Delhi District Court
Ncb vs . Stephen & Ors. on 18 November, 2015
NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG : SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS:
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI
SC No. 12/12
ID No. 02403R0048862012
Narcotics Control Bureau
Through: Shri Rajesh Kumar,
Intelligence Officer,
Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi
Versus
1. Stephen
S/o Sh. Vsapu
R/o Festac, Lagos State
Nigeria
2. Ude Stanely Chidi
S/O Mr. Ferdinant
r/o A17, G.F, Vipin Garden
Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi
3. Aisha
W/o L. Sh. Arun Lamba
R/o A/267, 4th floor,
Munirka Village,
New Delhi
Date of Institution : 26.07.2012
Judgment reserved on : 10.09.2015
Date of pronouncement : 18.11.2015
SC No. 12/12 Page No. 1 of 36
NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. The Narcotics Control Bureau (herein after referred to as NCB) through its Intelligence officer (IO) Sh. Rajesh Kumar has filed the present complaint against the aforementioned accused u/s 21, 23 read with Sections 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (herein after referred to as NDPS Act).
2. Briefly stated, the facts that can be culled out from the assertions made in the complaint and the documents filed therewith are as follows :
(a) On 19/4/2012 at about 09:30 hours, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, IO NCB received a secret information that some narcotics drugs are concealed in a parcel with airway bill no. 3297128800 of Aramex Courier and that the said parcel destined for South Africa and is lying at Lancer Express Service, Subhash Nagar (a courier business firm), Delhi.
(b) The information was reduced into writing and was put up by IO Sh.
Rajesh Kumar before Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent, NCB and on his instructions a raiding team consisting of Intelligence Officers of NCB namely, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Digamber Singh, Sepoy proceeded from NCB office in official vehicle and reached the office of Lancer Express Service Office, Subhash Nagar, New Delhi. On reaching the said office, the IO met Sh. Sunil Satija, an employee of Lancer Express Service office and disclosed him the purpose of the visit of the team and their identity and the said official then produced the suspect parcel, which was in pink polythene SC No. 12/12 Page No. 2 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
bag, along with one airway bill number 3297128800, invoice cum packing list and ID of one Satyajit Sur. The name of consignee was mentioned in the parcel as Ismael Haroon Patel, 29 King Edword Street, Tzaheen Limpopo Province, South Africa 0850, Phone number 0728875464 and the name of the consignor as Satyajit Sur C347, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi India through Aramex Courier. On request of Rajesh Kumar, Sunil Satija alongwith Sh. Ram Avadh, another employee of Lancer Courier agreed to join as independent witnesses to the search proceedings of the parcel.
(c) The parcel in question was thereafter opened and was found to contain two pieces of ladies sarees and seven pieces of fancy laces wrapped on cardboard. On minute checking of the said cardboards, it was found that carbon paper envelopes were concealed in between each of the seven cardboard pieces. Each of the cardboard pieces was torn and offwhite colour powder was found concealed therein in the carbon envelopes. On testing the said powder with Field Testing Kit it gave positive test for heroin. As all the off white powder was having same colour and texture it was transferred in a transparent polythene and mixed homogeneously and was weighed and its weight came out to be 260 grams. Two samples of 5 grams each were drawn out from the recovered heroin and were put separately in two zip lock pouches and were then further kept in white paper envelopes and the same were given marks AI and AII and the polythene containing the remaining substance was then converted into a cloth parcel and given mark A. All the packing material, SC No. 12/12 Page No. 3 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
laces, two ladies sarees and cardboard etc. were kept in the pink polythene bag and the same was converted into a cloth parcel and given mark AIII. The parcels and the samples were duly sealed and paper slips having dated signature of the IO and both witnesses were pasted on the parcels and the samples. Panchnama alongwith test memo in triplicate was also prepared at the spot. On inquiry from Sh. Sunil Satija of Lancer Express it was revealed that he had received the parcel in question from Space Courier, Safdarjung Enclave and on further enquiry from Space Courier, Safdarjung Enclave, it was revealed the abovesaid parcel was received by it from one Sh. Sandeep Sharma of Concord Courier, Masjid Moth, South Extension. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted from Sh. Sandeep Sharma of Concord Courier and he disclosed that the said parcel was received by him from Sh. Satyajit Sur of A.S. Service, Masjid Moth, South Extension. On further enquiry, Sh. Satyajit Sur, owner of A.S. Service revealed that the parcel was booked by a lady named Ms. Aisha r/o A267, 4th floor, Munirka village, New Delhi.
(d) Pursuant to the information given by Sh. Satyajit Sur on 19/4/2012 at about 1800 hours to Sh. Rajesh Kumar, IO, Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent directed Sh. Sanjay Rawat, IO to constitute a raiding team and take necessary action. Thereafter, Sh. Sanjay Rawat along with Sh. Jai Bhagwan IO, Sh. Rajesh Kumar IO, Ms. Mehak Jain IO, Sh. Sudhir Naik, Sh. Babu Lal (driver) proceeded from NCB office in an official vehicle and reached House no. A267, 4th floor, Munirka village, New Delhi. The IO contacted some passerby SC No. 12/12 Page No. 4 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
and requested them to be present as independent witness and upon the said request one person namely Sh. Lalit Rawat voluntarily agreed to join the raiding team.
(e) On knocking the door of the house, one lady came out. The IO introduced himself and the members of the raiding team to her and on enquiry, the said lady revealed her name as Aisha. She was then briefed that the search of the premises is required to be conducted by NCB team for which she agreed and a notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act was given to her. She was also made to understand that she has a legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, she refused to exercise the said right and informed that any lady NCB officer could conduct her search. The personal search of accused Aisha was conducted by Ms. Mehak Jain, IO but nothing incriminating was recovered in her personal search. It was noticed that one more person was also present in the premises and on enquiry he revealed his name as Stephen and that he was from Nigeria.
