Delhi High Court
Phool Kumar vs State (Delhi Administration) on 13 May, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997IVAD(DELHI)125, 1998(1)CRIMES54, 68(1997)DLT155, 1997(42)DRJ261
JUDGMENT J.K. Mehra, J.
(1) Since only a short point is involved in this case, I have proceeded to hear the main appeal.
(2) My attention has been drawn to primarily two serious violations of the mandatory requirements. Firstly that the Cfsl form was not sent when the samples were sent for analysis. Secondly, no report, as contemplated under Section 57 of Ndps Act, was ever submitted to the superior of the I.O. after the search had been completed. The fact of these lapses is confirmed from the original record and it is also not disputed by counsel for the State before me. The requirement of forwarding the Cfsl form alongwith the samples has been stressed by this Court and also various other High Courts. A reference in this behalf be made to the following judgments.
1.Safiullah Vs. State, reported as 1993 Jcc 33;
2.Amarjit Singh Vs. State, reported as 1995 Jcc 91;
3.Shankariya Vs. State, reported as 1996 Jcc 136;
4.Abdul Ghaffar Vs. State, reported as 1996 Jcc 497;
5.Prem Singh Vs. State, reported as 1996 Jcc 519;
6.Mehndi Hassan Vs. State, reported as 1996 Jcc 653;
7.Shiv Rawat Vs. State, reported as 1997 Jcc 14;
8.Nathiya Vs. State, reported as 1992 (1) Crimes 537;
9.Pradeep Kr. Vs. State, reported as 1990 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 69;
10.Lachho Qeir Vs. State, reported as 1990 (2) Chandigarh Criminal Cases 395;
11.Anoop Joshi Vs. State, reported as 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314; and
12.Rajiv Vs. State, reported as 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 381.
IN the light of this and the law laid down by various authorities, there is no escape from the inference that submission of Cfsl form alongwith the sample is a mandatory requirement which has not been fulfillled in the present case. @BTINDENT = Counsel for the State has also not been able to point out any evidence on record wherefrom the compliance with the provisions of Section 57 could be proved. The law in this behalf has also been spelt out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Punjab Vs. Balbir Singh (SC), reported as 1994 Jcc 303 and Mahinder Kumar Vs. State, Panaji, Goa, reported as 1995 Crl.L.J. 2074, which has been followed by me in the cases of Richard Thomas Wrigley Vs. Customs & Anr. (Crl.A.149/96) decided on March 20, 1997 and Mrs. Carmel Sanchez Gracia Vs. Customs, New Delhi (Grl.A.51/95) decided on April 21, 1997 wherein it has been held that the provisions of Section 57 Ndps are mandatory and non-compliance thereof would vitiate the trial. There is no evidence on record to prove that the requirements of Section 57 Ndps Act were met. For this reason also, the trial of the appellant stands vitiated on account of failure of evidence in this connection. I give benefit of doubt to the appellant Accordingly, allow appeal and acquit the appellant. The appellant be released forthwith unless and until required any other case THIS appeal and the application are disposed of to the above terms. Dasti.