Delhi District Court
State vs Farooq @ Chapta And Anr on 28 November, 2025
DLSH010019412020 Page 1 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR. FIR No. 03/2020 (Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ CHAPTA & ANR. FIR No. 03/2020 (Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act In the matter of :- State ...(through Ld. Addl. PP) Vs. (1) Farooq @ Chapta, S/o Sh. Siraj Kazi, R/o E-127/2, Vikram Enclave, Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad, U.P. (2) Sumit Vaid, S/o Sh. Bablu, R/o E-59/162, Kalandar Colony, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. ....accused persons (Sh. Pankaj Bhushan, Advocate for accused persons) Date of institution : 28.02.2020 Date when Judgment reserved : 10.11.2025 Date of Judgment : 28.11.2025 Final Decision : Acquitted DLSH010019412020 Page 2 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR. FIR No. 03/2020 (Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Brief facts of the present case as per charge-sheet are that in the midnight of 31.12.2019 and 01.01.2020 on the occasion of New Year HC Veerpal alongwith his staff members namely Ct. Gaurav, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Ajender were on picket duty at 70 Foota Road, New Seemapuri, Delhi and they were checking the vehicles coming from and going towards the side of DLF Mor. On 01.01.2020 at 1:30 am (i.e. in the midnight of 31.12.2019 & 01.01.2020) near Police Booth, 70 Foota Road, near Community Center, New Seemapuri, Delhi, they saw a white colour Hyundai i10 car bearing no. DL- 7CJ-5380 coming from the side of DLF Mor. The said car was driven by accused Sumit Vaid, while accused Farooq @ Chapta was sitting besides the driver seat having a white colour plastic katta in his hands and on seeing the police picket, accused Farooq @ Chapta threw the said plastic katta inside the car and both accused persons ran away on foot, leaving the said car. Both the accused persons were chased and apprehended by police. On checking the plastic katta, it was found containing 4.600 Kgs ganja (cannabis). The recovered contraband was seized, samples were taken and sealed. On the basis of which, the present FIR was registered U/s 20 NDPS Act. Accused persons were arrested. The samples were sent to FSL for examination and the FSL report dated 31.01.2020 has been received confirming the substance as ganja.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against DLSH010019412020 Page 3 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act accused Farooq @ Chapta U/s 20/29 NDPS Act and against accused Sumit Vaid U/s 29 NDPS Act.
CHARGE
3. Vide order on charge dated 01.10.2021, charge 20(ii)(B) NDPS was framed against both the accused persons (it might be Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act as there is no Section 20(ii)(B) NDPS Act) to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Vide order dated 17.05.2025, it was brought to the knowledge of the Court by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that accused Farooq @ Chapta has been convicted by this Court in case FIR No. 46/21, U/s 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act recently and accordingly, additional charge in view of Section 31 NDPS Act was framed against accused Farooq @ Chapta as he would be liable for enhanced punishment in the event of his conviction in the present case, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
4. In order to prove the aforesaid charges, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses.
5. PW-1 Inspector Yogesh Kumar deposed that on 18.01.2020, he was posted as SI in P.S. Seemapuri. On that day, the present case was assigned to him for further investigation. During the investigation of this case, he sent the exhibits to FSL, Rohini through Ct. Kailash. He had recorded the statement of DLSH010019412020 Page 4 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act Ct. Kailash and MHC(M) CP. He had collected the result of the FSL. He prepared the charge-sheet and filed in the Court.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is stated by him that he sent the exhibits to FSL on 21.01.2020.
6. PW-2 ASI (earlier HC) Veerpal deposed that in the intervening night of 31.12.2019 and 01.01.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as HC. He alongwith Ct. Gaurav, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Ajender were checking the vehicle by putting a barricade at 70 Foota Road, New Seelampuri (New Seemapuri). At about 1:40 am, they saw that one car bearing no. DL 7CJ 5380 Hundai i10 white colour was coming from the side of DLF Mor and going towards Nisharia Masjid, Seemapuri. On seeing them, the above-mentioned vehicle was stopped and from the left side of the front window one white colour katta was thrown in the bushes. Two persons de-boarded from the said car and tried to run away from the spot. They all alongwith above mentioned police officials chased the two persons at about 15-20 steps and apprehended them. They all checked the said plastic katta and it was containing ganja. After apprehension of both the persons they (police officials) took them (that two persons) to police picket. The name of the said persons were revealed Sumit and Farooq @ Chapta. This witness gave the information to the Duty Officer regarding the above-mentioned fact telephonically. SI Pramod reached the spot and both the accused persons were handed over to SI Pramod alongwith recovered case property. SI Pramod was having electronic weighing machine. SI Pramod inquired from them. SI Pramod recorded statement of this witness which is Ex. PW-2/A and SI Pramod DLSH010019412020 Page 5 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act prepared the rukka. IO SI Pramod weighed the said plastic katta with the help of electronic weighing machine and it was found containing 4 Kgs 600 gms ganja. This witness took two samples of 300-300 grams each from the said katta and kept in transparent plastic jar and sealed with the seal of PK. Both the samples were marked as S1 and S2. The remaining case property was put in the same plastic katta and sealed with the seal of PK. IO prepared the seizure memo of all the above-mentioned case property which is Ex. PW-2/B. The FSL Form was filled at the spot.
Thereafter, SI Pramod apprised accused Farooq @ Chapta for his legal right by saying that he can get himself searched as well as search the raiding team in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, however accused refused to get himself searched in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate as well as to search the raiding team in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. Thereafter, the said denial of accused Farooq @ Chapta was noted down by accused himself in his own handwriting on the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act and photocopy of the same is Mark 'X'. The denial of the accused is Mark 'Y'. Accused Farooq @ Chapta put his signature at Point-C. The notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was not served to accused Sumit.
IO SI Pramod handed over the seal to Ct. Ajender after use. IO prepared the handing over memo regarding the seal which is Ex. PW-2/C. The original rukka was handed over to Ct. Gaurav and he was instructed to hand over the case property to SHO, P.S. Seemapuri and other documents i.e. rukka to the Duty Officer for registration of the case. After registration of the case, Ct. Gaurav came back to the spot. Ct. Gaurav handed over the original rukka and DLSH010019412020 Page 6 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act copy of FIR to SI Pramod.
SI Pramod interrogated the accused persons and arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex. PW-2/D and Ex. PW-2/E. Personal search of both the accused persons were also got conducted by the IO SI Pramod vide memos Ex. PW-2/F and Ex. PW-2/G. IO recorded disclosure statements of both the accused persons vide memos Ex. PW-2/H and Ex. PW- 2/I. During the personal search of accused Farooq @ Chapta, notice U/s 50 NDPS Act and Rs. 1,520/- were recovered. From the personal search of accused Sumit, Rs. 125/- were recovered.
Thereafter, both the accused persons were taken to hospital for their medical examination by Ct. Gaurav and Ct. Sandeep. After medical examinations, both accused persons alongwith Ct. Gaurav and Ct. Sandeep reached the spot. Thereafter, they all went to the Police Station alongwith accused persons. Both accused persons were sent to lock-up of P.S. Seemapuri.
