Delhi District Court
Sc No. 06A/10 Dri vs Prince George Okoli on 31 May, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.K.NAGPAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Headquarters
Through Sh J.P.Raju, Intelligence Officer
V E R S U S
Prince George Okoli
S/o Mr Okoli
R/o ABA No. 17, Orle
Imo State, Nigeria
Local Address:
WZ-354-A, Ground Floor
Gali No. 20, Sant Garh
New Delhi-110019
Presently lodged in Central Jail
Tihar, New Delhi
SC No.: 06A/10
U/S : 21 & 29 NDPS Act
Computer ID No.:02403R0090482010
Date of institution : 19.03.2010
Date of reserving judgment : 23.05.2014
Date of pronouncement : 31.05.2014
Decision : Acquitted
J U D G M E N T
The proceedings of this case have been initiated on a complaint filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Headquarters, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as DRI) through Sh J.P.Raju, SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 2 Intelligence Officer, against the above accused for commission of the offences punishable U/S 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 25.09.2009 PW2 Sh Kamal Kumar had received a specific information that a person of African origin, of height around 6", stout built, wearing blue colour check half sleeve shirt and blue colour jeans would be waiting at G.T.Karnal By-pass road, bus stop on the ring road (where the buses coming from Panipat stop/halt) at around 7:30 AM on 26.09.2009 for receiving some narcotics substance from another person of African origin. PW2 had immediately reduced the above information in writing as Ex. PW1/A and had placed the same before his official superior, i.e PW8 Sh Atul Handa, who had discussed the matter with PW2 and had directed the IO/PW1 Sh J.P.Raju for taking the necessary steps for the search and seizure under the NDPS Act.
3. It is alleged that at around 06:00 AM on 26.09.2009 the IO/PW1 had joined two public witnesses Sh Vikas Gupta and Sh Irfan in the raid, after they both had consented for it on being apprised about the contents of the above information, and a team of the DRI Officers led by the IO/PW1 and accompanied by two panch witnesses had reached at the above spot at around 07:00 AM on that day. A surveillance was maintained at the spot by them and at around 07:25 AM they noticed that an African man matching SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 3 with the description given in the above information had come to the above bus stop and started waiting there. The DRI Officers kept a discreet watch on the said person and after about ten minutes thereof another person of African origin, of around 5 feet 8 inches height, wearing blue colour jeans and a cream colour T-shirt had also reached at the above spot, while carrying a blue colour strolley bag which he had handed over to the other African person already standing and waiting at the above bus stop. At this point of time, the DRI Officers had rushed to the spot and tried to apprehend both the above persons and these two persons started running in different directions, but the person who delivered the above strolley bag to the other person already waiting there had managed to escape from the spot, while taking advantage of heavy traffic and by crossing the road and further in spite of being given a hot chase by the DRI Officers. However, the other African person who was already standing there and to whom the above strolley bag was delivered by the above person absconding from the spot was apprehended by the DRI Officers after some scuffle and the DRI Officers had introduced themselves as well as the two panch witnesses to him. On enquiry the identity of the above apprehended person was revealed as the accused Prince George Okoli of this case, a native of Nigeria and a local resident of WZ-354-A, Ground Floor, Right Side, Gali No. 20, Sant Garh, Near Kesho Pur Mandi, Delhi-110018.
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 4
4. Thereafter, the IO/PW1 had apprised the accused about the above secret information available with them and the accused was asked as to if he was carrying any narcotic drugs on his person or in the above strolley bag found in his possession, to which he replied in negative. The accused was then told that the search of his person and the above strolley bag was required to be conducted in view of the said information and since the above place of his apprehension was a busy public place having heavy traffic and was not conducive for conducting the detailed examination/search, the accused was requested to accompany the DRI Officers to their office situated at 7th Floor, IP Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi and with his consent he was also brought in the said office, alongwith the above strolley bag and two panch witnesses.
5. After reaching in the DRI office, the accused was again asked as to whether he was carrying any narcotic drugs on his person or in his above strolley bag and he again replied in negative. Thereafter, the IO/PW1 had served upon the accused a written notice U/S 50 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/B while explaining him that he had a legal right to get his person and the above strolley bag searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and he was required to give his option with regard to the same in writing. However, vide his written reply given on the said notice itself in his own handwriting the accused had offered the above searches to be conducted by any officer of DRI. Nothing incriminating was recovered in the SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 5 personal search of the accused conducted thereafter, except a small key and a photocopy of one electricity bill in the name of one Sh Harbans Lal, for the month of August 2009 and of the above tenanted premises of the accused.
6. On enquiry the accused had also disclosed that the above key recovered from his possession was the key of the above strolley bag, which was found locked at that time, and then the above strolley bag, which was of VIP brand, was opened with the help of the above key and it was found to contain 10 heat sealed transparent polythene packets, which were wrapped in a 'dari' having assorted colours. On checking the above polythene packets were found containing a cloth bag each having some rubber stamp markings and these cloth bags were further found containing a heat sealed polythene packet each therein, which were found containing some off white/light yellow colour granular substance giving a sharp pungent smell. The above cloth packets and polythene packets were marked as X-1 to X-10 for the purposes of identification and a small quantity of the contents from each of the above packets was taken and tested with the help of Narcotics Drug Detection Kit and the same gave positive tests for heroin. The gross weight of the above packets was found to be 10.208 KG and the net weight of the heroin contained therein to be 9.903 KG. The above ten packets of heroin, 'dari' and the strolley bag were all seized for contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli
6
7. Thereafter, the IO/PW1 had drawn two
representative samples of 5 Grams each from each of the above 10 packets and these samples were kept in separate zip locked small polythene packets and the same were correspondingly marked as X-1A to X-10A and X-1B to X-10B. These A and B batch of samples were then further kept in separate white colour paper envelopes and these were also similarly marked and then sealed with the DRI Seal No. 10 over a paper slip bearing the dated signatures of the panch witnesses, accused and the IO/PW1. The remaining heroin of the said packets was put back in the same packings and these packets were also converted into cloth parcels and were given markings of the original packets, i.e. X-1 to X-10. These sealed parcels of remaining heroin were then kept in the above blue colour strolley bag of VIP brand and then the same, as well as the above lock and key, were kept in a metal trunk and a separate cloth parcel of the above metal trunk was prepared and sealed in the same manner and similar paper slip containing the signatures of the above persons was also pasted thereon. The IO/PW1 had also prepared a detailed panchnama Ex. PW1/D regarding the above proceedings and a facsimile of the above seal of DRI used in the seizure proceedings was also appended on the panchnama and the copy of the above electricity bill recovered from the possession of the accused as well as the photocopies of the above different types of rubber stamps markings found present on the cloths of the above 10 packets were made annexures to the above panchnama, SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 7 which are Ex. PW1/D1 to PW1/D11 on record. The contents of the panchnama were explained to the accused and the panch witnesses and they all had also signed the panchnama and the above annexures thereof, besides the IO/PW1 himself. The IO/PW1 had also filled up test memos in triplicate, including the office copy of the test memo Ex. PW1/E and the copy sent to CRCL Ex. PW1/F, and a facsimile of the above seal was also affixed on the above test memos and the panchnama proceedings stood concluded by 2 PM on 26.09.2009 itself.