(f) Thereafter the search of the house was conducted but no incriminating items were recovered from her house but some documents including POD of Trackon Courier slips and judgment of Judicial Magistrate of Tirupur were recovered which were seized by the IO. On enquiry, accused Aisha disclosed that the said parcel had been handed over to her by accused Stephen for booking to South Africa.
SC No. 12/12 Page No. 5 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
(g) A notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act was given to Stephen as well. He was also made to understand that he has a legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, he also refused to exercise the said right and informed that any NCB officer could conduct his search. The personal search of accused Stephen was conducted but nothing incriminating was recovered in his personal search. Panchnama was prepared and documents were seized. Summons u/s 67 were given to accused Aisha and Stephen.
(h) On preliminary inquiry, accused Stephen revealed that the parcel bearing airway bill number 3297128800 seized by NCB had been handed over to him by one Stanley Chidi and that he is residing at house no. A17, Ground Floor, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi.
(i) This information was reduced into writing and was put up before Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent, NCB and on his instructions a raiding team consisting of Intelligence Officers of NCB namely, Sh. Jai Bhagwan, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sh. Sanjay Rawat, Sh. G.S. Bhinder, Sh. Sudhir Naik with Sh. Rajesh Kumar, driver proceeded from NCB office in official vehicle and reached house no. A17, Ground floor, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi at about 2215 hours. On reaching there IO contacted some passerby and requested them to be present as independent witness and upon the said request two persons namely Sh. Ranvir and Sh. Anil Kumar voluntarily agreed to join the raiding team.
SC No. 12/12 Page No. 6 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
(j) On knocking the door of the house no. A17, Ground Floor, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, one person opened the door. The IO introduced himself and the members of the raiding team to him and showed him search authorisation and explained him about the information with them. On enquiry, the said person revealed his name as Stanley Chidi. A notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act was given to him. He was also made to understand that he has a legal right to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, he refused to exercise the said right and informed that NCB officer could conduct his search. The personal search of accused Stanley was conducted but nothing incriminating was recovered in his personal search.
(k) Thereafter the search of the house was conducted. On search of the house, in the left side room one double bed was found lying and on search of the boxes of the said double bed, one transparent polythene containing off white powder was recovered. From the said bed 18 fancy laces packet, which were identical to the laces which were seized from the parcel at Lancer Express, were also recovered. The off white powder recovered was tested with the help of field testing kit and it gave positive for heroin. The recovered powder was weighed and its weight came out to be 255 grams. Two samples of 5 grams each were drawn from recovered substance and were kept in two zip lock polythene pouches and further kept in white paper envelops and were given mark BI and BII. The polythene containing remaining heroin was converted into cloth parcel and given mark B. All 18 number of fancy laces SC No. 12/12 Page No. 7 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
were kept in transparent polythene bag and converted into cloth pullanda and was given mark BIII. The parcels and the samples were duly sealed and paper slips having dated signature of the IO Sh. Jai Bhagwan, both witnesses and accused were pasted on the parcels and the samples. Panchnama alongwith test memo in triplicate was also prepared at the spot. Certain documents were also recovered from the house and the same were seized by the IO. Summons were then issued to the accused Stanley and the independent witnesses u/s 67 NDPS Act.
(l) In pursuance of the summons all the accused persons and panch witnesses tendered their voluntary statements u/s 67 NDPS Act in the office of the NCB.
(m) The case property along with samples and test memo was deposited with the Malkhana Incharge. Reports under Section 57 NDPS Act with respect to the search and seizure were submitted by IOs to the Superintendent Sh. Y.R. Yadav. Thereafter the accused persons were arrested and their personal search was conducted and reports u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding their arrest were also submitted by IOs to Superintendent Sh. Y.R. Yadav.
(n) During the course of investigation, statements of various witnesses were recorded and the samples along with test memos were sent to the CRCL, New Delhi for testing. After receiving the report of the Chemical Examiner that the samples gave positive test for diacetylmorphine, the present complaint was filed.
SC No. 12/12 Page No. 8 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
3. Based on the material on record, the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 09/10/2012 had framed charges against all the accused persons for the offence punishable under section 23 r.w.s 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act and against accused Ude Stanley Chidi separately also for the offence punishable u/s 21 (c) of the NDPS Act to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 26 witnesses.
5. PW9 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, IO and PW21 Sh. Jai Bhagwan IO, have deposed about the search and seizure proceedings conducted by them at the office of the Lancer Express Services on 19/4/2012. The secret information deposed to have been received by PW9 has been exhibited as Ex.PW9/A. PW1 has also proved the panchnama and test memo prepared by him and the same have exhibited as Ex.PW9/B and Ex.PW9/C. Copy of both airway bills, invoice cum packing list, ID proof of Satyajit Sur have also been exhibited as Ex.PW9/B1 to Ex.PW9/B3.
6. PW2 Sh. Sanjay Rawat, PW10 Ms. Mehak Jain, PW9 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, PW21 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, all IOs have deposed about the search and seizure proceedings conducted by them at House no. A267, 4th floor, Munirka Village, New Delhi on 19/4/2012. Notices u/s 50 NDPS Act given to the accused Aisha and Stephen have been exhibited as Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW9/F respectively. Trackon POD slip Ex.PW2/B1 to Ex.PW2/B3 and copy of judgment had been recovered from the house were seized vide memos Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/C SC No. 12/12 Page No. 9 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
respectively.