The case property and sample seal were deposited by Ct. Gaurav in the maalkhana of P.S. Seemapuri. The above-mentioned car was taken into possession and deposited in the maalkhana vide seizure memo Ex. PW-2/J. However, this witness does not know who had brought the said car from the spot.
This witness correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.
MHC(M) has produced one yellow colour parcel Mark S1 bearing the seal of FSL AY DELHI bearing case particulars. Seals were broken in the DLSH010019412020 Page 7 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act Court and the envelope was opened and found one transparent plastic jar which was taken out. On the said jar S1 and case particulars were written. The said jar was opened and the case property i.e. ganja was shown to the witness. This witness correctly identified the same and stated that it was sample which was taken out from the case property i.e. ganja recovered from the possession of accused. The same is Ex. P-1.
MHC(M) has produced one yellow colour parcel Mark S2 bearing the seal of FSL AY DELHI bearing case particulars. Seals were broken in the Court and the envelope was opened and found one transparent plastic jar which was taken out. On the said jar S2 and case particulars were written. The said jar was opened and the case property i.e. ganja was shown to the witness. This witness correctly identified the same and stated that it was sample which was taken out from the case property i.e. ganja recovered from the possession of accused. The same is Ex. P-2.
MHC(M) has produced one unsealed paper wrapper which was stapled from one side and other side of the same was opened bearing case particulars. The same was opened and one notice U/s 50 NDPS Act in the name of accused Farooq @ Chapta was taken out which is Ex. PW-2/K. One leather purse (red and blue colour) was also found in the said paper which contains 07 notes of Rs. 200/- denomination, 02 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination, 01 note of Rs. 50/- denomination, 02 notes of Rs. 10/- denomination, 02 coins of Rs. 10/- and one coin of Rs. 2/-.
MHC(M) has also produced one white colour katta bearing the seals of PK and HK bearing case particulars. Seals were broken in the Court.
DLSH010019412020 Page 8 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act Same was opened in the Court which was found containing ganja, the same was shown to the witness. This witness correctly identified the same and stated that it was the case property which was recovered from the possession of accused persons. The same is Ex. P-3.
This witness has identified the car from the photographs of the same taken at the time of releasing it on superdari as it has already come on record that the superdar has already disposed off the vehicle in question and cannot be produced in the Court. The photographs are Ex. PA.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he could not tell the DD entry of his departure from Police Station. It is stated by him that on that day they were on full day duty since it was occasion of new year celebration and they left the Police Station in the morning on their respective motorcycles. It is stated by him that the barricades were put near MCD Parking, however he could not tell respective positions of the police officials near the barricades. It is stated by him that they maintained a register regarding checking of the vehicles, but has not handed over the same to the IO. It is admitted by him that he has stated to the IO that on seeing them, the above- mentioned vehicle stopped and from the left side of the front window one white colour katta was thrown in the bushes, two persons de-boarded the car and tried to run away from the spot. It is again stated by him that in his deposition recorded on 23.11.2023 (i.e. examination-in-chief) he had stated that the katta was thrown in "gaadi " which was probably misheard as "jhaadi " (bushes). The witness could not tell which police official apprehended which of the accused. It is stated by him that he informed the Police Station about apprehension of the DLSH010019412020 Page 9 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act accused persons at about 1:40 am. It is stated by him that all the police officials were carrying smart phones. It is admitted by him that seizure and sampling proceedings were not photographed or videographed. It is admitted by him that no notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was given to accused Sumit Vaid. It is stated by him that he left the spot on his motorcycle. He could not tell how the other members left the spot.
7. PW-3 SI Somvir Singh deposed that in the midnight of 31.12.2019- 01.01.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as ASI and was working as Duty Officer from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 am. At about 4:30 am Ct. Gaurav brought the rukka sent by SI Pramod, contents of which were dictated by this witness to the Computer Operator and the FIR was registered vide FIR No. 03/2020 and computerized copy of FIR was obtained. This witness had handed over the copy of FIR and the original rukka to Ct. Gaurav to hand over to the IO Pramod. The copy of FIR is Ex. PW-3/A (OSR). This witness had made endorsement on the rukka and the same is Ex. PW-3/B. In this regard, the certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act is Ex. PW-3/C. Copy of GD No. 15A regarding information given by HC Virpal is Ex. PW-3/D.
8. PW-4 HC (earlier Ct.) Gaurav deposed that in the intervening night of 31.12.2019-01.01.2020, he was posted as Constable at P.S. Seemapuri. On that day he was in arrangement duty of new year eve. On 01.01.2020 at around 1:30 am, he alongwith HC Veerpal, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Ajender were on checking duty at 70 Foota Road, near Police Booth and near parking. At that DLSH010019412020 Page 10 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act time, they saw a Hyundai car of white colour bearing no. DL 7CJ 5380 which was coming from the DLF Mor and going towards picket Seemapuri. On seeing the police picket the driver of the car and the other rider tried to fled away from the spot by leaving the car there. The rider was having a white colour katta which he threw in the car. They were apprehended and controlled by the team after chasing 15-20 steps. They were inquired by HC Veerpal, on which the driver disclosed his name as Sumit Vaid (this witness has correctly identified the accused in the Court) and the other person disclosed his name Farooq @ Chapta (this witness has correctly identified the accused in the Court). HC Veerpal checked the said katta which was lying in the car and found ganja in there. HC Veerpal conveyed the said information to the concerned Police Station. After some time SI Pramod Kumar came at the spot alongwith weighing machine. The contraband/ ganja was weighed by SI Pramod which was found to be 4 kilos 600 grams with katta.
SI Pramod apprised both the accused persons that they are having contraband and about their legal right by saying that they can get themselves searched as well as search the raiding team in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. IO served the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act to accused Farooq @ Chapta. He also offered the search of raiding team including himself, however accused Farooq @ Chapta refused to get himself searched in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate as well as to search the raiding team in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. Thereafter, the said denial of accused Farooq @ Chapta was noted down by the accused himself in his own handwriting on the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act and DLSH010019412020 Page 11 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act carbon copy of the notice is already Mark 'X'. The denial of the accused is already Mark 'Y'. Accused put his signature at Point-C on the said notice and this witness also signed as witness on the refusal at Point B1.
IO SI Pramod took two samples of 300-300 grams each from the said katta and IO prepared two pullandas as sample by putting it into white cloth and sealed the same with the seal of PK. The same was marked as S1 and S2. The remaining contraband was also sealed with the seal of PK. IO prepared the seal handing over memo which is already Ex. PW-2/C. IO seized the pullandas vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-2/B. IO also filled the FSL Form.
IO prepared the rukka which is already Ex. PW-2/A. IO handed over the FSL Form, original tehrir, carbon copy of seizure memo and three pullandas to this witness. Thereafter, this witness went to Police Station and produced the FSL Form, carbon copy of seizure memo and three pullandas to SHO and tehrir to the Duty Officer for registration of FIR. After registration of present FIR, this witness took the same and reached the spot and handed over the copy of FIR and original tehrir to the IO SI Pramod.