8. It is further alleged in the complaint that thereafter, in response to the summons U/S 67 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/G served upon the accused, the accused appeared before the IO/PW1 on the same day and tendered his voluntary statement Ex. PW1/H under the above provisions, which was typed by PW6 Sh Rajpal Singh on the dictation of the accused. In his above statement the accused is alleged to have not only disclosed his various personal and family details, but has also admitted his interception from the above spot with the above blue colour strolley bag, the recovery of above 10 packets of heroin therefrom and all the subsequent proceedings of seizure and sampling etc. conducted with regard to the same. In his above statement the accused has also disclosed that he had gone to the above spot to take delivery of the above strolley bag containing narcotic drugs on the directions of one Mr Great and he was to get Rs 25,000/- from Mr Great for the above job. He has also SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 8 disclosed therein that he had met Mr Great for the first time in May 2009 and due to his poor financial condition, he had accepted the offer given to him by Mr Great to work with Mr Great in the drug business, as he was promised to be paid handsome amount of money by Mr Great. It was also disclosed by the accused in his above statement that Mr Great had also taken his residential address from him and thereafter Mr Great did not meet him till 25.09.2009, when Mr Great came to his residence and instructed him to collect the above strolley bag containing narcotic drugs from an African origin person at the above place.
9. Since the accused appeared to have committed the offences punishable U/S 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, he was arrested by the IO/PW1 in this case vide arrest-cum- jamatalashi memo Ex. PW1/J and he was also got medically examined from RML Hospital vide letter Ex. PW1/K and MLC dated 26.09.2009 Ex. PW1/DA (it is also DW1/A) and was kept in the lock-up of PS Daryaganj in 'rahdari' during the above night vide application Ex. PW1/L. On the next day, i.e. on 27.09.2009, he was taken out of the lock-up and was again medically examined from the above hospital vide letter Ex. PW1/M and MLC Ex. PW11/A and was produced in the court and remanded to judicial custody. The search of the tenanted residence of the accused in Delhi was also got conducted on 26.09.2009 itself, but nothing incriminating was recovered in the said search.
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli
9
10. After the conclusion of the seizure
proceedings, the sealed parcels of the case property as well as of the samples were placed by the IO/PW1 in the safe custody of PW3 Sh K.K.Sood and the same were kept by him under lock and key till 29.09.2009 when PW3 had entrusted one set of sealed sample parcels, alongwith duplicate test memos, to PW5 Sh Jagdish Rai, who had taken the said parcels to CRCL New Delhi, vide authority/forwarding letter Ex. PW3/C given by PW3 and deposited the same there against acknowledgment Ex. PW5/A of the CRCL. The sealed parcel of the case property was also handed over by PW3 to PW6 Sh Rajpal Singh on the same day and it was deposited by PW6 in the Valuable Godown of the New Customs House vide deposit memo Ex. PW3/D and the same was received there by PW9 Sh Lakhi Ram in intact condition and PW9 had also made an endorsement in this regard on the above deposit memo and further one entry Ex. PW9/A in the Valuable Godown register. Attempts were also made to secure the presence of one Mr Ugochukwu Moses, who was actually the tenant in the above premises at WZ-354-A, Ground Floor, Gali No. 20, Sant Garh and with whom the accused was residing in the said premises, and repeated summons Ex. PW1/O, PW1/P and PW1/R were issued in his name, but his presence could not be secured for the purposes of investigation. The statements of two panch witnesses Ex. PW1/U dated 07.10.2009 and Ex. PW1/V dated 09.10.2009 respectively were also recorded by the IO/PW1 during investigation, in pursuance of the summons Ex. PW1/S and PW1/T served upon them, regarding SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 10 their participation in the above seizure proceedings and one statement Ex. PW1/X of the owner/landlord of the above residential premises of the accused namely Sh Amarjeet was also recorded, in pursuance of the summons Ex. PW1/W served upon him, regarding the letting out of the said premises. Subsequently, vide the chemical analysis report Ex. PW7/A of the CRCL, all the above ten samples had tested positive for the presence of diacetylmorphine (heroin) and the purity percentage thereof was given to be ranging between 40.4% to 72.7%. After recording some statements and completing some other formalities of investigation, a complaint for commission of the abovesaid offences was ultimately prepared and filed by the IO/PW1 against the accused in the court.
11. The complaint was filed against the accused in this court on 19.03.2010 and cognizance of the above offences was taken on the same day. A prima facie case for commission of the offence punishable U/S 21(c) of the NDPS Act only was found to be made out against the accused vide order dated 07.06.2010 of this court and charge for the abovesaid offence was also framed against him on the same day.
12. The prosecution in support of its case has examined on record total 13 witnesses and their names and the purpose of examination is being stated herein below:-
13. PW1 Sh J.P.Raju, an Intelligence Officer of SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 11 DRI, is the complainant and main investigating officer of this case (hereinafter referred to as IO/PW1) and he was heading the above raiding team of DRI, which had apprehended the accused from the above place and with the above contraband substance. He has broadly deposed on the above lines of the prosecution story and has proved the various documents of this case, prepared by him in connection with the investigation of the case. He has also identified the accused as well as the case property.