7. PW21 Sh. Jai Bhagwan PW9 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, PW2 Sh. Sanjay Rawat, PW12 Sh. G.S. Bhinder have further deposed about the search and seizure proceedings conducted by them at House no. A17, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi on 19/4/2012. Notice u/s 50 NDPS Act given to the accused Stanley Chidi prepared by PW21 has been exhibited as Ex.PW21/B. Panchnama and test memo have been exhibited as Ex.PW21/C and Ex.PW21/D respectively. The summons given to accused persons and panch witnesses u/s 67 NDPS Act have been duly exhibited. Arrest memo and arrest report submitted to the Superintendent have been duly exhibited. PW2 Sh. Sanjay Rawat IO has also additionally deposed that he was also working as Intelligence Officer Malkhana Incharge in NCB, DZU, R.K. Puram and that in the present case, the entire case property, test memo in triplicate were deposited with him in the Malkhana and he had made an entry to this effect in the Malkhana register. He has also deposed that samples were sent to CRCL and that the remnant samples along with test report were deposited back with him in the Malkhana. According to this witness he had made relevant entries in the register. The relevant pages of the malkhana register containing the said entries has been exhibited as Ex.PW2/H. Summons issued by the IOs to the panch witnesses and who tendered their statements u/s 67 of NDPS Act have also been duly exhibited as per the deposition of these witnesses. The case property and the samples were also duly produced before the court and were SC No. 12/12 Page No. 10 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
duly exhibited during the depositions of the aforementioned witnesses.
8. PW1 Sh. Sunil Satija and PW4 Sh. Ram Avadh, both panch witnesses who are stated to have witnessed the entire recovery proceedings regarding parcel lying in Lancer Express Services, Subhash Nagar, have supported the version put forward by the Investigating Officer and have identified their signatures on the panchnama, airway bill, invoice cum packing list and ID proof of the shipper. They have also deposed that in pursuance of the summons, Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW4/A served upon them they had appeared in the office of the NCB and had tendered their statement Ex.PW1/B and Ex.PW4/A respectively.
9. PW3 Sh. Lalit Rawat, panch witness who is stated to have witnessed the proceedings in house no. A267, 4th floor, Munirka village, New Delhi have supported the version put forward by the Investigating Officer. He has also deposed that in pursuance of the summon Ex.PW9/G, served upon him he had appeared in the office of the NCB and had tendered his statement Ex.PW2/G.
10. PW5 Sh. Anil Kumar and PW6 Sh. Ranbir Singh, panch witness who are stated to have witnessed the entire recovery proceedings in house no. A17 Vipin Garden, have supported the version put forward by the Investigating Officer and have identified their signatures on paper slips and other documents. They have also deposed that in pursuance of the summons, served upon them they had appeared in the office of the NCB and had tendered their statement Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW6/A respectively.
SC No. 12/12 Page No. 11 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
11. PW7 Ms. Jyoti Rawat and PW8 Sh. Ashim Mukherjee are the officials of A.S. Services at G6 South Ex. Plaza II, Masjid Moth and they have deposed about the circumstances in which their employer Sh. Satyajit Sur had given his driving license as ID proof at the time of the booking of the said parcel. They have also deposed that in pursuance of the summon Ex.PW7/A and PW8/A served upon them, they had appeared in the office of NCB and had tendered their statements Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW8/B respectively.
12. PW11 Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent has deposed that on 19/4/2012, he was posted as Superintendent NCB and on the said day, he had been shown a secret information Ex.PW9/A and he had issued a departmental seal of Narcotics Control Bureau DZU 3 to IO Rajesh Kumar at about 1000 hours. This witness has further deposed that on the same day at about 1815 hours he had been shown an information Ex.PW9/E by Rajesh Kumar, IO and he had issued a departmental seal of Narcotics Control Bureau DZU 2 to Sh. Sanjay Rawat. According to this witness, on the same day at about 2145 hours he had been shown an information Ex.PW11/A by Jai Bhagwan, IO and he had issued a departmental seal of Narcotics Control Bureau DZU 5 to Sh. Jai Bhagwan, IO. This witness has further deposed that entries to this effect were made by him in the seal movement register. The relevant pages of the seal movement register containing the said entries have been exhibited as Ex.PW9/D. This witness has further deposed that he had forwarded the samples and test memo to CRCL and that he had also sent a letter to Superintendent of Police, Kohima SC No. 12/12 Page No. 12 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
Nagaland for verification of antecedents of accused. Same has been exhibited as Ex.PW11/G. The reports u/s 57 of NDPS Act have been duly proved by this witness as Ex.PW11/C, Ex.PW11/D, Ex.PW11/E and Ex.PW9/Q. The forwarding letter has also been duly proved by this witness as Ex.PW11/F.
13. PW13 Babu Lal, Driver has inter alia deposed that on 19/4/2012 on the directions of Sanjay Rawat, IO, he had left the office of NCB along with the raiding team and had reached at Munirka Village and had dropped the raiding team at that place and had thereafter remained with the vehicle. This witness has further deposed that after completing the proceedings at about 09:15 PM, they had left the spot along with one man and one lady and had reached NCB office.
14. PW14 Sh. Satyajit Sur, Proprietor of AS Service had given his driving license as ID proof at the time of the booking of the said parcel and he has elaborated the circumstances of the same. He has also deposed that in pursuance of the summon Ex.PW9/J served upon him he had appeared in the office of NCB and had tendered his statement Ex.PW9/T.
15. PW15 Sh. Praveen Tandon, Operation Manager in Space Courier Service has inter alia deposed that on 16/4/2012 Mr. Sandeep Sharma of Concord Courier came with one packet to be sent to South Africa. They checked the parcel as per invoice and handed over the said parcel to Lancer courier. This witness has further deposed that after 23 days i.e. on 19/4/2012, two NCB officials came to their office and enquired about the parcel. He has also deposed that in SC No. 12/12 Page No. 13 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
pursuance of the summon Ex.PW9/K, served upon him he had appeared in the office of the NCB and had tendered his statement Ex.PW9/S.