IO conducted the personal search of accused Farooq @ Chapta and in his personal search one purse and notice U/s 50 were found. The same (memo) is already Ex. PW-2/F. Accused Farooq @ Chapta was arrested by the IO vide arrest memo already Ex. PW-2/D. The original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act has already been produced by the MHC(M) in the testimony of PW-2 and the same is already Ex. PW-2/K. MHC(M) has produced one white colour polythene containing two yellow envelopes/ parcels and one white plastic katta having seal of the Court.
DLSH010019412020 Page 12 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act The case property has already been produced in the testimony of PW-2 and the same are already Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3.
It is stated by him that MHC(M) has submitted that the vehicle in question was released on superdari on 06.12.2021 on the Court order dated 10.11.2020 as per entry at serial no. 03/2628 of register no.19. The copy of the said entry is Ex. A-1 (OSR).
This witness correctly identified the car after seeing the photographs of the vehicle Ex. PA.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he could not tell the DD Number whereby he left the Police Station. It is stated by him that he reached the spot at 11:00 pm, however voluntarily stated that he was present at picket at that time. It is stated by him that they reached the spot on motorcycle. It is stated by him that 40-50 vehicles were checked, prior to vehicle in question. He could not tell which police official apprehended which of the accused. It is stated by him that they finally left the spot at about 7:15 pm on motorcycle and in the vehicle of the IO. It is stated by him that the vehicle recovered at the spot was not brought to the Police Station in his presence.
9. PW-5 HC Amarpal deposed that on 01.01.2020, he was working as MHC(M). On that day at about 5:20-5:30 am SHO/ Inspector Harish Kumar called this witness in his office and handed over case property i.e. carbon copy of seizure memo, two exhibits in two separate plastic jars and one exhibit in white plastic katta, FSL Form and the same were sealed with the seal of PK and counter-sealed with the seal of HK. This witness made entry in the register DLSH010019412020 Page 13 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act no.19 at serial no.2628. Same is Ex. PW-5/1 (OSR). On the same day, SI Pramod handed over to this witness seizure memo of i10 car bearing no. DL 7CJ 5380 alongwith car and personal search memos of the accused persons namely Sumit Vaid and Farooq @ Chapta. This witness made entry in the register no.19 at serial no.2628.
It is stated by him that on 21.01.2020, this witness handed over the case property i.e. carbon copy of seizure memo, two exhibits in two separate plastic jars, FSL Form to Ct. Kailash for sending the same to FSL, Rohini vide RC No.17/21/20. This witness made entry in the register no.19 at serial no.2628. Copy of acknowledgment and copy of RC are Ex. PW-5/2 and Ex. PW-5/3.
It is stated by him that on 14.02.2020 result from FSL was received alongwith two yellow parcels and one brown envelope duly sealed with the seal of FSL through Ct. Vijay. This witness made entry at serial no.2628 in register no.19.
It is stated by him that so long as the exhibits were in his possession, they were not tampered with.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is admitted by him that Ex. PW-5/1 does not bear the counter-signature of SHO.
10. PW-6 Dr. Adesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL Rohini, Delhi deposed that he is a summoned witness. He is working at FSL Rohini since 1999. On 21.01.2020, he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) at FSL Rohini. On that day, two sealed parcels Mark S1 DLSH010019412020 Page 14 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act and Mark S2 sealed with the seals of HK and PK in FIR No. 03/2020 dated 01.01.2020, U/s 20 NDPS Act, P.S. Seemapuri alongwith specimen seal, forwarding letter, copy of FIR, copy of seizure memo etc. were received in their office from SHO, P.S. Seemapuri vide letter reference no. 318R/SHO/Seemapuri dated 21.01.2020. Same was marked to this witness for chemical examination. The seals were intact and were tallying with specimen seals.
On opening the parcel Mark S1, it was found containing damp greenish brown fruiting and flowering vegetative material, weight approx. 377.5 gms alongwith seals and leucoplast and it was mark as Ex. S1.
On opening the parcel Mark S1, it was found containing damp greenish brown fruiting and flowering vegetative material, weight approx. 378.7 gms alongwith seals and leucoplast and it was mark as Ex. S2.
Upon physical, microscopic chemical and TLC examination of the substance Ex. S1 and Ex. S2, the same were found to be ganja (cannabis). After the examination the remnants of the exhibits were kept in a parcel which was sealed with the seal of AY FSL DELHI.
This witness prepared the detailed report bearing no. SFSL DLH/669/CHEM/203/20 dated 31.01.2020 which is Ex. PW-6/A (running into two pages of same sheet) bearing his signatures at Points A and B. This witness submitted his report in a sealed envelope alongwith the sealed parcel for onward transmissions to the forwarding agency.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is denied by him that he has not conducted the procedure of SOP of the laboratory DLSH010019412020 Page 15 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act or that he gave the opinion in a casual manner.
11. PW-7 retired SI Narender Singh has brought original diary register of the year 2020 of ACP Office, Seemapuri, Delhi alongwith original reports U/s 57 NDPS Act prepared by SI Pramod Kumar in FIR No. 03/2020, P.S. Seemapuri. On 01.01.2020 he was posted as Reader to ACP Seemapuri.
As per record, the report U/s 57 NDPS Act prepared by SI Pramod Kumar dated 01.01.2020 was received in their office vide diary no. 31 on 02.01.2020. Report was seen and signed by the then ACP Sh. Mukesh Tyagi. Copy of report U/s 57 NDPS Act prepared by SI Pramod Kumar is Ex. PW-7/A (original taken on record). Photocopy of relevant entry no. 31 dated 02.01.2020 of diary register is Ex. PW-7/B (OSR) (one page).
12. PW-8 Ct. (now HC) Ajendra deposed that in the intervening night of 31.12.2019-01.01.2020, he was posted as Constable at P.S. Seemapuri. On that day, he was on arrangement duty on the occasion of new year eve. At around 1:30 am, while he alongwith HC Veerpal, Ct. Sandeep and Ct. Gaurav were on checking duty at 70 Foota Road, near Police Booth and near parking by putting barricades. They saw a Hyundai car of white colour bearing no. DL 7CJ 5380 which was coming from the DLF Mor and going towards Nisaria Masjid. On seeing them, the driver of the car stopped the car and got down from the car. The person sitting beside the driver was carrying a plastic katta, also got down from the car and both of them started running while the person sitting beside the driver seat has thrown the plastic katta inside the car on the back seat before DLSH010019412020 Page 16 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act running. They chased them for about 15-20 steps and apprehended both of them. HC Veerpal made inquiries from both the persons, upon which the driver disclosed his name as Sumit Vaid (correctly identified by this witness in the Court) and the other person disclosed his name as Farooq @ Chapta (correctly identified by this witness in the Court).