14. PW2 Sh Kamal Kumar is also an Intelligence Officer of the DRI and he had received the above secret information, reduced it into writing as Ex. PW1/A and had placed it before his official superior/PW8 Sh Atul Handa. He also claims to have participated in the above raid and present at the time of the interception of the accused with the above strolley bag, but has stated that he did not participate in the subsequent search and seizure proceedings as immediately on their arrival in their office, alongwith the accused, he was given some other official work.
15. PW3 Sh K.K.Sood was working as a Deputy Director in the DRI at the relevant time and as stated above, he was handed over the custody of the sealed parcel and samples of this case after the seizure on 26.09.2009 itself. On the same day he had also issued one search authorization Ex. PW3/A of the above residential premises of the accused and the execution SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 12 report thereof Ex. PW3/B was submitted to him subsequently. He had also got deposited the sealed parcels of the samples and case property with the CRCL and Valuable Godown respectively on 29.09.2009, through PW5 Sh Jagdish Rai and PW6 Sh Rajpal Singh respectively, as discussed above.
16. PW4 Sh V.S.Pandey is a Senior Intelligence Officer of DRI at the relevant time and he had issued the above seal of DRI used in the seizure work by the IO/PW1 prior to the leaving of their office by the IO/PW1 for the spot, vide entry Ex. PW1/C of the seal movement register. He has also claimed himself to be a member of the above raiding team and had participated in the entire search and seizure proceedings conducted subsequently in the DRI office regarding the above contraband substance. He has further stated that on 29.09.2009 he had again issued the above seal of DRI to PW6/Sh Rajpal Singh for deposit of the case property in the Valuable Godown.
17. PW5 Sh Jagdish Rai, a Stenographer of DRI, is the person who had taken the above sealed sample parcels, alongwith the above forwarding letter Ex. PW3/C issued in his favour and duplicate test memos, to CRCL and deposited the same there against acknowledgment Ex. PW5/A.
18. PW6 Sh Rajpal Singh, an Intelligence Officer, has claimed to have typed the above statement U/S 67 of SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 13 the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/H made by the accused, on the dictation of the accused, and has also deposited the parcel of the case property in the Valuable Godown, on 29.09.2009, as stated above.
19. PW7 Sh R.P.Singh and PW12 Sh A.K.Maurya, are the Chemical Examiner and Assistant Chemical Examiner respectively of the CRCL, New Delhi at the relevant time and as per their depositions, the above sealed parcels etc. were received in CRCL on 29.09.2009 by PW12, on the directions of PW7, vide the above acknowledgment Ex. PW5/A. They have stated that after the samples were checked and diarised, the same were kept in the strong room on the same day and were taken out for analysis only on 21.10.2009 and the analysis thereof were concluded vide test report Ex. PW7/A dated 23.10.2009, which was issued under the signatures of both of them. PW12 has also given a short report of the above analysis in Section II of the test memo Ex. PW1/F.
20. PW8 Sh Atul Handa is the then Deputy Director of DRI to whom the above secret intelligence Ex. PW1/A was put up by PW2 and he states that after discussing the same with PW2, he had directed the IO/PW1 to act upon the same vide his endorsement made upon the information itself.
21. PW9 Sh Lakhi Ram was the In-charge of the above Valuable Godown of the New Customs House on 29.09.2009, SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 14 when the sealed parcel of case property of this case was deposited there in intact condition and he had made his endorsement on the deposit memo Ex. PW3/D and had further made one entry Ex. PW9/A in the Valuable Godown register in this regard.
22. PW10 Sh Ajay Bhasin, an Intelligence Officer of DRI, was given the above search authorization Ex. PW3/A of the residential premises of the accused and he had only prepared one panchnama Ex. PW10/A regarding the above search and took into possession a copy of one lease deed and tenant verification form of the said premises, which are Ex. PW13/A on record.
23. PW11 Dr Pawan Kumar of RML Hospital had examined the accused vide MLC Ex. PW11/A dated 27.09.2009 and has proved the same on record.
24. PW13 Sh Amarjeet Singh is the landlord/owner of the abovesaid tenanted premises of the accused and has stated that the above house was rented out to the above Sh Ugochukwu Moses and the accused was also residing in the said premises with the above Moses. He has also identified the signatures of his son on the panchnama Ex. PW10/A regarding the search of the said premises and the documents Ex. PW13/A, i.e. copies of the above lease deed and tenant verification form, recovered therefrom.
25. After the conclusion of the evidence of the SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 15 prosecution, all the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution was put to the accused in his statement recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C. and the same was denied by him to be incorrect while saying that he was forcibly lifted by some persons in plain cloths from his house and he later on came to know that the said persons were DRI Officers. He has also claimed that he was illegally confined by the DRI officers in their office and under pressure, threat, coercion and beatings, his family history was obtained by them and his signatures were also obtained on many blank papers, blank small chits and some semi and written papers. He has also claimed specifically that no incriminating material or substance was recovered from his possession or at his instance and he did not hand over the key of any such bag to any official and the above key as well as contraband were planted upon him. He has also denied of the making any voluntary statement before the DRI Officers and has further claimed that the above alleged public witnesses are fake persons. He has also claimed that he has already retracted his alleged statement vide his application Ex. PX at the earliest possible opportunity available to him. He has also chosen to lead evidence in his defence.
26. The accused has also examined one Dr Shikha Jain of RML Hospital in his defence and this doctor has proved the first MLC of the accused dated 26.09.2009 as Ex. DW1/A, which was earlier Ex. PW1/DA on record.
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 16
27. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ms Mala Sharma, Ld SPP for DRI and Sh Yogesh Saxena, Ld counsel for the accused. I have also gone through the evidence led and the other record of the case, including the written submissions filed on behalf of DRI as well as the accused.
