. At the same time, to avoid harm to the innocent persons and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officers, certain safeguards are provided which in the context have to be observed strictly. Therefore these provisions make it obligatory that such of those officers mentioned therein, on receiving an information, should reduce the same to writing and also record reasons for the belief while carrying out arrest or search as provided under the proviso to Section 42(1). To that extent they are mandatory. Consequently the failure to comply with these requirements thus affects the prosecution case and therefore vitiates the trial."

Mr. Sahani further referred para no. 10 and 11 of the same judgment wherein it was observed:

10. To the similar effect are the observations of this Court in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyed & others vs. State Of Gujarat, (1995) 3 SCC 610. Following was stated in paragraph 6 of the said judgment:

"6. It is to be noted that under the NDPS Act punishment for contravention of its provisions can extend to rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than IO years but which May extend to 20 years and also to fine which shall not be less than Rupees one lakh but which may extend to Rupees two lakhs, and the court is empowered to impose a fine exceeding Rupees two lakhs for reasons to be recorded in its judgment.

Section 54 of the NDPS Act shifts the onus of proving his innocence upon the accused; it states that in trials under the NDPS Act it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is Proved, that an accused has committed an offence under it in respect of the articles covered by it "for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily". Having regard to the grave consequences that may entail the possession of illicit articles under the NDPS Act, namely, the shifting of the onus to the accused and the severe punishment to which he becomes liable, the legislature has enacted the safeguard contained in Section 50. To obviate any doubt as to the State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 32 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) possession by the accused of illicit articles under the NDPS Act, the accused is authorised to require the search for such possession to be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate."

11. In the present case, Section 42 is relevant which is extracted as below:

"42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.-(l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from persons knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V A of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,

(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;

(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;

(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 33 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) freezing or forfeiture under Chapter V A of this Act; and

(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:

Provided that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building,conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.

(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under subsection (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."

Mr. Sahani further referred paras no. 17, 18 and 19 of the same judgment as:

17. There is nothing to impeach the aforesaid findings. We have also perused the statement of Vira Ram in which statement he has never even stated that he has any permit for running the vehicle as transport vehicle. He has stated that "..... I had given this jeep to Kartara Ram resident of ...... who is my relative to run it for transporting passengers" Admittedly the jeep was intercepted and was seized by the police. In view of the above, the jeep cannot be said to be a public conveyance within the meaning of Explanation to Section 43. Hence, Section 43 was clearly not attracted and provisions of Section 42(1) proviso were required to be complied with and the aforesaid statutory mandatory provisions having not been complied with, the High Court did not commit any error in setting aside the conviction.

18. There is one more aspect which needs to be noted.

The present is a case where prosecution himself has come with case that secret information was received from informer which information was recorded in Exh. P-14 and Exh. P-21 Roznamacha and thereafter the Station House Officer with police party proceeded towards the scene. The present is not a case where the Station House Officer suddenly carried out search at a public place. The Station State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 34 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) House Officer in his statement has also come up with the facts and case to prove compliance of Section 42. When search is conducted after recording information under Section 42(1), the provisions of Section 42 has to be complied with. This Court in Directorate Of Revenue & Another vs Mohammed Nisar Holia, (2008) 2 SCC 370, had occasion to consider Sections 41,42 and 43 explanation. Following was stated in paragraph 14:

"14. Section 43, on plain reading of the Act, may not attract the rigours of Section 42 thereof. That means that even subjective satisfaction on the part of the authority, as is required under sub-section (1) of Section 42, need not be complied with, only because the place whereat search is to be made is a public place. If Section 43 is to be treated as an exception to Section 42, it is required to be strictly complied with.

An interpretation which strikes a balance between the enforcement of law and protection of the valuable human right of an accused must be resorted to. A declaration to the effect that the minimum requirement, namely, compliance of Section 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would serve the purpose may not suffice as non- compliance of the said provision would not render the search a nullity. A distinction therefor must be borne in mind that a search conducted on the basis of a prior information and a case where the authority comes across a case of commission of an offence under the Act accidentally or per chance............."