It is stated by him that HC Veerpal checked the said katta which was lying on the seat of the car and it was found containing ganja like material. HC Veerpal conveyed the said information to P.S. Seemapuri. After some time SI Pramod Kumar came at the spot alongwith weighing machine. SI Pramod Kumar recorded statement of HC Veerpal. He requested 4-5 public persons to join the proceedings, but none agreed and left without disclosing their names and addresses while seeking their personal excuses. No notice could be served upon them due to paucity of time. Upon sustained interrogation, both the accused persons admitted that the contents of plastic katta are ganja. SI Pramod Kumar informed the Duty Officer and SHO regarding the same. SI Pramod apprised accused Farooq @ Chapta about his legal right by saying that he can get himself searched in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate at the spot or that he can be taken to a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for this purpose. Accused was also apprised that if he want, he can take search of the police team. Accused refused for the same. SI Pramod Kumar prepared notice U/s 50 NDPS Act in duplicate in the name of accused Farooq @ Chapta and served upon the original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act to him which is already Ex. PW-2/K. Accused wrote his refusal on the carbon copy of notice U/s 50 NDPS Act. The carbon copy of notice U/s 50 NDPS Act is Ex. PW-8/A bearing carbon DLSH010019412020 Page 17 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act impression of signature of this witness at Point-D, denial of accused encircled at Point-Y, signatures of accused below his denial at Point-C and signatures of this witness below his denial at Point-D1.
It is stated by him that SI Pramod Kumar weighed the plastic katta containing the contraband on the weighing machine which was found to be 4.600 grams. SI Pramod Kumar took out two samples of 300 grams each from the plastic katta, kept the same in two separate plastic containers which were marked as S1 and S2 and were sealed with the seal of PK. SI Pramod Kumar also tied the opening of plastic katta with cloth piece and sealed the same with the seal of PK. Seal was handed over to this witness after use. SI Pramod prepared seizure memo already Ex. PW-2/B. He also prepared seal handing over memo. SI Pramod Kumar also filled the FSL Form. He seized the car of the accused persons vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-2/J. Thereafter, SI Pramod Kumar prepared the rukka and handed over the FSL Form, original tehrir, carbon copy of seizure memo and three pullandas to Ct. Gaurav with directions to hand over the rukka to the Duty Officer and remaining things to SHO. After some time, Ct. Gaurav came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Pramod Kumar. SI Pramod Kumar prepared site plan at the instance of HC Veerpal. SI Pramod Kumar arrested accused persons namely Farooq @ Chapta and Sumit Vaid vide arrest memos already Ex. PW- 2/D and Ex. PW-2/E. SI Pramod Kumar conducted the personal search of accused Farooq @ Chapta and in his personal search one purse containing some cash and original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was found. Accused Sumit Vaid was also personally searched vide personal search memo already Ex. PW-2/G DLSH010019412020 Page 18 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act It was observed that the case properties have already been exhibited during the testimony of earlier witnesses. The Ld. Defense Counsel did not oppose the same. Hence, the production of the case property was dispensed with.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he could not tell which of the police official standing at which point near the barricades. He could not tell which of the police official apprehended which of the accused while they were running. It is stated by him that HC Veerpal informed the Police Station through mobile phone at about 2:40 am. He failed to remember by which mode he reached the Police Station and who took the car to the Police Station.
13. PW-9 Ct. Kailash deposed that on 21.01.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as Constable. On the directions of IO, he obtained two sealed parcels, FSL Form from MHC(M) vide RC No. 17/21/20. He deposited the parcels at FSL, Rohini, Delhi; came back to Police Station and deposited the acknowledgment of FSL with MHC(M). Till the time the case property was in his possession, it was not tampered with. The copy of RC is already Ex. PW- 5/3. Acknowledgment of FSL is already Ex. PW-5/2.
14. PW-10 Ct. (now HC) Sandeep deposed that in the intervening night of 31.12.2019-01.01.2020, he was posted as Constable at P.S. Seemapuri. He deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-8 Ct. (now HC) Ajendra.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is DLSH010019412020 Page 19 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act stated by him that they left for duty vide DD No. 34B at about 5:30 pm. He could not remember the position of the police team at the barricades. He could not remember which one of the police official apprehended which of the accused. He could not remember who brought the car of the accused to the Police Station.
15. PW-11 SI Pramod Kumar deposed that in the intervening night of 31.12.2019-01.01.2020, he was posted as SI at P.S. Seemapuri. On that day, he was present in the Police Station as there was arrangement of new year eve. At around 2:45 am, Duty Officer handed over copy of DD No. 15A to this witness. Thereafter, he carried electronic weighing machine and reached the spot near Police Booth, 70 Foota Road, near Community Center, New Seemapuri, Delhi in his car where HC Veerpal, Ct. Sandeep, Ct. Gaurav and Ct. Ajender met this witness alongwith accused persons namely Farooq @ Chapta and Sumit Vaid and their vehicle Hyundai white i10 car bearing no. DL 7CJ 5380. He correctly identified accused Farooq @ Chapta in the Court. Identity of accused Sumit Vaid is not disputed by Ld. Defense Counsel. HC Veer Pal handed over custody of both the accused persons to this witness. HC Veer Pal also produced one white colour katta. On opening the katta, it was found containing vegetative material which appeared to be ganja from its physical appearance and smell. This witness recorded statement of HC Veerpal.
He deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-8 Ct. (now HC) Ajendra on other aspects.
It is stated by him that accused Farooq @ Chapta signed on the DLSH010019412020 Page 20 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act carbon copy of notice as receipt of original notice.
It is stated by him that he prepared rukka which is Ex. PW-11/A and handed over the FSL Form, original tehrir, carbon copy of seizure memo and three sealed parcels to Ct. Gaurav with directions to hand over the rukka to the duty officer and remaining things to SHO. After some time, Ct. Gaurav came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to this witness. This witness prepared site plan at the instance of HC Veerpal which is Ex. PW-11/B. He arrested accused Farooq @ Chapta and Sumit Vaid vide arrest memos already Ex. PW-2/D and Ex. PW-2/E. He conducted personal search of accused Farooq @ Chapta vide personal search memo already Ex. PW-2/F and in his personal search one purse containing some cash and original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was found. Accused Sumit Vaid was also personally searched vide personal search memo already Ex. PW-2/G. This witness recorded disclosure statements of accused persons already Ex. PW-2/H and Ex. PW-2/I. Accused persons were brought back to Police Station. This witness deposited the car and personal search articles of accused persons at the maalkhana. He prepared a report U/s 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of contraband and arrest of accused persons and submitted the same for onward transmission to senior officers which is already Ex. PW-7/A. He handed over the case file to MHC(M) since further investigation of the case was marked to SI Shashikant by the orders of SHO.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he could not tell if at the time of inspection of the i10 car by him window panes of the car were open or not. It is stated by him that he prepared the site plan Ex.
DLSH010019412020 Page 21 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act PW-11/B, however he had not shown the location of the said i10 car in the same. It is admitted by him that he had not served notice U/s 50 NDPS Act to accused Sumit Vaid. He failed to recall as to who brought the i10 car of the accused persons to the Police Station.