16. PW16 Sh. Sandeep Sharma Manager M/S Concord Courier and Cargo, South Extension has inter alia deposed that on 16/4/2012 at about 6:307:00 PM he got one packet from A.S. Courier destined to Johannesburg, South Africa. According to this witness, they sent the said parcel through Aramex Courier vide airway bill no. 329728800 Ex.PW9/B1 from their agent M/S Space Services India Pvt. Ltd. This witness has further deposed that on 19/4/2012, two NCB officials came to their office and enquired about the parcel with airway bill no. 3297128800 and where he had got that packet. He has also deposed that in pursuance of the summon Ex.PW9/I, served upon him he had appeared in the office of the NCB and had tendered his statement Ex.PW9/R.
17. PW17 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Driver has deposed that on 19.04.2012, on the directions of Jai Bhagwan, IO, he had left the office of NCB along with the raiding team and had reached at Vipin Garden and had dropped the raiding team at that place and had thereafter remained with the vehicle. This witness has further deposed that after completing the proceedings on 20/4/2012 at about 01:15 AM, they had left the spot along with case property and one Nigerian person and had reached NCB office. According to this witness, on the same day he had carried two sample parcels to the CRCL on the instructions of Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent, NCB and had deposited the SC No. 12/12 Page No. 14 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
same in CRCL and the acknowledgment issued in his name by CRCL has been exhibited as Ex.PW17/A.
18. PW18 Sh. Rajeev Anand, Assistant Chemical Examiner and PW22 Sh. Bhuwan Ram, Chemical Examiner have inter alia deposed that the samples in question deposited with the CRCL, were examined by PW18 Sh. Rajeev Anand, Assistant Chemical Examiner under the supervision of PW22 Sh. Bhuwan Ram and the said witnesses have proved the chemical analysis reports prepared by them in this regard as Ex.PW18/A and Ex.PW18/B. As per their depositions, samples had tested positive for diacetylmorphine.
19. PW19 Sh. Azad Singh, IO has deposed that on 20/4/2012 on the direction of Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent he had recorded the statement of accused Stephen before PW25 Sh. Surender Singh, IO and arrested him. According to this witness after his arrest he informed about his arrest to one of his relative on the phone. The statement of accused, arrest cum jamatalashi and the information of arrest have been exhibited as Ex.PW19/A, Ex.PW19/B and Ex.PW19/B1 respectively.
20. PW20 Ms. Sawitri Jaswani, IO has deposed that on 19/4/2012 on the direction of Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent she had recorded the statement of accused Aisha on 19/4/2012 and 20/4/2012 and arrested her. According to this witness after her arrest she informed about arrest of Aisha to her son on the phone. The statement of accused, arrest memo, jamatalashi memo and the information of arrest have been exhibited as Ex.PW20/A, Ex.PW20/B, SC No. 12/12 Page No. 15 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
Ex.PW20/C, Ex.PW20/D and Ex.PW20/E respectively. According to this witness, on 21/4/2015 she got medically examined accused Aisha and submitted a report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding her arrest before the Superintendent. Report u/s 57 NDPS Act has been exhibited as Ex.PW11/D.
21. PW23 Vishal Gaurav, Nodal Officer has proved on record the call details pertaining to mobile numbers 8826988385 for the period 01/04/2012 to 29/4/2012 and the same have been exhibited as Ex.PW23/B. He has also proved the customer application forms and certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence Act and the same have been exhibited as Ex.PW23/A and Ex.PW23/C respectively.
22. PW24 Anuj Bhatia, Nodal Officer has proved on record the call details pertaining to mobile numbers 9873850587 for the period 01/04/2012 to 29/4/2012 and the same have been exhibited as Ex.PW24/A. He has also proved certificate u/s 65 B of the Evidence Act and the same has been exhibited as Ex.PW24/B.
23. PW25 Sh. Rochak Sharma has inter alia deposed that he had rented out in the year 2011 one room out of the house no. 267B, Munirka Village, New Delhi to one Anurag and that Anurag and his mother had resided in the said premises for some months in the year 2011 and that Anurag had introduced accused Aisha as his mother. He has also deposed that in pursuance of the summon Ex.PW9/L, served upon him he had appeared in the office of the NCB and had tendered his statement Ex.PW9/U. SC No. 12/12 Page No. 16 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
24. All the incriminatory facts and circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence were put to the accused persons at the time of recording of his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC which have been denied by them in toto. They have claimed false implication in this case.
25. As stated above, Sh. Rajesh Kumar, IO NCB (PW9) has proved that on 19.04.2012 he had received secret information that a parcel bearing airway bill no. 3297128800 destined to South Africa lying at Lancer Express Service, Subhash Nagar, Delhi was concealing some narcotic drug and if search of the said parcel is conducted, it may lead to recovery of huge quantity of narcotic drugs and this information has been proved as Ex.PW9/A. This information was put up before Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent, NCB who directed him to take necessary action as per law. The endorsement of the Superintendent is at point B on Ex.PW9/A. As far as the recovery of contraband from the said parcel is concerned, the members of the raiding team, PW9 Sh. Rajesh Kumar and PW21 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, IO have described the search and seizure proceedings in detail that took place at the spot i.e. at the office of Lancer Express Service, Subhash Nagar, Delhi. Their statement has been corroborated by the panch witnesses i.e. PW1 Sh. Sunil Satija and PW4 Sh. Ram Awadh both of whom are the officials of Lancer Express Service. The fact that after seizure, the case property was produced before the officer empowered u/s 53 NDPS Act in compliance of provisions of 52 and 55 of NDPS Act has been proved by PW2 Sh. Sanjay Rawat, IO who was also working as Malkhana SC No. 12/12 Page No. 17 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
incharge in the NCB who made an entry to this effect in the malkhana register and the copy of the same is Ex.PW2/H. PW9 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, IO has proved that report u/s 57 NDPS Act Ex.PW9/P regarding seizure of heroin was submitted to the Superintendent Sh. Y.R. Yadav who was his superior. The deposition of PW17 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Driver NCB makes it clear that sample A1 drawn out from the recovered substance in the proper custody was taken to CRCL, Delhi for examination. PW18 Sh. Rajeev Anand, Assistant Chemical Examiner and PW22 Sh. Bhuvan Ram, Chemical Examiner, CRCL have proved that the sample examined by them had tested positive for diacetylmorphine and report has been proved as Ex.PW18/B. The testimony of the said prosecution witnesses is trustworthy and believable and nothing has emerged in the crossexamination of the said witnesses which casts doubt on the veracity of their statements.