28. The first major challenge to the prosecution story by Ld defence counsel is on the ground of non examination of the two public witnesses namely Sh Vikas Gupta and Sh Irfan allegedly joined in the seizure of this case and further on the ground of reliability of the claim of the prosecution regarding the very joining of investigation by the above witnesses. It is his contention that the case of the prosecution should not be believed as the same rests only on the testimonies of the official witnesses, which lack consistency and reliability, and further that no such witnesses ever existed or were joined during the investigation of the case and this fact is apparent from the evidence led by the prosecution itself on record as there are serious doubts in the evidence and story of the prosecution regarding the joining of the said witnesses. On this aspect, the contention of Ld SPP for DRI is that the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved and thrown away simply due to the non examination of the two public witnesses as the depositions made by the official witnesses are liable to be believed and considered by this court and cannot be discarded simply by reason or SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 17 colour of their office. It is also the contention of Ld SPP for DRI that there is no material on record to show or infer that the above public witnesses were fake witnesses cited in the case of the prosecution.
29. On appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution on record, it is observed that according to the IO/PW1 Sh J.P.Raju, the above two public witnesses were called by him on the day of seizure itself, i.e. on 26.09.2009, from near the area of ITO where the office of DRI is situated and the witnesses were informed about the information received and they were requested to join the raiding team, to which they both had agreed. As per his depositions made in his above examination in chief, he had constituted the above raiding team of officers on 26.09.2009 itself at around 6:00 AM and this is also the time given by the other two official members of the above team, i.e. PW2 Sh Kamal Kumar and PW4 Sh V.S.Pandey, as the time of their reaching in the office for joining the above team. According to PW2 and PW4, when they both had reached their office at around 6:00 AM on the above date, the two public witnesses were already present there, but they have not been able to tell as to by whom these witnesses were called. The depositions made by these two witnesses as well as the IO/PW1 himself suggest that these two witnesses were joined from near the area of their office sometime prior to 6:00 AM.
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 18
30. The alleged statements made by these two public witnesses U/S 67 of the NDPS Act have been brought on record during the testimony of the IO/PW1 himself as Ex. PW1/U and PW1/V respectively and though the contents of these statements cannot be considered in evidence against the accused due to non examination of the above witnesses, but the same can certainly be considered and used against the prosecution as these are the documents produced by and relied upon by the prosecution itself. As per these statements, both the above witnesses are stated to have been joined in the above proceedings at around 6:00 AM, when they both have claimed to have been approached by some officer of DRI for joining the said proceedings. It cannot be ignored that the above secret information in this case was received not in the morning of 26.09.2009, but in the evening of 25.09.2009 and it was also reduced into writing as Ex. PW1/A by 6:00 PM and even the directions to the IO/PW1 for the seizure and search etc on the basis of the above information were given at around 6:55 PM on that day, but even then no attempts were made or steps were taken by the IO/PW1 or any other senior officer of DRI to join any public or independent witnesses in advance and the evidence suggests as if the IO/PW1 was very much sure to join such witnesses in the morning of 26.09.2009, which fact in itself creates serious hole in the trustworthiness of the prosecution story. Again, the depositions made by the above prosecution witnesses and the above alleged statements of the public witnesses further suggest that SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 19 everything had happened within a short span of time and at around 6:00 AM and it appears that the IO/PW1 had requested only two such persons to join the proceedings and they both had agreed to join the same, though in the Indian context, the same in itself is again a ground to doubt the credibility of the above claim of the IO/PW1 as in our country, no public person generally agrees to join such long drawn and complicated investigations and trials unless he is having any personal interest in the same.
31. Again, there are also certain other factors which raise serious doubts regarding the above claim of the IO/PW1 of joining such witnesses in the above raid. As per the above statements Ex. PW1/U and PW1/V allegedly made by the above two public witnesses, they both have come to the area of ITO in connection with some personal work, but neither in their above statements nor during the investigation conducted or the evidence led it has been brought on record of this court as to in what connection the above two witnesses were present there in the early morning hours of 26.09.2009, i.e. at around 6:00 AM, because according to their given addresses in the summons Ex. PW1/S and PW1/T respectively served upon them, they both are shown to be the residents of the area of Budh Vihar (which is located in the area of Sultan Puri) and Najafgarh, New Delhi. Further, as per the prosecution case and the evidence led on record, the witness Sh Vikas Gupta was a SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 20 resident of A-115, Budh Vihar, New Delhi and the other witness Sh Irfan was a resident of 3-A, Deenpur, Najafgarh, New Delhi, but the IO/PW1 had neither taken any proof of their identities or of the addresses of the above two witnesses during the investigation nor he made any attempt to verify the addresses of the said witnesses, as admitted by him during his cross examination in the court, though the above witnesses had been present with him since around 6:00 AM till atleast 2:00 PM on that day, which is the time of conclusion of the panchnama proceedings. This is also despite the fact that the above two witnesses are also being claimed to have subsequently appeared before him and tendered their above statements on 07.10.2009, i.e. after about 11-12 days from the date of the above seizure.
32. There is also one other aspect which raises serious doubts regarding the claim of the prosecution about the joining of the above two witnesses during the investigation as it is observed that the above summons Ex. PW1/S and PW1/T served upon the accused persons U/S 67 of the NDPS Act are dated 07.10.2009 itself, which is the date of recording of their above statements, and these summons have been prepared as well as served on that very day and the same were not prepared or served on the day of seizure, i.e. 26.09.2009. There is no explanation on record as to why the IO/PW1 did not even serve the summons upon these witnesses and had permitted them to go away when neither these witnesses were known SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 21 to him prior to the date of their joining of the above proceedings nor he had even taken any identity or address proof of the witnesses. The IO/PW1 was also questioned by Ld defence counsel during his cross examination as to whether the summons upon these witnesses were served by him through some special messenger and in reply to this question, he has stated that the summons were served upon the witnesses on 07.10.2009 itself when they had appeared in the DRI office again. The explanation being given by the IO/PW1 regarding the same that on 26.09.2009, the witnesses had told him that they had some work near ITO on 07.10.2009, also does not appeal to the conscious of this court and it strengthens the argument of Ld defence counsel that either the above witnesses were the stock witnesses of the DRI or the same can be presumed to be the fake witnesses introduced in the prosecution story because it cannot be just believed that any public person having no interest in any prosecution or litigation will again present himself voluntarily before any such investigating agency for facing the inconvenience or sufferings of appearing in a court again when he has already spent more then eight hours during the investigation of such a case.
33. One other material circumstance to show the hollowness of the above claim of prosecution regarding the joining of the above public witnesses is that surrounding the circumstances under which the above two SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 22 witnesses have not been examined on record. On perusal of the case file, it is observed that the public witness Sh Vikas Gupta was summoned by this court for the first time on 24.10.2011 for 29.11.2011 and on 29.11.2011, it was reported on his summons that he is not existing/traceable at his above given address and hence he was dropped by the prosecution on the ground that the above report was given by the IO/PW1 Sh J.P.Raju himself (it is found that the IO/PW1 had only forwarded or countersigned the report given by some Head Constable of DRI) though it was only the first date given for the appearance of the above witness in this court. No further attempt or even request was ever made by the prosecution or the IO/PW1 to get the fresh summons of the above witness issued from this court or to secure his presence in the court for examination and this fact suggests as if the IO/PW1 was aware that no such witness was existing at the given address and this fact is further suggestive of or gives rise to an inference regarding the above witness being a non existent person from the very beginning.
34. Regarding the other witness Sh Irfan also, it is observed from the record that the summons of the above witness were directed to be issued by this court for the first time on 29.11.2011 for 09.01.2012 and though his summons issued for the said date were not received by him, but one handwritten receipt was filed on record of the court by the prosecution which showed SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 23 as if the above summons were received by the above witness personally on 07.12.2011 and some signatures and the name of the above witness were also there on the above receipt. However, the witness Sh Irfan did not turn up on 09.01.2012 and this court directed the issuance of his fresh summons to be served personally by the complainant/concerned officer of DRI, which is stated to be the IO/PW1 Sh J.P.Raju himself, personally for 06.02.2012 and the above summons were reported to be served and received by the above witness personally, but the signatures as appearing on the above receipt dated 07.12.2011 and these summons served upon the witness on 24.01.2012 are entirely different. Based on the above service and further since the witness did not turn up on 06.02.2012, this court had then directed the issuance of bailable warrant against him for 13.03.2013 and bailable warrants were also duly executed through the DRI as per the records, but since the witness even did not turn up on 13.03.2012 despite execution of the bailable warrants, his NBWs and warrants of attachment to the extent of the amount of his personal bond were directed to be issued through the concerned SHO of PS Najafgarh for 30.03.2012.
35. However, strangely enough, on 30.03.2012, it was reported by the process server of the above PS that the above witness was not existing at the given address and since doubts were created in the mind of the court regarding the service of the summons of the above SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 24 witness for the previous date effected through the DRI, as also specifically reflected in the order sheet of that day, this court had summoned the concerned process servers of the DRI as well as of the above PS for the next date, i.e. 28.04.2012 and in the meanwhile, it was also directed that the fresh summons of the above witness be again issued to be executed by the IO/concerned officer personally. The process server of DRI did not turn up in the court on the next date, though the concerned process server Ct. Surender Kaushik of the above PS had come present and still maintained that no such person of the above name Irfan was existing at the given address. However, the fresh summons of the above witness issued for that date through the IO/PW1 were again received back with a report of service through his sister Rihana, but the witness still did not turn up. The IO/PW1 Sh J.P.Raju was also present on that day and on the basis of the alleged service of the summons effected by him upon the witness and further despite the contrary claim being made by the above process server of police, the bailable warrants of the above witness were directed to be issued and given dasti to the above constable and the IO/PW1 was directed to personally accompany the above constable for execution of the above warrants issued for 21.05.2012. However, on 21.05.2012, neither the IO/PW1 had turned up in this court nor the report made by the above constable suggested that the IO/PW1 had accompanied him for execution of the above process and it was again reported SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 25 by the above constable that the witness was not existing at his given address. Since the IO/PW1 was not present on that date and no requests were also being made for seeking any further opportunity for securing the presence of the above witness, this court had closed the evidence of the prosecution/DRI as no other witness remained to be examined as per the list of witnesses.
36. The above order was never challenged by the prosecution in any higher court nor any application U/S 311 Cr.P.C. or any other provision was moved by them to seek any fresh summons or the recalling of the above witness. It also appears to this court from the above that the possibility cannot be ruled out that some attempts were made by the prosecuting agency to even manipulate the reports being given in this court regarding the alleged service of the above witness and the net result of all the above discussion is that there are very strong reasons before this court to believe and accept the above submission being made by Ld defence counsel regarding the non existence of the above two witnesses from the very beginning and the possibility may be that no such witnesses were ever joined or associated with the above seizure. This fact not only casts serious doubts regarding the trustworthiness and reliability of the IO/PW1 himself, but also seriously effects the credibility of the prosecution story as a whole.
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 26
37. Ld defence counsel has also rightly relied upon the judgment dated 08.11.2013 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case CRL. Appeal No. 783/2012 titled Mohd Irfan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which was a case pertaining to this very court, where their Lordship had set aside a judgment of conviction of this court in a similar matter where not only the very existence of the two public witnesses allegedly joined by the DRI officers in the raid was considered to be highly doubtful by the Hon'ble High Court in similar circumstances, but the remaining evidence of the prosecution was also doubted and disbelieved as the sole statement of the IO of that case was considered to be not inspiring any confidence, as is also in the present case.
38. The next material discrepancy in the story of the prosecution is that the very constitution of the above raiding team of DRI is under serious doubts and the oral evidence led on record in the form of testimonies of the IO/PW1, PW2 and PW4 and the documentary evidence brought on record are not sufficient to prove the constitution of any such raiding team of DRI or the alleged participation of PW2 and PW4 in the said raid. As per the depositions made by the IO/PW1 in his examination in chief, he had constituted the team of officers consisting of himself, Sh V.S. Pandey/PW4, Sh Kamal Kumar/PW2 and sepoy of the department at around 6:00 AM on 26.09.2009. However, he SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 27 contradicts himself during his cross examination when he states that the team was constituted by him in the evening of 25.09.2009 and after constitution of the team, the members of the raiding team had left for their houses. However, he has also stated that he did not disclose to the members of the raiding team about the secret information and the place where the raiding party was to visit at that time and he had only disclosed to them that they had to visit a certain place and for that purpose, they had to gather in the office of DRI at 6:00 AM on 26.09.2009. On being asked, he has further stated on record that PW4 Sh V.S.Pandey was also in the above team, but it is his claim that the above information was disclosed to PW4 only in the morning of 26.09.2009 and he had no discussion with PW4 about the above information on 25.09.2009. Though, PW2 corroborates his above claim regarding being informed about the above information in the evening of 25.09.2009 by the IO/PW1 himself, but contrary to their claims, PW4 has stated specifically on record in the opening of his examination in chief itself that on 26.09.2009 he had come to the office at about 6:00 AM only because he was requested by the IO/PW1 Sh J.P.Raju to come early in the morning of 26.09.2009 and this request was made to him by the IO/PW1 in the evening of 25.09.2009.
39. Again, though PW4 Sh V.S.Pandey claims to have participated in the above raid and also in all the subsequent proceedings of search, seizure and sampling SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 28 etc conducted in their office regarding the above seized contraband substance, but according to PW2, he was present with the raiding team only till the accused was brought in their office of DRI and he did not participate in any further proceedings. However, even his above claim of having visited the spot and present at the time of interception of the accused appears to be doubtful from his depositions made during his cross examination as he was not able to tell as to from which direction the other Nigerian, who had delivered the above bag containing the contraband substance to the accused, had reached at the spot and he was also not able to tell as to whether there was any screaming or hue or cry and even as to whether any document was prepared at the spot regarding the above incident or not. He even had no idea if any proceedings in writing were conducted at the spot or not and he was also not able to tell the details of the official vehicle in which they had allegedly visited the above spot or the names of its driver etc. His depositions in his examination in chief are also found to be made in very brief manner and does not contain even the necessary details of the manner of interception of the accused at the spot. As per the IO/PW1, the vehicle used in the above raid was either a Gypsy or a Qualis, whereas according to this witness, it was either a Gypsy, Qualis or a Tavera. The distance between the spot and their office was stated by the IO/PW1 to be 20 kms, but it was stated by this witness to be 15-20 kms and he was also SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 29 not able to tell the description of the above public witnesses who had allegedly participated in the raid. This is all apart from the fact that admittedly, there is no document brought on record during the trial which shows the presence of this witness at the spot or his participation in the above raid resulting into the interception of the accused from the above spot.
40. Even, the claim of PW4 regarding his participation in the above proceedings is also appearing to be doubtful to this court as though, according to this witness, the notice U/S 50 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/B was given to the accused and the panchnama Ex. PW1/D prepared in his presence, but none of these documents is found to be signed by this witness and even a copy of the electricity bill Ex. PW1/D1 allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused and the photocopies of the rubber stamp markings appearing on the cloth of the above packets, which are annexures to the above panchnama and Ex. PW1/D1 to PW1/D11 on record, are not found to be signed by this witness. As discussed above, and also stated by this witness, the above documents were signed only by the IO/PW1, the accused as well as the above two public witnesses and in the absence of the examination of the above two public witnesses on record and this witness not being a signatory to the above documents, even the authenticity and genuineness of the above documents becomes under clouds, what to say of the factum of the presence of this witness at the time of SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 30 preparation of the above documents.
41. It is also observed that during his cross examination, this witness has taken a stand that though he did not sign the above notice given to the accused and the panchnama prepared at the spot in his presence, but the above panchnama was prepared in his presence and he had even read the contents of the said panchnama Ex. PW1/D. He has also specifically claimed that it was recorded in the above panchnama that the accused was intercepted in his presence and further that the above notice was given to the accused in his presence and also that the search of the above bag, sealing and seizure proceedings were carried out in his presence. He further claims specifically that it was also recorded in the panchnama that he was a member of the raiding team and apart from him, PW2 Sh Kamal Kumar was also a member of the said team. However, on the request of Ld defence counsel, the witness was made to see the above panchnama Ex. PW1/D and after seeing it, he had to admit that the above said submissions being made by him were not a part of the above panchnama, though it was only recorded in the panchnama that the above seal of DRI used in the seizure proceedings was issued by this witness to the IO/PW1. Ld defence counsel is right in submitting that if a formal act of this witness in issuance of the above seal to the IO/PW1 can be incorporated in the above document with the specific name of this witness, then there was no reason reason as to why the names of this SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 31 witness as well as of PW2 should not have been incorporated in the said document as members of the above raiding team. He has also pointed out that the names of these two witnesses have even not been included as members of the raiding team in the complaint Ex. PW1/Y, which was subsequently filed by the IO/PW1 in this court. Even, the statements of these two witnesses U/S 67 of the NDPS Act regarding their participation in the above proceedings are found to have been recorded by the IO/PW1 during the investigation. Hence, in view of the above discussion, Ld defence counsel is right in making a submission that the participation of these two witnesses in the above raid and proceedings, as claimed by the prosecution, is highly doubtful and their depositions should not be believed and considered at all by this court. This fact not only makes their above submissions to be doubtful, but again is another circumstance to doubt the credibility of the IO/PW1 himself and also the prosecution case as a whole.
42. The next challenge to the prosecution case being made by the defence is on the ground that the alleged statement U/S 67 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/H of the accused is a manipulated and fabricated document and the same was not made by the accused voluntarily, as claimed by the prosecution, and rather it was typed on their own by the DRI officers. It is also his submission that even otherwise, the above statement was extracted from the accused under mental and physical torture and SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 32 moreover, the same was also duly retracted by the accused at the earliest possible opportunity. On this aspect, the contention of Ld SPP for DRI is that the above statement is the voluntary statement of the accused tendered by him prior to his arrest and in response to the summons Ex. PW1/G served upon him and it was recorded/typed on his dictation by PW6 Sh Rajpal. He has also denied the allegations of any physical or mental torture being extended to the accused by the DRI officers at any point of time for extracting the above statement and it is also his submission that the alleged retraction of the above statement by the accused is of no consequences being an afterthought and reliance has also been placed upon the judgment in case of Kanhaiya Lal Vs Union of India 2008 (1) AD (Crl.) (SC) 277 : 2008 (1) JCC (Narcotics) 23.
43. It is now well settled that such a statement made by an accused is very much admissible in evidence and the same can also be made the sole basis of the conviction of an accused, if the same is found to be made voluntarily. Further, it cannot be equated with the statement of an accused made in custody, even if it is confessional in nature, as the same is made by an accused prior to his arrest in the case and hence, the bar of Sections 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act and even Article 20(3) of the Constitution would not be attracted to such a statement. However, if such a statement is found to be made by an accused under some pressure, coercion or SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 33 influence etc. and is not made by him voluntarily, then it cannot be believed and acted upon.
44. Again, if the accused subsequently retracts from such a statement, then the court has to look into the entirety of the facts and circumstances leading to the making of the above statement and its subsequent retraction, so as to form an opinion regarding the voluntariness of such a statement and the effect which has to be given to his subsequent retraction thereof. However, it is also well settled that such a retracted statement is a weak piece of evidence and the court should not proceed to base a finding of conviction on the basis of such a retracted statement, unless there is some other independent evidence to corroborate the same. Reference with regard to the above can be made to some of the judgments in cases Raj Kumar Karwal Vs Union of India & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 409; Kanhaiya Lal, Supra, Francis Stanly @ Stalin Vs Intelligence Officer, NCB, Thiruvanan Thapuram 2008 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 124; Noor Aga Vs State of Punjab & Anr. 2008(9) Scale 681; Union of India Vs Bal Mukund and Ors. 2009 (2) Crimes 171 (SC); Ram Singh Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics 2011 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 140 and DRI Vs Raj Kumar Mehta & Ors.2011 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 156.
45. Now coming to this case, though there is no doubt that the above statement of the accused was recorded prior to his formal arrest in this case, but SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 34 however, it cannot be ignored that the above statement is a typed document in English language and it is not a hand written statement made by the accused, though he knew to write the above language. Further, since the same was typed by another officer of DRI and was not tendered or recorded in the presence of any independent person, it is also a circumstance to doubt the voluntariness thereof. The explanation being given by the IO/PW1 for getting the above statement typed is that the accused had requested for the same while saying that he was poor in writing the above language, but this explanation cannot be accepted after having a perusal of the alleged statements U/S 67 of the NDPS Act made by the two public witnesses Sh Vikas Gupta and Sh Irfan as these statements are also found to be written in a poor Hindi language. The witness Sh Vikas Gupta was educated upto 7th standard only and the witness Sh Irfan was educated upto 8th standard and even then the IO/PW1 had recorded the above statements of the witnesses in the handwritings of the said witnesses and had not thought it proper to have these recorded or typed by any other person then what prevented him from recording the above statement of the accused in the handwriting of the accused himself, which could have given atleast some credibility to the said statement. Further, the depositions made by PW6 Sh Rajpal, who typed the above statement, that he did so as the accused had requested him to type the same also does not inspire any confidence as though the IO/PW1 might have made such SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 35 request to his above colleague, but there was no question of making such a request by the accused to PW6 when the accused is a foreign national and was not known to PW6 and was even also not aware as to in what connection or purpose, PW6 might have been present in the said office. Ld defence counsel has also pointed out certain legal and other technical words used in the above statement Ex. PW1/H of the accused, which could not have been used by a foreign national and in view of the propositions of law laid down in case of Noor Aga, Supra being relied upon by him, this is another circumstance to doubt the voluntariness of the above statement of the accused.
46. Moreover, as stated above, his above statement was also retracted by the accused vide his retraction application Ex. PX on record, which was filed in this court on 09.10.2009, which was the next date of appearance of the accused from judicial custody in this court, after his initial production on 27.09.2009 from the custody of the DRI. In his above retraction application, the accused has specifically claimed that his alleged confessional statement recorded by the DRI was false and it was not made voluntarily and he was only made to sign many blank sheets of papers under coercion and was also tortured for the same. The allegations made in the above application of the accused were though denied by the DRI in routine, but the same are sufficient to make the voluntariness of his alleged SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 36 statement Ex. PW1/H to be doubtful.
47. Further, there is also one other ground to doubt the voluntariness of the above statement of the accused as one MLC of the accused dated 26.09.2009, which is the date of interception of the accused, is also brought and proved on record as Ex. DW1/A (which was earlier exhibited as Ex. PW1/DA) and as per this MLC and the depositions made by the concerned doctor/DW1 Ms. Shikha Jain, there were some fresh external injuries observed on the 'person' of the accused at the time of his above medical examination in RML Hospital. These injuries were scar on his back of the size of 1X1 cm, scar mark on his left forearm linear 3-4 cms and a bruise over his left arm and there was even an advice of X-ray of his right hand, AP and lateral view, and the nature of his injuries was declared to be blunt and he was also prescribed an injection of voveran and other medication. The submission being made on behalf of the prosecution is that the above injuries had resulted due to some scuffle which had taken place at the time of interception of the accused, as is also specifically mentioned in the panchnama as well as the complaint, but this submission is not acceptable as none of the above three official witnesses of recovery has specifically stated that any such injuries were suffered by the accused or seen on his 'person' by them, which could have resulted from such scuffle or the fall of the accused. It has also come on record during their SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 37 statements that the accused did not even suffer any fall on the road. Hence, the presence of the above injuries on the body of the accused is a strong circumstance for this court to believe that he might have been physically tortured while he was in the custody of the DRI officers for making or signing on any such statement. This circumstance necessarily makes the voluntariness of his above statement Ex. PW1/H to be doubtful. Moreover, the above statement having been retracted by the accused at the earliest possible opportunity is also a strong ground to doubt the voluntariness thereof and even none of the alleged disclosures made by the accused in his above statement has been corroborated during the investigation by the IO/PW1 from any independent source or evidence. Hence, this court is of the considered view that the above statement cannot be believed or considered for his alleged confessional disclosures made in the said statement regarding his interception from the above spot, the seizure of the above substance from his possession and the subsequent proceedings conducted with regard to the same and the case and evidence of the prosecution has to be viewed as if there was no such statement of the accused on record.
48. As discussed above, there are serious doubts regarding the presence of PW2 and PW4 at the spot of apprehension of the accused and this court is not satisfied regarding their participation in the proceedings of this case in any manner. The same is SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 38 also the position regarding the alleged participation of the above two public witnesses in the proceedings of this case. However, still the case of the prosecution can be believed and the sole testimony of the IO/PW1 be acted upon, if the same is found to be inspiring confidence and is corroborated by the other evidence led on record.
49. However, on a careful perusal of the testimony of the IO/PW1, it is further observed that the same lacks corroboration, consistency and reliability on the other aspects also. As also stated above, the IO/PW1 has not been able to give any details of the official vehicle or the name etc of the driver thereof, which/who had participated in the above raid. There is also no record of any logbook etc of the said vehicle produced in this court during the trial. Though, even these records could have been easily ignored by this court, but there are also certain other material factors which adversely affect the credibility of the testimony of the IO/PW1 to a great extent. Admittedly, as per the prosecution case, the above suitcase handed over by the other absconding person/accused to the accused Prince George Okoli and found in his possession subsequently was found to be locked at the time of its recovery, but it is also the admitted case of the prosecution that the key thereof was recovered in the personal search of the accused conducted by the IO/PW1 at the spot, alongwith a photocopy of one electricity bill. There are no SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 39 depositions made by the IO/PW1 on record that he had seen the above other person handing over the key of the above suitcase also, to the accused, though the whole raiding team was already present at the spot and keeping a surveillance at the spot. This fact is even not found to be recorded in the panchnama Ex. PW1/D, though it is found recorded, and also stated by the IO/PW1 in this court, that the accused disclosed on enquiry that the recovered key was of the above suitcase. This is a material circumstance to doubt the credibility of the prosecution story as in no case, the above key could have been found in possession or to be transferred to the accused, without the same being handed over to him at the spot and noticed by the members of the raiding team. Though, Ld SPP for DRI has pointed out that this fact is found recorded in the statement Ex. PW1/H made by the accused U/S 67 of the NDPS Act, but the same appears to be an afterthought and the above statement of the accused has already held by this court to be appearing involuntary or not appearing to be made by the accused.
50. Again, as per the depositions made by the IO/PW1 on record, when the members of the raiding team had tried to apprehend the accused as well as the other person handing over the suitcase to him, they both started running in different directions and the other person was successful in giving a slip to the raiding party, though he was chased by an officer of DRI, who is SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 40 stated to be PW2, for some distance. However, there is nothing in the testimony of the IO/PW1 or the other evidence led by the prosecution on record to show that any serious attempts were made to apprehend the above other person and this in itself is again a material circumstance to doubt the credibility of the prosecution case. Though, the above other person had allegedly absconded after crossing the road, but no serious attempt was made by any member of the DRI team to chase him by taking the assistance of any vehicle going in the direction of the road in which the traffic was flowing on the said road and even no call was made at 100 number or assistance of the local police taken for nabbing the above absconding accused. It cannot be ignored that the place of interception of the accused was though a busy public road, but again it was widely open and was not having any constructed buildings around the above place, which could have provided any space for hiding of the above absconding person.
51. Though, Ld SPP for DRI has also argued that in view of the legal presumptions contained U/S 34 and 54 of the NDPS Act, the onus lies upon the accused to explain his possession of the above contraband substance or the absence of the requisite criminal intent of being not conscious regarding the presence of the above contraband substance in the above suitcase recovered from him, but as discussed above, the evidence led on record by the prosecution regarding the interception of SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 41 the accused from the above spot and with the above suitcase containing contraband is highly doubtful and is not inspiring confidence. Moreover, it is well also settled that even the above legal presumptions contained in the above Sections come into operation only when the prosecution has discharged the initial onus of proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts, which onus always lies upon them and never shifts. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments in cases Madan Lal & Another Vs State of H.P. : (2003) 7 SCC 465 and Dharampal Singh Vs State of Punjab : 2010 (10) SCALE.
52. Though, some other points relating to the safe custody of the case property and samples and maintaining of the parallel record or case diary of the proceedings conducted by the IO/PW1 have also been raised by Ld defence counsel, but in view of the above detailed discussion, there is no need of having any further discussion on these aspects as the very genesis of the prosecution story regarding the interception of the accused from the above spot is held to be seriously doubtful and their evidence led on record in this regard to be unworthy of acceptance. Though, some other judgments have also been referred to from both the sides, but most of them are found to have been referred out of context or without there being any similarity of the facts and circumstances of these cases with the present case.
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli 42
53. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubts, for the above said offence punishable U/S 21(c) of the NDPS Act, for which charge was framed against him, as the evidence led on record lacks corroboration, consistency and reliability. This is also coupled with the possibility of manipulation of some material facts and documents of the case. The above offence carries a very severe punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a minimum period of 10 years extending up to 20 years and also a fine of not less than Rs 1 Lac and extending up to Rs 2 Lacs and it will not be safe for this court to rely upon the above evidence and to convict the accused for the said offence.
54. Therefore, the accused is hereby acquitted in this case giving benefit of doubt. Since he is a foreigner and is to be deported back to his native country, no bond U/s 437A Cr.P.C. is technically required and moreover, he states that he is also not in a position to furnish the same. Hence, let the Jail Superintendent be directed that the accused should not be released from custody and rather he should be deported back to his native country as per law, after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of the appeal and subject to the outcome of any appeal to be filed against this judgment, if any, or the orders of the Appellate Court.
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli
43
55. The case property be also confiscated and
disposed of as per law, after the expiry of the above period of limitation and appeal, as stated above.
Announced in the open
court on 31.05.2014 (M.K.NAGPAL)
ASJ/Special Judge NDPS
South District
Saket Court Complex
New Delhi
SC No. 06A/10 DRI Vs Prince George Okoli