16. PW-12 SI (now Inspector) Shashi Kant deposed that on 01.01.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as SI. On that day, further investigation of the case was marked to him by SHO. He obtained custody of Farooq @ Chapta and Sumit Vaid from SI Pramod Kumar at the Police Station. He produced both the accused persons before the Court. Accused Sumit was sent to J/C and this witness obtained one day PC remand of accused Farooq @ Chapta. During PC remand of accused Farooq @ Chapta, this witness tried to search for the source of contraband, but in vain. On 07.01.2020, this witness was transferred from the Police Station and he submitted the case file with MHC(R). This witness correctly identified the accused persons in the Court.
17. PW-13 retired ACP Mukesh Tyagi deposed that on 02.01.2020 he was posted as ACP, Sub-Division Seemapuri. On that day, one report U/s 57 NDPS Act prepared by SI Pramod was placed before him by his Reader. He has seen and signed the same. The report is already Ex. PW-7/A which bears his signature at Point-B.
18. No other witness was examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, P.E. was closed vide order dated 28.07.2025.
DLSH010019412020 Page 22 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
19. Statement of accused Farooq @ Chapta was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded his innocence and denied entire prosecution's case. It is stated by him that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He was having new year eve party at about 11:15 pm at C-674, New Seemapuri, Delhi with his friends namely Mateen and Junaid. A quarrel took place with co- accused Sumit Vaid and some unknown persons. Thereafter, police came there and they (police officials) lifted them from there and confined in Police Post, 70 Foota Road for about 1½ hours. Thereafter, police officials obtained their signatures on some blank papers to falsely implicate them in the present case and nothing was recovered from their possession.
20. Statement of accused Sumit Vaid was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded his innocence and denied entire prosecution's case. It is stated by him that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He was having new year eve party at about 11:15 pm at C-674, New Seemapuri, Delhi with his friends namely Mateen and Junaid. His quarrel took place with some unknown persons. Thereafter, police came there and they (police officials) lifted them from there and confined in Police Post, 70 Foota Road for about 1½ hours. Thereafter, police officials obtained their signatures on some blank papers and the police officials also took Hyundai i10 car bearing no. DL 7CJ 5380 belongs to his father, from his house to falsely implicate them in the present case and nothing was recovered from their possession.
DLSH010019412020 Page 23 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
21. Accused persons chose to lead defense evidence. They wish to lead evidence of their friends namely Matin and Junaid to show their innocence.
DEFENSE EVIDENCE
22. In order to substantiate his defense, accused persons have examined themselves and their friends namely Matin and Junaid as defense witnesses.
23. DW-1 accused Farooq @ Chapta (U/s 315 Cr.P.C.) deposed that on 31.12.2019 at about 11:15 pm, he alongwith co-accused Sumit, Junaid and Matin. They all gathered at place i.e. Handa Chowk, near C-674, near Seemapuri, Delhi for celebration of new year eve party. A quarrel took place between Sumit and some unknown person and during that quarrel police of P.S. Seemapuri reached the spot and they lifted him and accused Sumit, took them to Police Post and kept them there for about one and half hours. Thereafter, police officials took their signatures on some blank papers and falsely implicated them (i.e. accused persons) in the present case. It is stated by him that nothing was recovered from their possession.
During his cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, it is stated by him that he is involved in three cases of NDPS Act including the present case, in one he has been acquitted and in another he has been convicted. It is stated by him that the Hyundai car bearing no. DL-7CJ-5380 was brought by co-accused Sumit Vaid. It is stated by him that he alongwith his friends was dancing outside the car by playing music and for that reason the quarrel took DLSH010019412020 Page 24 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act place. It is stated by him that when police came all the persons fled away. It is voluntarily stated by him that while the police was trying to apprehend him, accused Sumit Vaid trying to intervene and that is why both of them were taking to the Police Station.
24. DW-2 accused Sumit Vaid (U/s 315 Cr.P.C.) deposed on the same lines as deposed by DW-1 accused Farooq @ Chapta.
This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
25. DW-3 Sh. Matin deposed that on 31.12.2019 at about 11:15 pm, he alongwith co-accused Farooq Chapta, Junaid and Sumit. They all gathered at place i.e. Handa Chowk, near C-674, near Seemapuri, Delhi for celebration of new year eve party. A quarrel took place between Sumit and some unknown person and during that quarrel police of P.S. Seemapuri reached the spot and they lifted accused persons namely Sumit Vaid and Farooq @ Chapta and took them away. In this regard, he has filed an affidavit dated 15.01.2020 before this Court which is Ex. DW-3/1.
This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
26. DW-4 Sh. Junaid deposed that on 31.12.2019 at about 11:15 pm, he alongwith co-accused Farooq Chapta, Matin and Sumit. They all gathered at place i.e. Handa Chowk, near C-674, near Seemapuri, Delhi for celebration of DLSH010019412020 Page 25 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act new year eve party. A quarrel took place between Sumit and some unknown person and during that quarrel police of P.S. Seemapuri reached the spot and they lifted accused persons namely Sumit Vaid and Farooq @ Chapta and took them away. In this regard, he has filed an affidavit dated 15.01.2020 before this Court which is Ex. DW-4/1.
This witness was duly cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
27. No other witness was examined by accused persons in his defense. Thereafter, D.E. was closed vide order dated 23.09.2025.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
28. This Court has heard the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the record carefully.
29. It is contended by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the procedures as per NDPS Act have been complied with in the present matter at the time of recovery and thereafter. It is contended that 4.600 Kgs ganja (cannabis) kept in a plastic katta was recovered. On seeing the police picket, the said plastic katta was threw by accused Farooq @ Chapta inside the white colour Hyundai i10 car bearing no. DL-7CJ-5380 which was driven by accused Sumit Vaid and accused Farooq @ Chapta was sitting besides the driver having a white colour plastic katta in his hands. Both the accused persons ran away, leaving the said car, but they were chased and apprehended by the police. There is nothing on record to suggest that police officials had any enmity with the accused persons. Thus, the DLSH010019412020 Page 26 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act offence U/s 20(ii)(B) NDPS Act is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons. It is further argued that accused Farooq @ Chapta would be liable for enhanced punishment in the event of his conviction in the present case in view of Section 31 NDPS Act as he was already convicted in case FIR No. 46/2021, U/s 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act, P.S. Shahdara i.e. offences punishable under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
30. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the accused persons that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no DD or duty roaster has been exhibited on record showing that the police party was assigned the duty of vehicle checking on that day. It is contended that no notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was served on accused Sumit Vaid which shows that he has been falsely implicated that is why entire procedure of NDPS Act was not complied with in his respect. It is contended that there is confusion whether the katta containing contraband was thrown outside the car or inside the car. It is pointed out that the car has not been shown in the site plan and none of the police official could tell who brought the same to the Police Station, which suggests that the entire story of the prosecution is manipulated. It is contended that since inception affidavits were filed by the witnesses qua defense taken by the accused persons which shows that their defense is not an afterthought. It is pointed out that no CCTV footage qua arrest of the accused persons or their movement towards the spot of their arrest has been filed on record. There is no videography or photography of the alleged recovery, sampling and seizure proceedings. Section 52A NDPS Act has not been complied with in the present DLSH010019412020 Page 27 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act matter.