19. Thus the present is not a case where Section 43 can be said to have been attracted, hence, non-compliance of Section 42(1) proviso and Section 42(2) had seriously prejudiced the accused. This Court had occasion in large number of cases to consider the consequence of noncompliance of provisions of Section 42(1) and 42(2), whether the entire trial stand vitiated due to above non compliance or conviction can be set aside. In this context reference is made to the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299. In the above batch of cases, the High Court has acquitted accused on the ground that search was conducted without conforming to the provisions of the NDPS Act. Sections 41,42 43 and other relevant provisions came State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 35 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) for consideration before this Court, referring to the provisions of Chapter IV following was stated in paragraph 8:

"8. But if on a prior information leading to a reasonable belief that an offence under Chapter IV of the Act has been committed, then in such a case, the Magistrate or the officer empowered have to proceed and act under the provisions of Sections 41 and 42.

Under Section 42, the empowered officer even without a warrant issued as provided under Section 41 will have the power to enter, search, seize and arrest between sunrise and sunset if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any other person and taken down in writing that an offence under Chapter IV has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish the evidence of the commission of such offence is kept or concealed in any building or in any place. Under the proviso if such officer has reason to believe that search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of the evidence or facility for the escape of the offender, he can carry out the arrest or search between sunset and sunrise also after recording the grounds of his belief. Sub-section (2) of 8 1990 Cri LJ 414 (Del) Section 42 further lays down that when such officer takes down any information in writing or records grounds for this belief under the proviso, he shall forthwith send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."

In para no. 25 of the same judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:

"After referring to the earlier judgments, the Constitution Bench came to the conclusion that non-compliance of requirement of Sections 42 and 50 is impermissible whereas delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation will be acceptable compliance of Section

42..............................."

However, the testimony of witnesses as discussed here in above proves that raiding party was prepared in accordance State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 36 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) with the law as deposed by the prosecution witnesses. The case laws as referred by the ld. Defence Counsel is not applicable in view of facts of the present case. C. Apprehension of accused and seizure of contraband.

a) Testimony of PW 22, PW-25, PW-33, PW-36, PW-38, PW-39, PW-42 and PW-44 proved that during seizure of contraband and arrest of accused, due procedure was followed. During cross-examination nothing could be established by the defence to demolish the case of the prosecution or any non-compliance of any procedure during arrest of the accused persons. The testimony of PW-36 has already been discussed in para No.13 of the judgment.

b) Here testimonies of PW-38, PW-39 and PW-42 have also to be referred as discussed here in above:

During testimony of PW 38 case property i.e. Tavera Vehicle bearing no. DL-1YB-6335 was produced by Superdar PW 19 Raj Kumar. PW-38 along with ld. Counsel for accused persons was asked to visit the parking slot where the Tavera vehicle is parked and after visiting the same. PW-38 deposed that it was the same Tavera vehicle which was seized at the spot. Tavera Vehicle was Ex. P-26. Photocopy of RC of Tavera vehicle, original documents i.e. Certificate of fitness, Insurance document of Reliance General Insurance, Tourist permit and All India National permit of Tavera vehicle, Pollution certificate, one receipt of Transport Department of Check Post of Rengalpali, District Raigarh, Chattisgarh were also identified. During his deposition the court observation was made that State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 37 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) Tavera was now without carrier on the roof, its sitting arrangement has also been changed; there was a horizontal seat behind the driver seat. Behind horizontal seat, there were two vertical seats. There was foot paddle on both sides of the vehicle. The glasses are also transparent. Suit case was exhibited as Ex.P2 and Ganja in polythene as Ex. P1. Remaining case property was identified as Ex. P3 to P-24.

During cross-examination, testimony of PW-38 remained unshaken. He denied the suggestion that accused Dheeraj was not apprehended at the spot.

c) PW-39 is WHC Laxmi who also supported the testimony of PW-36 and PW-38. She also supported the documents proved by other witnesses. She further proved the arrest memo of accused Ms. Versha Aggarwal as Ex. PW 39/A, accused Ms. Anjali as Ex. PW39/B and personal search of accused Versha Aggarwal as Ex. PW39/C, disclosure statement of accused Versha Aggarwal has been proved as Ex. PW 39/D which bears her signatures at point A. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Ajeet and Tilak Raj, she deposed that accused Versha was wearing Salwar suit and accused Anjali was wearing jeans and T shirt. She further deposed that she had taken personal search of accused Versha and Anjali in gypsy which was parked opposite the Paul Handloom in between Tavera and Santro. She had put chunni around the glasses of gypsy and then she took the personal search of the accused Versha and Anjali.

d)PW-42 further deposed that on 30.08.2010 he State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 38 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) interrogated accused Dheeraj and thereafter accused Dheeraj led them to the house of accused Puran Chandra at the Malgodown, Cuttack, but the house was found locked.

Thereafter, accused Dheeraj led them to Monalisa Hotel, Cuttack, where he had given the notice to the manager of hotel which is Ex. PW1/A bearing his signatures at point B. He further proved photocopy of parking register, photocopy of booking register of the hotel and bill as Ex. PW1/D, E, C and their seizure memo as Ex. PW 1/B. Thereafter, accused Dheeraj led them to Ashoka hotel in which he stayed on 25.07.2010. He further proved the notice U/s 91 Cr. PC which is Ex. PW 2/B bearing his signatures at point B. PW-42 further proved his signatures at point B on Ex. PW 2/A. PW-42 further deposed that on 01.09.2010 Manager of Axis Bank, Badambari, Cuttack provided the details of accounts of Puran Chandra Behra, Srikant Samal, Alekh Chandra and two other persons whose names he did not remember. He recorded statement of Shiv Shankar Manager of Axis Bank. Thereafter, he along with staff reached PS Chauliaganj. He obtained the copy of FIR no. 110/10 of PS Chauliaganj which is Mark PW42/A. He further deposed that on formal search of driver accused Neeraj, one duty slip of New Balaji Tour and Travels Mark PW 42/B was recovered. During personal search of accused Versha, three pocket diaries Ex. P-44, Ex.P-45 and P-46 were recovered. PW 42 also collected details of mobile phones mentioned in the diaries and scrutinized those numbers. He further deposed that he interrogated accused Srikant Samal after obtaining State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 39 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) permission from the concerned court and prepared interrogation report Ex. PW 42/F bearing his signatures at point A. He further proved the arrest memo of accused Puran Chandra as Ex PW 42/G and personal search of accused as Ex. PW 42/H. He proved the disclosure statement of accused Puran Chandra Ex. PW 42/I. He further proved the report U/s 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused as Ex. PW 42/J. During cross- examination on behalf of accused Anjali, PW 42 deposed that he joined the investigation after sending of rukka for registration of FIR as he was not the member of the raiding party. He admitted that there was no signatures of accused Anjali in entry register and booking register. A suggestion was given that accused Anjali was neighbour of Versha, so she used to talk with her. The suggestion was denied. The testimony of PW-42 has not been challenged on behalf of accused Sunny Malik.

During cross-examination on behalf of accused Puran Chandra, PW-42 deposed that he visited house of Puran Chandra Bhera after arresting him. He further deposed that despite the search of accused, nothing incriminating was recovered. He did not record the statement of any neighbour regarding occupation of the accused. He further deposed that Srikant Samal made disclosure statement in Cuttack Jail. His maternal uncle Pooran Chand Behra had opened various accounts in banks in which money for purchasing ganja was being deposited by the purchaser. His name was found in the register vide which hotel was booked for other accused persons. He denied the suggestion that accused was engaged State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 40 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) in the business of supplying cashew nuts, nut broom and palm papers throughout the India. He further denied the suggestion that accused did not have any connection with any other accused except accused Srikant Samal. He further denied the suggestion that he did not visit Monalisa hotel and accused Pooran Chand did not book any room for any of the accused or he fabricated a paper on which P. Behra was written. During cross-examination of accused Dheeraj, PW-42 deposed that when he reached at the spot, there were nine police officials in whose custody the accused persons were sitting on the takhat and IO was busy in taking out a print out of the tehrir. The IO was having laptop on the bonet of the vehicle and printer was kept in the vehicle. Source of light was road lights. He further deposed that family members of accused Dheeraj had come to the spot at 11/12 noon on 25.08.2010 on coming to know of his apprehension. He prepared rough site plan Ex. PW42/A at about 12.15-12.30 am. He further deposed that for visting Cuttack, he had applied to senior police officials and after their permission, railway warrants were issued to him and accompanying officials. Half part of those warrants were given by them at the reservation centre and tickets were issued to them and second part of warrants were retained which were sent to the department. The tickets were taken back at station itself by the checkers. He denied the suggestion that he did not visit Cuttack and that is why the tickets were not annexed with the charge-sheet. Bill of hotel was paid by them which was re- imbursed by the department. He further deposed that he had State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 41 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) asked the family members of accused Dheeraj to join while the bank receipts were recovered from his house but they refused to join the investigation. He tried to ask the neighbours to join the investigation but they refused.