26. Now the question arises who was instrumental in booking/sending the said parcel bearing airway bill no. 3297128800 containing 260 gm of heroin which was recovered at Lancer Express Service.
27. During investigation, it was revealed by Sh. Sunil Satija of Lancer Express that he had received the parcel in question from Space Courier, Safdarjung Enclave and on further enquiry from Space Courier, Safdarjung Enclave, it was revealed the abovesaid parcel was received by it from one Sh. Sandeep Sharma of Concord Courier, Masjid Moth, South Extension. Thereafter an enquiry was conducted from Sh. Sandeep Sharma of Concord Courier and he disclosed that SC No. 12/12 Page No. 18 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
the said parcel was received by him from Sh. Satyajit Sur of A.S. Service, Masjid Moth, South Extension. The said Sunil Satija of Lancer Express, Sh. Praveen Tondon, Operation Manager, Space Courier Service, Sh. Sandeep Sharma, Manager M/s Concord Courier and Cargo and Sh. Satyajit Sur, A.S. Service have been examined as PW1, PW15, PW16 and PW14 respectively and they have deposed regarding the said fact.
28. Sh. Satyajit Sur, Proprietor of A.S. Service has proved that the parcel was booked by a lady named Ms. Aisha r/o A267, 4th floor, Munirka village, New Delhi and he has identified her in court. He has deposed that the said lady Ms. Aisha had approached his receptionist Ms. Jyoti Rawat for the booking of the said parcel and she had stated that she had lost her ID proof and repeatedly requested Ms. Jyoti Rawat to send the said parcel as it was very urgent and the said Ms. Jyoti had brought all this to his notice and on his asking, Ms. Jyoti had assured that she knew the said Aisha as she was from the same locality and in this background he had given his driving license as ID proof for sending the said parcel. He told Ms. Jyoti Rawat to note down the name, address and telephone number of Ms. Aisha in their register. He further deposed that after booking, the parcel was sent to Concord Courier for onward transmission.
29. Ms. Jyoti Rawat (PW7) and Sh. Ashim Mukherjee (PW8) both officials of the said courier company have corroborated the statement of PW14 Sh. Satyajit Sur. They have also correctly identified accused Aisha in court as the person who had booked the said parcel on 16.04.2012. They have also corroborated SC No. 12/12 Page No. 19 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
the statement of Sh. Satyajit Sur regarding the manner in which the said parcel was booked and the circumstances in which Sh. Satyajit Sur had given copy of his driving license as ID proof for sending the said parcel. The statement of Sh. Satyajit Sur, Ms. Jyoti Rawat and Sh. Ashim Mukherjee recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act have been proved as Ex.PW9/T, Ex.PW7/B and Ex.PW8/B respectively and the same corroborate their testimony in court.
30. On the basis of the information received from the proprietor and the officials of A.S. Service, the officers of NCB went to the address of said Aisha i.e. H.No. A267, fourth floor, Munirka village, New Delhi. PW2 Sh. Sanjay Rawat, PW9 Sh. Rajesh, PW10 Ms. Mehak Jain and PW21 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, all IOs have deposed about the search and seizure proceedings conducted by them at the said place. Alongwith Aisha accused Stephen was also found living and statement of both the accused was recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act which have been proved as Ex.PW20/A and Ex.PW19/A respectively. The statements tendered by these persons u/s 67 NDPS Act are admissible in evidence. Accused Aisha admitted in her statement that she had booked the said parcel in question and it was given to her by Stephen. Accused Stephen also in his statement admitted that he had handed over the said parcel to Aisha for booking and that he had received it from another person i.e. Ude Stanley Chidi r/o A17, Ground Floor, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, Delhi.
31. On the basis of this information the officers of NCB went to the said premises of accused Ude Stanley Chidi. PW21 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, PW9 Sh. Rajesh SC No. 12/12 Page No. 20 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
Kumar, PW12 Sh. G.S. Bhinder and PW2 Sh. Sanjay Rawat have described in detail about the search and seizure proceedings conducted by them at the said spot. Their statement is corroborated by panch witnesses i.e. PW5 Sh. Anil Kumar and PW6 Sh. Ranbir Singh. At the residence of accused Ude Stanley Chidi, the officials of NCB found 18 fancy laces packet which were identical to the laces which were seized from the parcel at Lancer Express. Besides this, heroin weighing 255 gm was also recovered from a bed in the room of his house. The said fancy laces and 255 gm of said substance were seized by the officials of NCB vide seizure memo Ex.PW21/D. Statement of accused Ude Stanley Chidi was recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act which has been proved as Ex.PW9/M. There is nothing on record to explain from the side of the accused as to how 18 fancy laces packets which were identical to the laces which were seized from the parcel at Lancer Express were recovered from his premises. This coupled with his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act in which he has admitted about handing over of the said parcel for booking to Stephen and statement of accused Stephen affirming the same proves the case of the prosecution regarding his role with respect to said parcel.
32. The deposition of recovery witnesses prove that from the recovered substance, two samples of 5 gm each were taken out in ziplock pouches which were put in white paper envelope and were given mark B1 and B2 and the entire case property was duly sealed with the seal of NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU DZU 5 and deposited in malkhana. PW21 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, IO submitted SC No. 12/12 Page No. 21 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
seizure report u/s 67 NDPS Act to Sh. Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent which has been proved as Ex.PW11/C. The sample mark B1 drawn from the said recovered substance was sent to CRCL alongwith the other sample i.e. mark A1 under proper custody of PW17 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Driver. The testimony of PW18 Sh. Rajeev Anand, Assistant Chemical Examiner and PW22 Sh. Bhuwan Ram, Chemical Examiner, CRCL have proved that the sample examined by them i.e. B1 had tested positive for diacetylmorphine and the report has been proved as Ex.PW18/A.