Legal Requirement to prove the Charges :-
31. Accused persons have been charged for offence U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act as 4.600 Kgs ganja was recovered from them. Section 20 NDPS Act reads as under :
"20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,--
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-
State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,--
(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and
(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),-- (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees."
(emphasis supplied)
32. As far as contravention of the provision is concerned, Section 8 of NDPS Act completely prohibits the possession of narcotic drug or psychotropic substances, except for medical or scientific purposes, that too in the manner as prescribed by the Act. This section reads as under :
DLSH010019412020 Page 28 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.FIR No. 03/2020
(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act "No person shall-
(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation:
Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of Ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter-State and export inter-State of Ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the export of poppy straw for decorative purposes."
(emphasis supplied)
33. As per the Section, possession of all narcotic drugs is prohibited by Section 8.
34. The term "narcotic drugs" is defined in Section 2(xiv) as under:-
(xiv) "narcotic drug" means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs;
35. As per the definition, 'narcotic drug' includes cannabis (hemp). Therefore, the possession of cannabis (hemp) is prohibited by Section 8 of NDPS Act.
DLSH010019412020 Page 29 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
36. The term "cannabis (hemp)" is defined in Section 2(iii) of NDPS Act, as under :
"(iii) "cannabis (hemp)" means--
(a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish;
(b) Ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; and
(c) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any rink prepared therefrom"
(emphasis supplied)
37. "Cannabis (hemp)" besides other things also means Ganja i.e. the flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plant. In the present case, the prosecution would be required to prove that the recovered substance was Ganja.
38. The prosecution would also be required to prove that the quantity of the contraband recovered was of small, intermediate or commercial quantity. The terms "small quantity" and "commercial quantity" are defined in Section 2(xxiiia) & 2 (viia), as under :-
"(xxiiia) "small quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;"
(viia) "commercial quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
DLSH010019412020 Page 30 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
39. The notification specifying small quantity & commercial quantity vide SO1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 mentions the small quantity and commercial quantity for various Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, including 'Ganja'. As per entry at serial no.55 in the said notification, the small quantity for Ganja is 1000 gms and commercial quantity is 20 Kgs.
40. In order to prove the charge U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following facts :
(1) That the accused persons were in possession of contraband. (2) That the possession was in contravention of the provision of the Act or any rule on order made or condition of license granted thereunder.
(3) That the contraband was Ganja.
(4) That the quantity of the contraband was intermediate (i.e. more than 1000 gms, but less than 20 Kgs), for Section 20(b)(ii)(B).
41. Besides proving the aforesaid facts, the prosecution is also required to prove that the investigating agency carried out the investigation in compliance with the provisions of NDPS Act. The investigating agency must adhere strictly to the legal procedure established during the search, ensuring transparency and fairness in the investigation. By adhering to this procedure, the agency demonstrates its commitment to protecting personal liberty, a fundamental right of citizens. This ensures that the search was conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of the judicial system. The credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution is enhanced when the investigating DLSH010019412020 Page 31 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act agency follows the statute scrupulously as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case titled as Koyappakalathil Ahamed Koya vs. A.S. Menon and Ors. (03.07.2002 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1838/2002 :-
"In view of the principle that Ceaser's wife must be above-board, the investigating agency has to be consistent with the procedure laid down by law while conducting the search and it has to be above-board in following the procedure by investigating into the crime and if that is done it would assure the judicial mind that by giving importance to the personal liberty a fundamental right of (he citizen, the search was conducted. If that is done, then there would be creditworthiness to such evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution. The investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and failure to do so must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting action against the concerned official so that laxity on the part of the investigating authority is curbed."
Thus, the failure to adhere to the procedure raises a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the manner in which the investigation is carried out, which obviously favors the accused.
42. It is settled legal proposition that the procedure provided under Chapter V of the NDPS Act has to be scrupulously followed for the Court to raise such presumption. For raising the presumption U/s 54 of the Act it must be first established that recovery was made from the accused and the procedure provided under the NDPS Act followed thoroughly without fail. It is further settled law that for attracting the provision of Section 54 of NDPS Act, it is essential for the prosecution to establish the element of possession of contraband by the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the burden to shift to the accused to prove his innocence. This burden on the prosecution is a heavy burden. To decide whether the burden has been discharged or not by the DLSH010019412020 Page 32 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act prosecution, it is relevant to peruse the record and evidence and consider the submissions made by the parties.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
43. The Court will now proceed to examine and discuss the various aspects of the case and the relevant pieces of evidence under distinct headings as follows:-
Discussion on the point of compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act
44. Section 42 NDPS Act is as under :-
42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.--
(l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para- military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,-
(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which DLSH010019412020 Page 33 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and
(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:
Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:
Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief. (2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."
(emphasis supplied)
45. Section 42 of the NDPS Act provides that the concerned police officer, who received the secret information is required to record the secret information in writing and send the information so reduced into writing within 72 hours of its receipt to immediate official superior.
46. The present case is a case of chance recovery as no secret information was received before the apprehension of the accused persons. Accordingly, the recording of secret information in terms of Section 42(1) NDPS Act and forwarding the same to immediate official superior within 72 hours was not required in the present case. Thus, the question of compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act does not arise in the facts of this case.
47.(a) Being a case of chance recovery, the most important document in DLSH010019412020 Page 34 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act the present case was the DD entry whereby the police party was on duty at the spot of incident.
(b) None of the police official apart from PW-10 HC Sandeep could tell the DD entry whereby the police party was on duty at the time and place of recovery. PW-10 HC Sandeep has stated in his cross-examination that they were on duty vide DD No. 34B. A copy of DD No. 34B is also on record, filed alongwith charge-sheet, however the same has not been exhibited by any witness. Since the document has not been exhibited by any witness, the same cannot be read in evidence.
(c) Even the perusal of DD No. 34B shows that it was prepared at 5:30, but it is not clear whether it was 'am or pm'. It is to be noted that PW-2 has stated in his cross-examination that they left the Police Station in the morning on their respective motorcycles, while it is stated by PW-10 HC Sandeep that they left for duty vide DD No. 34B at about 5:30 pm. Thus, the two members of the raiding party who had together left the Police Station for duty are telling different times qua their departure from Police Station.
(d) The DD No. 34B is kind of complete duty roaster of the officials of P.S. Seemapuri on 31.12.2019. A number of police teams have been mentioned in the same by name of the police officials and the place where they are supposed to perform their duties. As per this DD SI Shashikant, ASI Sukhpal, HC Veerpal, Ct. Ajendra and Ct. Sandeep were assigned duty at 70 Foota Road.
DLSH010019412020 Page 35 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act Thus, as per this DD SI Shashikant and ASI Sukhpal were also members of the team who were assigned duty at 70 Foota Road, however there is no mention whatsoever in the charge-sheet and testimonies of the raiding team members qua absence of SI Shashikant and ASI Sukhpal from the spot of incident where they were supposed to be present.