During cross-examination on behalf of accused Tilak Raj and Ajit, PW-42 deposed that notice Ex.PW 3/H bear the signatures of HC Veerpal at point B. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Srikant, PW-42 deposed that he interrogated accused Srikant Samal at Cuttack Jail on 29.12.2010. He came to know during interrogation that Srikant Samal was involved in supply of NDPS with co-accused before 2010. The deposit slips to that effect are on file There are cheques also to that fact. Except those documents, there is no evidence to that fact. He has admitted that he interrogated accused in question/answer form. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Pradeep, PW-42 deposed that in November, 2010 he handed over the investigation of this case to SI Anil Malik. During cross-examination on behalf of accused Neeraj, Versha and Sunny Malik, PW-42 deposed that nothing else was recovered in personal search of accused Neeraj except one hundred rupee note, notice under section 50 NDPS Act and one duty slip marked PW 42/A. He further admitted that family of Neeraj was not written anywhere in the slip Mark PW 42/A. He has further admitted that he has not produced any document, such as appointment number, employment card or any other proof to prove that Neeraj was working as a Driver with any Tour and Travels company. He has further admitted that DL has State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 42 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) not been recovered from Neeraj in the present case. During cross-examination, PW-42 denied that Neeraj was not arrested from the place and time as deposed or that he was arrested from his house. He fruther deposed that information of arrest of Neeraj was given to his wife Deepa on her mobile phone. The signatures in arrest memo were obtained from the family members of accused in the office when they came there. He further deposed that no chance prints were lifted from the handle or any part of the Tavera car. He further denied the suggestion that accused persons were never present in the said Tavera Car. He further denied the suggestion that no raid was conducted on 24/25.08.2010.

The testimony of witnesses as referred proves that accused were apprehended at the spot along with contraband and seized by the raiding party.

D)        Ownership and use of vehicle.

          a)         Testimony of PW-19 and PW-20 proved that Tavera

vehicle No. DL-14B-6338 was used by accused Pradeep and both of them are independent witnesses from the public. Nothing has been proved that he has any motive or bad feeling against accused Pradeep. Therefore, it is proved that vehicle was obtained by Pradeep on rent for plying from PW 19 and later on said vehicle was used in criminal activity in this case. During cross-examination a suggestion was given that PW 19 sometimes used to visit the office of Pradeep in order to get the maximum booking from his office and used to visit his office State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 43 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) twice and thrice in a week. The suggestion is denied. Thus, it is proved that there was acquaintance of accused Pradeep with PW-19 as established by the defence taken by the accused. A suggestion was also given that PW-19 had not given the aforesaid vehicle to Pradeep on monthly rent and the suggestion was denied. A further suggestion was given to PW 19 that PW-19 was the owner of the said vehicle and was plying the said vehicle with his drivers on the relevant dates and at the relevant time. This suggestion was also denied. However, no witness was brought to prove that the said vehicle was plying by the driver of PW-19 on the relevant date and time. Therefore, it is proved that vehicle was obtained by Pradeep on rent for plying from PW-19 and later on said vehicle was used in criminal activity in this case.

b) PW-20 deposed that he is the owner of Parchoon shop on the ground floor of his house No. F-9/26, Sector 15 Rohini, Delhi. He is the owner of the shop which is situated on the ground floor of F-10/33, Sector-15, Rohini Delhi. He had given the said shop to Pradeep s/o Sh. Lakhi Ram in August or September, 2010. Accused used to run New Balaji Tours and Travel office from that shop. On 10.02.2011 police came to his shop with accused Pradeep. He also went to shop of Pradeep where accused Pradeep took out from the drawer of table one diary, one register, one copy in which duty slip and route of booking of vehicles was written and one power of attorney and handed over the same to the police. The said documents were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW 20/A. Ex. PW 20/A is State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 44 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) perused and witness had identified his signatures at point A on seizure memo. During cross-examination, PW-20 deposed that the police officials who came there were three in number. A suggestion was given that no recovery was affected in his presence or he was summoned to the office of accused Pradeep to sign recovery document. The suggestions are denied. However, the testimony of PW-20 regarding visit to office of accused Pradeep is not challenged. Thus, it is established that accused was plying the Tavera vehicle number DL-1YV-6335 and the documents were seized vide Ex. PW 20/A. The testimony of witnesses as referred proves that Tavera vehicle bearing no. .DL-1YB-6335 was used for carrying contraband ganja from Odissa to Delhi.

E)        Financial Transactions.

          a)       Ex. PW 7/A disclosed about the account maintained

by accused Sunny Malik. Ex. PW 15/B when perused with Ex. PW 23/B, then the fact of receiving funds as deposed by PW-37 is corroborated by this document.

b) PW-28 proved notice issued by IO Special Investigating Team, Crime Branch which is Ex. PW 28/A regarding PAN card No. AQAPD6754G and other PAN Card number BBLPM1178G c) This court relies upon the testimony of PW-37 who is none else but the father of accused Sunny Malik who proved that accused Sunny and Dheeraj both are relatives and friends. PW-37 deposed that accused Sunny State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 45 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) is his elder son. Accused Dheeraj is son of bua(Aunt) of PW-37. Sunny and Dheeraj are friends. Accused Dheeraj used to give cash for deposit in the bank. Accused Sunny used to deposit the said amount in the Axis bank. He further deposed that when he asked Sunny why he had deposited the money in the bank, Sunny told him that accused Dheeraj has some business of coconut and bead brooms. He also asked accused Dheeraj and he told that he has a business of coconut and bead brooms. He further deposed that SI Malik showed him some bank receipts and he identified the signatures of his son Sunny. He further identified Ex. PW 14/A39 to Ex. PW 14/A67 and Ex. PW 7/A-36 to Ex. PW 7/A-41 and identified the signatures of his son Sunny at points A and B. He further deposed that accused Sunny and Dheeraj also handed over cash to him for deposit in bank and same were deposited by PW-37 in the Axis Bank. PW-37 identified his signatures at point A and B on Ex. PW 7/A72, PW 7/A73, PW 7/A77, PW 7/A78 and PW 7/A81. During cross- examination PW 37 deposed that money which was deposited by him in the Axis Bank was for the business of Coconut, bead brooms and launching of a music album of accused Dheeraj as he is very good and very well known singer. He has further deposed that his son Sunny Malik and relative Dheeraj have been falsely implicated in this case. He further submitted that Sunny and Dheeraj were working in the same Orchestra party. Testimony of this witness remain unchallenged on behalf of other accused.

Thus, testimony of PW-37 proved that accused Sunny State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 46 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) had deposited cash after taking it from Dheeraj. During cross- examination it is not the testimony of PW-37 that he has seen accused Dheeraj doing the business of coconut and bead brooms. No suggestion has been given to PW-37 by ld.defence Counsel that the amount deposited by accused Sunny was income generated from the business of Coconut and Bead brooms. No suggestion was given that Dheeraj never paid cash to accused Sunny for depositing the same in the bank. It is also not pleaded that PW-37 ever seen Sunny or Dheeraj doing business of coconut. It is not challenged during cross- examination that either accused Sunny or Dheeraj were doing the business of coconut at a particular place or office etc. It is not challenged that accused Dheeraj and Sunny were doing the business either in partnership or any proprietoryship or any specific name or style.

c) PW-27 proved Ex. PW 27/B notice U/s 91 Cr. PC regarding various accounts in axis Bank. Ex. PW 27/A is the seizure memo of deposit slips regarding various accounts of Puran Chandra Behra, Srikant Samal, Manjulata Behra and Alekhchander Behra. PW-27 further deposed that 14 deposit slips which are Ex. PW 27/C1 to Ex. PW 27/C-14 are deposited in the account of Puran Chandra, 12 deposit slips which are Ex. PW27/15 to Ex. PW 27/C-25 which are already Ex. PW 7/A6 are in the account of accused Srikant Samal, nine deposit slips now Ex. PW 27/C26 to ex. PW 27/C-34 are in different accounts of accused Puran Chandra Behera, two deposit slips Ex. PW 27/C35 and already Ex. PW 7/A3 in the name of Manjulata State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 47 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) Behra and one in the name of Alekchander Behra already Ex. PW 7/A7. Ex. PW15/A and Ex. PW 15/B are perused wherein it is mentioned that PAN card No. AGAPD6754G was issued in the name of Dheeraj, PAN Card No. BAMP55199F was issued in the name of Srikant Kumar Samal, PAN card No. AAVPB6395C was issued in the name of Alekh Chander Behera, PAN card no. AJHPB0570A was issued in the name of Puran Chandra Behera and PAN card No. BBLPM1178G was issued in the name of accused Sunny Malik.

Therefore, financial transactions among the accused is established. The only defence taken is that accused Dheeraj is doing business of cashew nuts, palm papers and nut brooms throughout India. The said defence is not proved by bringing any cogent evidence. No document has been brought to establish such defence.

The testimony of witnesses as referred proves that there have been financial transactions among the accused persons with respect to the trafficking of contraband i.e. Ganja.