33. It is settled law that statement of persons recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act by the officials of NCB are admissible in evidence. It has been so held in Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India (2008) 4SCC 688 and M. Prabhulal Vs. Assistant Director of Revenue Intelligence (2003) 3JCC 1631. There is nothing in the crossexamination of the witnesses that the said statements of the accused Aisha, Stephen and Ude Stanley Chidi were recorded under any threat, pressure or coercion and hence the said statements pass the test of voluntariness and truthfulness and hence the same are admissible in evidence. As stated above, in the said statements, accused have admitted their complicity in the commission of the offence in question.
34. It is argued by Ld. Counsels for the defence that there is non compliance of section 42 NDPS Act because as per the case of the prosecution, accused Stephen had told PW9 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, IO about the coaccused Stanley Chidi but he did not take it down in writing immediately and thus there is SC No. 12/12 Page No. 22 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
violation of section 42 NDPS Act. In my view, there is no merit in this contention of the defence. It has been deposed by PW21 Sh. Jai Bhagwan, IO that on preliminary enquiry from Stephen, it was revealed that the parcel in question was handed over to him by his friend Stanley Chidi who was residing at H.No. A17, ground floor, Vipin Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi and this information was reduced into writing and the same has been proved as Ex.PW11/A which bears the signature of Sh. Jai Bhagwan, IO at point A. This was brought to the notice of Superintendent, NCB who directed him to constitute a team and take necessary action as per law and the signature of the Superintendent is at point B. On the basis of this information, the Superintendent also issued search authorization to Sh. Jai Bhagwan, IO to search the said premises of accused Stanley Chidi and the search authorization has been proved as Ex.PW11/B. Hence in view of the above, it cannot be said that there was non compliance of section 42 NDPS Act as contended by the defence.
35. It is further argued by Ld. Counsels for the defence that the bag recovered from the courier company i.e. Lancer Express Services was not shown to any of the accused i.e. Aisha, Stephen or Stanley Chidi and hence they could not have admitted about the said parcel. In my view, there is no merit in this contention as well. It is relevant here to state that all the accused persons in their statements u/s 67 NDPS Act have admitted their respective role and if they were under any confusion in regard to the said parcel, they could have SC No. 12/12 Page No. 23 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
said so in their statement. It is not the case of the accused persons that they were sending so many parcels to South Africa that there was any confusion about the identity of the parcel in question. The date of booking and the place of booking is clearly given in the statement of accused Aisha and hence it cannot be said that the parcel in question was required to be shown to the accused persons to connect them with the offence.
36. It is further argued that accused Stephen and Stanley Chidi could write but their statements u/s 67 NDPS Act was not fully written by them and the same was written by the NCB officials and this creates a doubt. In my view, there is no merit in this contention. The statement of accused Stephen was recorded by PW19 Sh. Azad Singh, IO and the statement of accused Stanley Chidi was recorded by PW9 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, IO NCB and it has come in their deposition before this court that the accused had expressed difficulty in writing and that is why their statement was recorded by the NCB officials on their request. The statement is corroborated by PW25 Sh. Surender Singh, IO and PW12 Sh. G.S. Bhinder, IO. There is nothing in their crossexamination to create doubt about the same.
37. It is further argued by Ld. Counsels for the defence that the accused had retracted their statement u/s 67 NDPS Act and hence the same cannot be relied by the prosecution. Reliance has been made on authority titled as Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund 2009 12 SCC 161. In my view, mere fact that the accused persons have retracted their statement u/s 67 NDPS Act would not SC No. 12/12 Page No. 24 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
make the same inadmissible in evidence. It is relevant here to state that the accused after their arrest were produced before the Special Court, NDPS on 21.04.2012 but they did not state any such thing before the Trial Court that their statement was recorded forcibly or under duress by the officials of NCB. For the first time, they moved application for retraction on 05.05.2012 i.e. after about 15 days of their arrest and after spending about 2 weeks in Tihar Jail where they may have been prompted by other undertrials or prisoners about the desirability of making such applications in such cases. There is nothing in the crossexamination of the NCB officials who recorded their statement suggesting that the statements were recorded under force or under any coercion or duress. Further as far as the accused Aisha and Stanley Chidi is considered, even if the statement u/s 67 NDPS Act is excluded there is sufficient other evidence to connect them with the offence.
38. It is further argued by Ld. Counsels for the defence that as per the case of the prosecution, the raiding party of the NCB entered the premises of accused Stanley Chidi at around 11.30 PM whereas as per the testimony of PW5 Sh. Anil and PW6 Sh. Ranbir Singh, the NCB officials had met them at around 10/10.15 PM and on this basis, it is argued that the entire story of the prosecution regarding the raid of the house of of accused Stanley Chidi was false and fabricated and no such raid took place and in alternative the court has to believe that they travelled directly from the house of Stephen to accused Stanley in which case, the recording of information and the search authorization would not be there. It is further argued that PW5 Sh. Anil could not identify SC No. 12/12 Page No. 25 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
accused Stanley Chidi in court and it corroborates the case of the defence that no such raid took place and the entire story of the prosecution is fabricated. On the point of variation of time and its importance, Ld. Counsels have relied upon certain authorities titled as Mukesh Vs. State 2010IRLDLH20947, DRI Vs. Manjinder Singh LAWS(DLH)20141158 and Harjinder Singh @ Bhola Vs. State of Punjab LAWS(SC)2004720. This contention of the defence is controverted by Ld. SPP for NCB who states that it has nowhere come in the testimony of PW5 Sh. Anil and Sh. Ranbir Singh that they had met the officials of NCB at about 10/10.15 PM and it is stated that as per the said witnesses at that time they had come out of their house after having dinner and while strolling they had met the NCB officials. As per the case of the prosecution itself, the search authorization was obtained at 09.45 PM and the team left the office of NCB at about 10.15 PM and considering the distance between the office of NCB and Uttam Nagar, it has been admitted by the NCB officials in their crossexamination that it would take about one hour and hence considering the same, it is clear that the NCB officials could not have reached the house of accused Stanley at Uttam Nagar before 11.15 PM. Although PW Sh. Anil and Sh. Ranbir Singh have not clearly stated in their testimony that they had met the officials of NCB at 10/10.15 PM but they have deposed that at about 10/10.15 PM they had left their house after having dinner and while they were strolling, the officials of NCB met them. It could not be after about one hour because SC No. 12/12 Page No. 26 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
the witnesses have admitted in their testimony that they met the NCB officials after sometime near to their house and hence it is clear that there is good gap of atleast 4050 minutes between the actual time of NCB officials reaching there and the time which witnesses claimed to have met the NCB officials there. This gap of time remains unexplained but the question arises whether this gap of time is sufficient in itself to disbelieve the case of the prosecution regarding their raid at the house of accused Stanley. In may view, the answer is no. It is relevant to state that the said witnesses Sh. Ranbir Singh and Sh. Anil have completely supported the case of the prosecution regarding the recovery of contraband and other articles which were found in the house of accused Stanley. There is nothing in their crossexamination to weaken their testimony. Their testimony corroborates the testimony of other NCB officials regarding the said recoveries. The public witnesses had no animosity towards the accused persons and there is no reason why they will depose false against the accused. Although PW5 Sh. Anil has failed to identify the accused Stanley in court but in my view, it is natural because he was unknown to the accused and he was deposing in court after about one year of the incident and it may have been difficult to identify the accused whom he saw at the time of the incident only. However PW6 Sh. Ranbir Singh, the landlord of accused Stanley has correctly identified him in court and hence the non identification of accused Stanley Chidi by public witness Sh. Anil is not very significant considering the fact that he has also been correctly identified by all the officials of NCB who SC No. 12/12 Page No. 27 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
are also the recovery witnesses.
39. It is further argued by Ld. Counsels for the defence that it was Sh. Satyajit Sur who had attached his documents while booking the parcel in question but there is no reason why presumption u/s 35 NDPS Act has not been read against him and there is no reason why he was not arrested in this case on the basis of the said presumption under law. To me, this contention is also meritless because PW Ms. Jyoti Rawat, Sh. Ashim Mukherji and he himself had explained the circumstances to the investigating agency in which the said parcel was booked on the request and insistence of accused Aisha who had claimed loss of her ID proof and on the assurance of Ms. Jyoti Rawat that she knew accused Aisha as she was belonging to the same locality, Sh. Satyajit Sur, Proprietor of A.S. Services Courier had given his driving license as ID proof for sending the parcel. In these circumstances there was no ground for the investigating agency to arrest Sh. Satyajit Sur and subsequently after arresting accused Aisha they were able to arrest the other two accused as well who were responsible for making an effort to export the said contraband out of India.
40. It is further argued by Ld. Counsels for the accused persons that PW3 Sh. Lalit has admitted in his crossexamination that accused Stephen was handcuffed while he was taken from his room and on this basis, it is argued that though the statement of this accused recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act is not admissible because he was already put under arrest and the statement of such a person who has already been arrested cannot be read into evidence. Ld. SPP for NCB SC No. 12/12 Page No. 28 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
has rebutted the same stating that accused Stephen was not arrested by that time when he was taken from his room and there was no question of his handcuffing by the NCB officials as persons, after their apprehension, are not handcuffed by the NCB officials. To an ordinary layman who is not so literate and who is not conversant with the legal procedures, there is no difference between the apprehension and arrest. It is the public perception that when an offence is committed, accused are alway arrested by the police in the beginning itself and they are handcuffed by the authorities and produced in court and in that context, the witness must have made 'of the cuff' statement regarding handcuffing of the accused and hence in view of the same not much attention can be given to the same which has not been corroborated by any other circumstance on record. The members of the raiding party have been crossexamined at length by the Ld. Counsels for the defence but no such circumstance has come on record.
41. It is further argued by Ld. Counsels for the defence that the mere fact that the call detail records of the accused Stephen and Stanley shows that they were in regular touch with each other would not be sufficient to establish that the parcel in question was given to accused Stephen by accused Stanley Chidi. This court totally agrees with this contention of the defence. Although the call detail records would not show that the parcel in question was given to accused Stephen by accused Stanley but in my view, it would prove that they knew each other very well prior to the incident and they were in regular touch and only to SC No. 12/12 Page No. 29 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
this extent, the call detail records would be relevant in the matter.
42. Ld. Counsels for the defence have questioned/challenged the sampling procedure adopted by the NCB officials at the spot of first recovery. It is stated that the said recovery was from the parcel and carbon paper envelopes were allegedly found concealed in between the seven cardboard pieces containing off white powder therein and since all the said off white powder was having same colour and texture, it was mixed by the NCB officials and then samples were taken out and the powder from each of the carbon envelopes was not drawn separately. Ld. SPP for NCB has controverted the contention of Ld. Counsels for accused by saying that samples were taken out from the entire material as per the rules and guidelines of NCB and the mere fact that separate samples were not taken out from all the carbon envelopes or that the material of all the envelopes were homogeneously mixed would not cause any prejudice to the accused. Here in my view, an authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Sumit Tomar Vs. State of Punjab (2013) 1 SCC 395 is worth considering. In this case, the police found two plastic bags containing opium powder (poppy husk) from the dickey of a vehicle. The weight of both the bags was 70 Kg. The contents of both the bags were mixed and two samples of 250 gm each were taken out which was sent to FSL for chemical examination and both the samples tested positive for the said contraband. Hon'ble Supreme Court rejected the contention of the appellant that the mixing of two bags was a grave irregularity which affected the interest of the appellant. Hon'ble Court SC No. 12/12 Page No. 30 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
held that by mixing the contents of the said two bags, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant. Hon'ble court further rejected the contention that the police should have taken two samples each from the two bags without mixing. The ratio of the said case clearly applies to the present case as well and hence mixing of the contents of all the carbon envelopes since the same were having same colour and texture and had given positive test for heroin, did not cause any prejudice to the accused.
43. In the statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused persons have claimed false implication in this case. In my view, they have not been able to prove the same. Admittedly, the accused did not know NCB officials before this incident. Accused have not claimed that there was any animosity between them and NCB officials and in the absence of the same, there was no reason why they would be falsely implicated in this case by the NCB officials.
44. In view of the above, in my view, prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused persons i.e. Aisha, Stephen and Ude Stanley Chidi made an attempt under a conspiracy to export 260 gm of heroin out of India through a parcel which was recovered by the officials of NCB on 19.04.2012 vide airway bill no. 3297128800 at Lancer Express Service, Subhash Nagar, Delhi and therefore all the three accused are convicted for the offence u/s 23(c) NDPS Act r/w section 28 and 29 of NDPS Act.
45. Prosecution has also been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 19.04.2012, accused Ude Stanley Chidi was found in possession of 255 gm of SC No. 12/12 Page No. 31 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
heroin at his residence and hence he is separately convicted for the offence u/s 21(c) of the NDPS Act as well.
46. It is relevant here to stat/e that inspite of directions dated 10.09.2015, accused have not furnished requisite bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC.
47. Let the convicts be heard on the point of sentence separately. Announced in the open court on this 18th day of November, 2015 (Deepak Garg) Special Judge, NDPS New Delhi SC No. 12/12 Page No. 32 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK GARG : SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
SC No. 12/12
ORDER ON SENTENCE
Present: Sh. Subhash Bansal, SPP for NCB.
All the three convicts produced from JC.
Defence counsels Sh. Anoop Gupta and Sh. Manish Khanna. Vide judgment dated 18.11.2015, all the accused persons have been convicted for the offence u/s 23 r/w section 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Accused Ude Stanley Chidi has been convicted separately also for the offence u/s 21(c) NDPS Act.
I have heard Ld. Counsels for both the sides on the point of sentence. Ld. SPP for NCB has argued that since the convicts have been found trafficking in commercial quantity of heroin which is a narcotic drug within the meaning of NDPS Act, they do not deserve any leniency and they should be imposed the maximum punishment.
It is submitted by Sh. Anoop Gupta, Ld. Counsel for the convicts Stephen and Aisha that they are aged 30 years and 48 years respectively. Aisha is stated to have a son aged around 20 years who is completely dependent upon her. The convicts are not stated to have any previous criminal antecedents with respect to narcotic drugs and hence lenient view may be taken by the court. SC No. 12/12 Page No. 33 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
On behalf of convict Ude Stanley Chidi, it is submitted by Sh. Manish Khanna, Advocate that he is aged about 33 years who is in India since 2012. The convict is not stated to have any previous criminal antecedents and hence lenient view may be taken by the court.
On the question of sentencing, it will be useful to refer to an authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in Alister Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2012 SC 3802 in which the principles to be considered by the court while sentencing have been stated in para no.70 and 71 which reads as under:
"70. Sentencing is an important task in the matters of crime. One of the prime objectives of the criminal law is imposition of appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate sentence commensurate with the nature and gravity of crime and the manner in which the crime is done. There is no straitjacket formula for sentencing an accused on proof of crime. The courts have evolved certain principles: twin objective of the sentencing policy is deterrence and correction. What sentence would meet the ends of justice depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the court must keep in mind the gravity of the crime, motive for the crime, nature of the offence and all other attendant circumstances.
71. The principle of proportionality in sentencing a crime doer is well entrenched in criminal jurisprudence. As a matter of law, proportion between crime and punishment bears most relevant influence in determination of sentencing the crime doer. The court has to take into consideration all aspects including social interest and consciousness of the society for award of appropriate sentence."SC No. 12/12 Page No. 34 of 36
NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
After considering the facts and circumstances, in view of the fact that the convicts are of young age and they do not have any previous criminal antecedents regarding trafficking of NDPS substances, in my view, the imposition of minimum sentence would be sufficient in the present case. Hence, the convicts are sentenced as under:
Name Offence under Sentence In default of
section payment of fine
Stephen 23 r/w section 28 RI for 10 years and SI for 2 months
and 29 NDPS Act fine of Rs. 1 Lac
23 r/w section 28 RI for 10 years and SI for 2 months
Ude Stanley Chidi and 29 NDPS Act fine of Rs. 1 Lac
21(c) NDPS Act RI for 10 years and SI for 2 months
fine of Rs. 1 Lac
Aisha 23 r/w section 28 RI for 10 years and SI for 2 months
and 29 NDPS Act fine of Rs. 1 Lac
Fine not paid. Benefit of section 428 Cr.PC is given to the convicts and the imprisonment already undergone by them shall be set of against the substantive period of sentence awarded to them. Both the sentences awarded to convict Ude Stanley Chidi shall run concurrently.
Case property is confiscated to the NCB and the same may be disposed of after the expiry of the period of the appeal/revision.
Copy of the judgment and the sentence be given to the convicts free of cost.
SC No. 12/12 Page No. 35 of 36 NCB Vs. Stephen & Ors.
Copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent for compliance. Announced in the open court st on this 21 day of November, 2015 (Deepak Garg) Special Judge NDPS : New Delhi Patiala House : New Delhi SC No. 12/12 Page No. 36 of 36