Further, PW-4 HC Gaurav was not part of the police team assigned duty at 70 Foota Road, however he is part of the police team in the present matter. There is nothing on record to suggest how he reached the spot and became member of the police party present there for duty.
(e) The doubt on the story of the prosecution also arises from the fact that the rukka which was the first document whereby the information of the offence was given, is not containing the DD entry number whereby the police party had left the Police Station.
(f) As per police party they were checking the vehicles on the road during which they by chance caught the accused persons who were coming in a Hyundai i10 car. However, no specific duty was assigned to the police party to check the vehicles. Though, it is claimed that 40-50 vehicles were checked prior to apprehending the accused persons. However, no written document qua any such checking wherein particulars or registration number of any such vehicle was recorded, could be produced before the Court.
(g) As per PW-2 HC Veerpal and PW-4 Ct. Gaurav, the accused persons were spotted at about 1:40 am, they were immediately apprehended and DLSH010019412020 Page 36 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act Police Station was informed. Infact, in his cross-examination PW-2 HC Veerpal stated that he informed Police Station qua apprehension of accused persons at 1:40 am. While, infact the information was received at the Police Station at 2:44 am vide DD No. 15A (Ex. PW-3/D). It is not clear why the Police Station was not informed for almost an hour after apprehending the accused persons around 1:40 am.
The above-stated discrepancies could not be explained in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. These discrepancies go to the root of the matter as presence of the police party at the spot at the time of chance recovery has become doubtful.
Thus, it can be safely concluded that the very foundation of the present case that the police party was present at the spot at the time of alleged recovery is doubtful.
Discussion on the point of compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act
48. Section 50 NDPS Act is as under :-
"Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.
(1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.
(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.
(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.DLSH010019412020 Page 37 of 48 SC No. 75/2020
STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."
(emphasis supplied)
49. As per prosecution case, after apprehension of the accused persons, contraband was seized from a plastic katta. Thus, nothing recovered in the personal bodily search of the accused persons as contraband was allegedly recovered from the katta carried in the Hyundai i10 car by accused Farooq @ Chapta. As regards recovery made from a katta carried by suspect in his vehicle is concerned, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act do not apply to recoveries other than those made from the person of the accused.
50. In Saikou Jabbi Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0991/2003 , heroine was found in a bag being carried by suspect. It was held that Section 50 was not applicable as it applies to search of a person.
51. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh, 2019 INSC 1145 made following observations in this regard :-
"16. As regards applicability of the requirements Under Section 50 of the Act are concerned, it is well settled that the mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to "personal search" and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises.DLSH010019412020 Page 38 of 48 SC No. 75/2020
STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.FIR No. 03/2020
(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
17. The conclusion (3) as recorded by the Constitution Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh clearly states that the conviction may not be based "only" on the basis of possession of an illicit Article recovered from personal search in violation of the requirements Under Section 50 of the Act but if there be other evidence on record, such material can certainly be looked into.
In the instant case, the personal search of the Accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as "personal search" was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. Any such idea would be directly in the teeth of conclusion (3) as aforesaid.
18. The decision of this Court in Dilip's case, however, has not adverted to the distinction as discussed hereinabove and proceeded to confer advantage upon the Accused even in respect of recovery from the vehicle, on the ground that the requirements of Section 50 relating to personal search were not complied with . In our view, the decision of this Court in said judgment in Dilip's case is not correct and is opposed to the law laid down by this Court in Baldev Singh and other judgments.
19. Since in the present matter, seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs. were found from the vehicle which was being driven by Accused-Baljinder Singh with the other Accused accompanying him, their presence and possession of the contraband material stood completely established."
52. In view of the law laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 and State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh, 2019 INSC 1145 as well as other judgments cited above, it is held that the compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act is not mandatory in the present case, as the recovery was effected from a plastic katta carried by accused on his scooty and not from the person of the accused.
DLSH010019412020 Page 39 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
53. It is deposed by PW-4 HC Gaurav that after seizure he took the case property and handed over the same to SHO concerned. It is deposed by PW- 5 HC Amarpal that he was posted as MHC(M) in P.S. Seemapuri on that day and SHO Harish Kumar called him to his office and handed over carbon copy of seizure memo and two exhibits in two separate plastic jars and one exhibit in white plastic katta; FSL Form. All the articles were sealed with the seals of 'PK' and 'HK'. Thereafter, HC Amar Pal (PW-5) had made entry at Serial No. 2628 in register no. 19 qua same which is Ex. PW-5/1. Though in the charge-sheet SHO Inspector Harish Kumar was not made a witness, however during trial on request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State summons were issued to SHO Inspector Harish Kumar to examine him as a witness, however the same received back with the report that he has expired. From the above-stated facts, it came to light that SHO Inspector Harish Kumar has died prior to deposing in the present matter. In his cross-examination, it is admitted by PW-5 that entry at Serial No. 2628 in register no. 19 does not bear counter-signature of SHO Inspector Harish Kumar. Thus, there is no witness before this Court to prove that SHO Inspector Harish Kumar has put his seal and thereafter deposited the same in the maalkhana as his counter-signatures are not there in register no. 19. In these circumstances, a doubt arises qua due compliance of Section 55 NDPS Act.
54. Section 57 of the NDPS Act which requires that :-
"Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure, under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior."DLSH010019412020 Page 40 of 48 SC No. 75/2020
STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
55. In the present matter, after recovery of contraband in the midnight of 31.12.2019-01.01.2020, on 01.01.2020 itself PW-11 SI Pramod Kumar had sent a report U/s 57 NDPS Act to the ACP concerned. The report was sent vide dispatch no. 10 dated 01.01.2020 and received in the office of ACP on 02.01.2020 vide diary no. 31. The original report is on record as Ex. PW-7/A. Thus, the report sent by SI Pramod Kumar has been duly proved on record.
Discussion on the point of compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act
56. As a matter of fact, in the present case the sampling proceedings were conducted, but not before the Ld. Magistrate U/s 52A of the NDPS Act, rather by PW-11 SI Pramod Kumar at the spot.
57. It is contended by Ld. Defense Counsel that the entire recovery proceedings are vitiated due to non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment titled as Bharat Amble Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No.250/25 of Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the law on compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act as under :-
"50. We summarize our final conclusion as under: -
(I) Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of inventories, taking of photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2) of the NDPS Act.DLSH010019412020 Page 41 of 48 SC No. 75/2020
STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act (II) Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet we are of the opinion that the process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure.
(III) Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is actually produced before the court or not.
(IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein.
(V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.
(VI) If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
(VII) Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
(VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record.
(IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the DLSH010019412020 Page 42 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities.
(X) Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt."
(emphasis supplied)
58. Though, in the present case there is no compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act, as the sampling proceedings were done by the IO, however, in view of the judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, decided on 20.12.2024 and Bharat Aambale (supra), the said fact by itself does not vitiate the trial. As held by the Hon'ble Court in absence of compliance U/s 52A NDPS Act the onus is upon the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt.