F) Electronic evidence- Testimony of PW-34, PW-35, PW- 43, PW-45 as already discussed, proved that all the persons were in touch through their mobile phones and their location also as established through call detail support the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to mention here that testimony of these witnesses remained unchallenged on vital points as documents produced were not challenged.

The testimony of witnesses as referred proves that State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 48 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) according to electronic evidence, accused persons were in touch through their mobile phones.

G) FSL evidence.

FSL report Ex. PW26/A duly proved that contraband which was recovered from the accused is ganja(Cannabis). During cross-examination testimony of PW-26 could not be impeached. To support the testimony of PW-26, prosecution also examined PW-30. He has proved Ex. PW 30/A. Therefore, prosecution is able to prove that contraband which was recovered from the accused was ganja(Cannabis). During cross-examination, PW-30 deposed that he is not a Chemical Examiner but a Biological examiner. He further submits that size of the sample does not matter for the biological analysis. He has further admitted the suggestion that Indian Sativa plant has male and female parts, both in one plant. Volunteered he stated that for ganja, the male plant is removed before its fertilization. He has further deposed that he can examine the sample if there are 2-3 seeds, flowers, leave and stem. He further deposed that he used Binocular microscope with magnification of 100x. He further deposed that magnification of only 40x is required. He further clarified that on the lower side and by using 100x, the result would be far better. He denied the suggestion that he is not competent person to examine as per Rule 2(C) of NDPS Act.

The testimony of witnesses as discussed above proves State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 49 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) that according to FSL report, the contraband recovered from the accused persons was ganja(Cannabis).

Appreciation of Defence Evidence.

DW-1 proved Ex. DW1/1. He simply proved that Dheeraj @ Sahil participated in cultural programmes. It is nothing to do with the merits of the present case.

DW-2 deposed that accused Dheeraj was taken by the police persons on 22.08.2010 at 2/2.30 pm. Further as per cross-examination, it is the admitted case that he did not lodge any complaint regarding wrong detention of his brother and regarding payment made for his release. When the testimony of this witness is read with the testimony of PW-41, this court also made observation that allegations or demandig of Rs. 5 lacs and Rs. 2 lacs and demand of Rs. 2 lac does not inspire confidence in the mind of this court.

DW-3 testimony of remaining evidence could not prove about the innocence of accused persons in the present case.

CONCLUSION:-

Thus, testimonies of defence witnesses could not demolish the case of the prosecution and thus prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused persons. Prosecution has been able to prove charges U/s 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of NDPS Act against accused Neeraj, Sonu, Ajeet Kumar, Tilak Raj, Anjali, Dheeraj @ Sahil and Varsha Aggarwal as they were found in conscious possession State vs. Neeraj & ors. Page 50 of 51 (FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch) of 154.8 kg of ganja recovered from the accused and they are also held guilty for abetting each other towards commission of the offence.

The prosecution is also able to prove against accused Pradeep Kumar for transporting ganja and for making available Tavera Vehicle No. DL-1YB-6335 to facilitate the commission of offence by which the contraband was brought from Cuttack to Delhi. Thus, accused Pradeep Kumar has committed offence punishable U/s 25 of NDPS Act.

Prosecution has further been able to prove charge against accused Srikant Samal Us 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of NDPS Act and also proved the charge U/s 27A of NDPS Act in view of Ex. PW8/C and testimony of PW-8.

Prosecution is also able to prove charge against accused Sunny Malik and thus accused Sunny Malik is convicted U/s 29 of NDPS Act.

Prosecution is further able above to prove charge U/s 20(b)(ii)(C) read with section 29 of NDPS Act and also proved the charge U/s 27A of NDPS Act against accused Puran Chandra Behera for arranging financial transaction for the purpose of illicit trafficking of quantity of 154.8 kg ganja.

Therefore, accused are convicted accordingly.

Digitally signed

                                             JITENDRA                                                 by JITENDRA
Announced today                              KUMAR                                                    KUMAR MISHRA
                                                                                                      Date: 2018.07.16
in open court on this 13th day of July, 2018 MISHRA                                                   13:33:37 +0530

                                                      (JITENDRA KUMAR MISHRA)
                                                       ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
                                                  NORTH: ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

State vs. Neeraj & ors.                                                                     Page 51  of 51
(FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch)
 State vs. Neeraj & ors.                                                                     Page 52  of 51
(FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch)
 State vs. Neeraj & ors.                                                                     Page 53  of 51
(FIR No.126/10 PS Crime Branch)

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi District Court

State vs . Neeraj on 13 July, 2018