59. Moreover, as per FSL report Ex. PW-6/A, two parcels Exhibit 'S- 1' and Exhibit 'S-2' were received at FSL and were examined by Dr. Adesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini. Both the parcels were found bearing seals of 'HK' and 'PK'. Thus, as per the FSL result Ex. PW-6/A, the two samples of the case property which were sealed at the spot with the seal of 'PK' and were counter-sealed by SHO Inspector Harish Kumar with his seal of 'HK', were received in the same condition with all the seals intact in the FSL on 21.01.2020.
DLSH010019412020 Page 43 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
60. It may be noted that the case property in original as primary evidence was produced during the testimony of PW-2 and opened in the Court. The samples S1 and S2 were found to be bearing the seal of FSL AY DELHI. The same were exhibited as P-1 and P-2. The observation of the Court at the time of opening of the said exhibits is relevant to establish that the seal of FSL AY DELHI was intact on the exhibits.
The remaining case property was also produced during the testimony of PW-2 and opened in the Court. The same was found containing the seals of 'PK' and 'HK'. The same was exhibited as P-3. The observation of the Court at the time of opening of the said exhibits is relevant to establish that the seal of 'PK' and 'HK' remained intact throughout the proceedings till the time the remaining contraband was opened in the Court.
61. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the case property, which was sealed at the spot with the seal of 'PK' by PW-11 SI Pramod Kumar and was further sealed in the Police Station by SHO Inspector Harish Kumar with the seal of 'HK' were found intact by Dr. Adesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi on the samples S1 and S2, which he analyzed in terms of report Ex. PW-6/A and the remaining pullanda was found intact bearing the seals of 'PK' and 'HK', when the same was produced before the Court and exhibited as Ex. P-1, Ex. P-2 & Ex. P-3 on 23.11.2023.
62. Accordingly, the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that non-compliance of section 52A NDPS Act does not affect its case against the DLSH010019412020 Page 44 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act accused persons, as the case property seized at the spot was produced as primary evidence before the Court with the seals intact and while the said case property remained in police custody, it was not tampered with.
63. Accordingly, it is held that the integrity of the case property was maintained from the time the case property was seized at the spot till the time the samples were analyzed at FSL and produced before the Court.
Discussion on the point of recovery of contraband
64. In the present matter, all the members of police party have stated that while on picket duty they saw the car of the accused persons which the accused persons have stopped few meters from the barricades and from possession of accused Farooq @ Chapta a plastic katta was recovered containing 4.600 Kgs ganja.
65. However, the recovery of the contraband as stated above is shrouded with doubts due to following reasons :-
(a) It has already been observed in para no. 47 that the presence of police party at the spot at the time of recovery is doubtful.
(b) Though in the charge-sheet it was mentioned that the contraband was thrown inside the car, but in the charge framed on 01.10.2021 it was mentioned that the plastic katta was thrown outside the car. No application was ever moved for correction of the charge.DLSH010019412020 Page 45 of 48 SC No. 75/2020
STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act PW-2 ASI Veerpal who is leader of the police party has stated in his examination-in-chief that on seeing the police party accused persons stopped their vehicle and from the left side of the front window one white colour katta was thrown in the bushes. Even in his cross-examination, he admitted that he had stated to the IO the same facts that katta was thrown in the bushes. However, he again said in his cross-examination itself that in his examination- in-chief he was misheard as he was saying katta was thrown in 'gaadi ' which was misheard/ written as 'jhaadi ' (bushes). The explanation given by PW-2 appears to be an afterthought as in his examination-in-chief he had categorically stated "from the left side of the front window one white colour katta was thrown in the bushes". If it is assumed that he wanted to say 'gaadi ' (car) instead of 'jhaadi ' (bushes), then his complete sentence would become absurd as then the sentence would be changed to, from the left side of the front window one white colour katta was thrown in the car. Which means that accused Farooq @ Chapta came out of the car with katta and thereafter thrown that katta inside the car. Thus, there is apparent discrepancy in the testimony of the most prominent witness in the present case.
(c) None of the member of police party could tell where they were standing at the barricades. None of them could tell which one of the police official arrested which accused, while the accused persons were running away after leaving their car stationed. Thus, the testimony of the police party lack specification and appears to be a vague and general.
DLSH010019412020 Page 46 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
(d) The biggest articles seized in the present case is Hyundai i10 car, however none of the member of police party or PW-11 SI Pramod Kumar could tell who brought the car in question from the spot to the Police Station. This collective memory loss on the part of all the prosecution witnesses suggests that they are not telling the true facts of the case that is why they all have forgotten this important aspect.
It is also interesting to note that the car in question has not been shown in the site plan which further raises doubts qua story of prosecution.
(e) It is stated by the members of police party that they had also searched 40-50 other vehicles at the spot. It is further stated by them that a register was maintained regarding checking of other vehicles, however the said register has never been produced before the Court. This fact also raises doubts qua story of the prosecution.
(f) There is no videography or photography of the search, arrest or recovery proceedings was clicked/ made. No CCTV footage qua presence of the accused persons at the time and place of arrest or their movement towards the spot of arrest has been filed on record.
(g) The place of recovery was a public road. Admittedly, a few public persons were present there at that time, despite that police did not join and did not even sincerely try to join any public witness. Though, it is a fact that generally public persons do not became part of police proceedings or DLSH010019412020 Page 47 of 48 SC No. 75/2020 STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act investigation, more so in a case of Narcotic Drugs. This inaction on the part of the police raises doubt qua time and place of recovery as stated by the police.
Non-joining of public witness during the proceedings, raises serious doubt as regards the recovery made from the accused persons. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon judgment titled as Bantu Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Bail Appl. No.2287/22 dtd.08.07.2024 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
Thus, in the present matter, it can be safely held that sincere and sufficient efforts were not made by the police party to join the independent witness in the investigation. Further, the testimonies of the police officials suffer from material contradiction as stated above, which raises serious doubt qua their version of recovery as well as the time when they left the Police Station.
Conclusion
66. In the present matter, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of police party at the time of recovery on the spot of recovery; the recovery of contraband from inside the car or outside the car is also doubtful and the presence of car at the spot is also doubtful. All these contradictions raises serious doubts in the mind of the Court as regards the story of the prosecution. In the opinion of the Court, it cannot be said beyond doubt that there is no material contradiction in the story of the prosecution. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the benefit of doubt would go in favour of the accused persons.
DLSH010019412020 Page 48 of 48 SC No. 75/2020STATE Vs. FAROOQ @ CHAPTA & ANR.
FIR No. 03/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(ii)(B)/31 NDPS Act
67. Accordingly, accused persons namely Farooq @ Chapta and Sumit Vaid are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act. Accused persons are directed to comply Section 481 BNSS (earlier Section 437-A Cr.P.C.), as per rules.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
GAJENDER signed by
Announced in the open Court SINGH GAJENDER
NAGAR SINGH
on 28th November, 2025 NAGAR
(Gajender Singh Nagar)
Special Judge (NDPS Act)
District Shahdara
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi