Delhi District Court
State vs Ram Pyare on 14 October, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)/ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
(NORTHEAST) : KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 09/2009
FIR No. 41/2009
PS Crime Branch
Under Section 21 NDPS Act
Case ID 02402R0139672009
State Versus Ram Pyare
S/o Late Nageshwar Prasad,
R/o Vikas Nagar, Loni,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
Date of Institution 05.05.2009
Date of hearing Final Arguments 28.09.2013
Date of Judgment 14.10.2013
J U D G M E N T
1. In the present case, the accused is facing trial for the offence punishable U/s 21 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
2. It has been stated in the chargesheet that on 21.03.2009, at 12.15 p.m. a secret information was received by Inspector Vivek Pathak at FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 1/21 Narcotics Branch, that the accused Ram Pyare, resident of Loni, Vikas Nagar Kacchi Colony, who used to supply Heroin in Bulk, in Delhi, will come near Shastri Park Red Light between 1.30 p.m. to 2.00 p.m. to deliver heavy consignment of Heroin to someone and if a raid is conducted, both can be apprehended. Thereafter, Inspector Vivek Pathak produced the secret informer before Inspector M.L. Sharma at about 12.30 p.m. Inspector M.L. Sharma, also made enquiries from the secret informer and after his satisfaction, he telephonically informed ACP (N&CP) Sh. Sube Ram Yadav, who directed him to conduct an immediate raid. Thereafter, Inspector Vivek Pathak recorded DD No. 17, at about 12.45 p.m. and constituted a raiding team. The police team reached the spot, near Shastri Park red light at about 1.30 p.m. and at about 1.45 p.m., the accused Ram Pyare came from the side of Khajoori Khas towards Shastri Park Red Light. The secret informer identified the accused and left the spot. Thereafter, the accused came to the spot and waited for someone and after waiting for 5 minutes when the accused started to return back, he was apprehended by the raiding team, at about 1.50 p.m. Thereafter, he was given the introduction of the raiding team & was told about the secret information. He was also told about his legal rights and was FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 2/21 told that his personal search was to be conducted and if he so desires, his personal search can be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He was also offered the search of the official vehicle and the members of the police party, prior to his search. Thereafter, a notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was served to the accused. The accused refused to get his personal search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and thereafter, his refusal was also recorded by Inspector Vivek Pathak. Thereafter, his personal search was conducted, in which, a transparent polythene packet, containing brown colour powder, was recovered from the right side pocket of his wearing pant. On checking the same with the field testing kit, it was found as 'Heroin'. On weighing with the electronic weighing machine, it's weight came to 265 gram. Thereafter, SI Vivek Pathak prepared two samples of 5 grams each, from the recovered Heroin and prepared the FSL form and seized all the three pulandas and got prepared a rukka through HC Mukesh and sent the same to the police station for registration of FIR. Thereafter, case FIR No. 41/2009 was registered at PSCrime Branch U/s 21 NDPS Act and investigation of the case was marked to ASI Paramjeet Singh. Thereafter, ASI Paramjeet Singh went to the spot and arrested the FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 3/21 accused and conducted the remaining investigations, at the spot.
3. During investigations, the IO prepared the site plan, interrogated the accused, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. He produced the accused before Inspector M.L. Sharma and articles of his personal search were deposited at the Malkhana. During investigations, the sample was also sent to FSL, Rohini for chemical analysis and after completion of investigations, the chargesheet was filed in the Court and the accused was sent up for trial.
4. Vide order dated 18.05.2009, the charge for the offence punishable U/s 21 (b) of the NDPS Act, was framed against the accused, by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses, during the trial, as under:
(i) PW1, W/HC Rojaria, the Duty Officer, who has proved the registration of case FIR No. 41/2009, U/s 21 NDPS Act, at PSCrime Branch, on 21.03.2009.
(ii) PW2, ASI Paramjeet Singh, the Investigating Officer of the present case.FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 4/21
(iii) PW3, HC Om Prakash, who deposited the sample pulanda at FSL Rohini, for chemical examination.
(iv) PW4, HC Dharmender, who was a member of the raiding party, headed by SI Vivek Pathak, which recovered the Heroin from the possession of the accused.
(v) PW5, HC Chand Ram, the MHC(M), at PSCrime
Branch.
(vi) PW6, HC Om Prakash, Reader to ACP, Narcotics Cell,
Shakarpur, Delhi, who has proved the receipt of information under Section 43 of the NDPS Act and the reports U/s 57 of the NDPS Act at the office of ACP (N&CP).
(vii) PW7, HC Mukesh Singh, another member of the raiding party, headed by SI Vivek Pathak, which recovered the contraband from the possession of the accused.
(viii) PW8, Inspector Akshay Kumar, who was SHO, Crime Branch, Nehru Place, Delhi, on 21.03.2009.
(ix) PW9, Inspector M.L. Sharma (Retired), who was Incharge, at Narcotics Cell, Shakarpur, Delhi, on 21.03.2009.
(x) PW10, Inspector Vivek Pathak, the complainant, who received the secret information & conducted the raid, and FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 5/21 recovered Heroin from the possession of the accused.
(xi) PW11, HC Jag Narayan, who proved the various DD entries, recorded at PS Crime Branch on 21.03.2009.
6. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused was recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C., on 30.08.2013, wherein, he has denied all the incriminating evidence against him and has deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The accused has not led any evidence in his defence, despite opportunity.
7. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Ld. Additional PP for the State and Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate, for the accused.
8. The Ld. Addl. PP for the state has argued that all the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have been duly followed by the police officials and the prosecution witnesses have duly proved the recovery of 265 grams of 'Heroin' from the possession of the accused and they have also proved that the sample of Heroin was not tempered, till its' examination at FSL, Rohini, & therefore, the accused should be convicted for the offence punishable U/s 21 (b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The Ld. APP has relied upon the judgments, titled as (i) Rattan @ Ratan Singh Vs. State (Govt. FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 6/21 of NCT of Delhi), reported as, 2013 II AD (Delhi) 288, (ii) Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab, reported as, AIR 2011 SC 964, & (iii) Bilal Ahmed Vs State, reported as, MANU/DE/0148/2011, in support of his contentions.
9. On the other hand, the Ld. defence counsel, Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate, has argued that the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have not been complied by the police officials properly, as no public witness or any Gazetted Officer has joined the investigations, despite of the fact that the alleged recovery was made at a very busy public place.
10. He has also argued that the sample of Heroin was deposited at FSL, Rohini, after a delay of about 10 days, in violation of the guidelines of NCB. He has also argued that the complainant Inspector Vivek Pathak (PW10) received back his eal, form HC Mukesh Singh, PW7, after about one week and therefore, the possibility of tampering of the sample cannot be ruled out. He has further argued that Inspector Vivek Pathak has allegedly prepared the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act and recorded the refusal of the accused himself, but, he got the rukka prepared through HC Mukesh, which casts a doubt at the time, & place of preparation of the rukka. He has also argued that the copy FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 7/21 of the seizure memo, which was deposited by the SHO, at the Malkhana, with the case property, has not been produced before the Court, during the trial. He has prayed that the material discrepancies, as disclosed above, makes the entire prosecution case doubtful & therefore, the accused be acquitted of the offence punishable U/s 21
(b) of the NDPS Act.
11. I have carefully gone through the case file & I have given my considered thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Addl. PP for the State and the Ld. defence counsel. I have also carefully gone through the judgments cited by the Ld. APP and the Ld. defence counsel.
12. The main contention of the Ld. defence counsel has remained that the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act have not been followed properly. Perusal of the record shows that PW10, Inspector Vivek Pathak has deposed that on 21.03.2009, he was posted as SI, at PS Narcotics Cell, Shakarpur and at about 12.15 p.m., a secret informer came to Narcotics Cell, Shakarpur and informed him about the accused and possession of Heroin by him. Thereafter, he produced the secret informer before Inspector M.L. Sharma, who also made enquiries from the secret informer and passed the information to the FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 8/21 ACP, N&CP, Sh. Sube Ram Yadav, telephonically. Thereafter, he recorded DD No. 17 at 12.45 p.m. DD No. 17 has been proved on record, as Ex.PW6/A. It was also duly forwarded to the senior officers. PW6 HC Om Prakash, Reader to ACP, has proved the receipt of DD No. 17 on 21.03.2009 itself, vide entry No. 178. The photocopy of diary register containing entry No. 178 is also proved on record as Ex.PW6/A. All these proceedings & documents have established that the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act have been duly complied by the police officials. Provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are not applicable to the present case, as the raid was conducted at a public place.
13. PW10 Inspector Vivek Pathak has further deposed that, as per the directions of Inspector M.L. Sharma, he constituted the raiding party, consisting of himself, HC Mukesh and Ct. Dharmender and after taking his IO bag, field testing kit and electronic weighing machine, they left for the spot alongwith the secret informer. He has further deposed that several public persons were asked to join the investigations, on the way to the spot, but all those persons refused & left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. He has further deposed that the raiding team members took their positions FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 9/21 near the spot and at about 1.45 p.m. the accused was seen coming from the side of Khajoori Khas and was identified by the secret informer . Thereafter, the accused came to the spot and waited there for someone and when he started to return back, he was apprehended by him. Thereafter, the introduction of the members of the raiding party was given to him and he was apprised about the secret information and was also apprised about his legal rights and it was also told to him that, if he wants, his personal search can be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused was also offered the search of the official vehicle and the members of the raiding party, prior to his personal search. But, the accused refused all the offers. Thereafter, a notice U/s 50 of The N.D.P.S. Act was served upon the accused and his refusal was also recorded. Inspector Vivek Pathak (PW10) has proved the original notice U/s 50 of The N.D.P.S. Act, as Ex.PW4/B & the refusal of the accused as Ex.PW4/C. PW4 HC Dharmender and PW7 HC Mukesh, who remained with Inspector Vivek Pathak, as a member of the raiding party, have also deposed in a similar manner and have corroborated the deposition of PW10, Inspector Vivek Pathak, on all the material points. Testimonies of these three witnesses clearly indicate that the provisions of Section 50 FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 10/21 NDPS Act are also complied by the police officials, properly.
14. PW1 W/HC Rojaria, the Duty Officer, has also deposed that on 21.03.2009, HC Dharmender handed over a rukka to her at about 5.45 p.m., and she made endorsement on the rukka, as Ex.PW1/A and on the basis of the rukka, she made Kayami DD No. 9 and got registered case FIR in the present case. Computerised copy of the FIR has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/B. The investigation was marked to ASI Paramjeet Singh.
15. PW10 Inspector Vivek Pathak has further deposed that at about 7.00 p.m., ASI Paramjeet Singh (PW2) reached the spot alongwith Ct. Sanjeev, in the same official vehicle driven by ASI Rajbir Singh and he handed over the custody of the accused and the documents to him. He has further stated that ASI Paramjeet Singh, prepared the site plan, at his instance and recorded the statement of HC Mukesh. He has further deposed that ASI Paramjeet arrested the accused and conducted his personal search. He has further deposed that the carbon copy of the notice U/s 50 of N.D.P.S. Act was recovered in the personal search of the accused, alongwith other articles. Carbon copy of the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act has been proved on record as Ex.PW2/D. FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 11/21
16. PW10 Inspector Vivek Pathak has further deposed that on 22.03.2009, he prepared the report U/s 57 of N.D.P.S. Act and the same was forwarded to the senior officers, by Inspector M.L. Sharma. PW6 HC Om Prakash, the Reader to the ACP, Narcotics Cell, has corroborated the fact of receiving the report U/s 57 of N.D.P.S. Act. He has deposed that on 22.03.2009, two Special Reports U/s 57 N.D.P.S. Act, Ex.PW6/B and Ex.PW6/C were received in the office of the ACP, Narcotics Cell vide dairy No. 181 & 182. The copy of the diary register has been proved on record as Ex.PW6/D. All the circumstances & the evidence on record indicates that the provisions of Section 57 NDPS Act are also duly followed.
17. The other contention of the Ld. defence counsel has remained that there is an unexplained delay of about 10 days in depositing the samples at FSL, Rohini and the same violates the guidelines of the NCB and is fatal to the present prosecution case.
18. In view of the documentary evidence on record, I do not find any merit, even in this argument. The prosecution witnesses have deposed in a consistent and trustworthy manner, regarding the recovery of the contraband from the possession of the accused, its seizure by Inspector Vivek Pathak, preparation of the samples and FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 12/21 deposition of the case property & the samples at the Malkhana and sending of the samples to the FSL, Rohini, for chemical analysis and thereafter, receiving of the remnants of the samples alongwith the FSL Report, at the Malkhana.
19. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case titled as Bilal Ahmed Vs. State, reported as 2011(1)JCC 27, as under: "10. I also do not find any merit in the contention that the form FSL was not deposited in the malkhana or that the same was not sent to the CFSL. PW3 Inspector Jeevan Singh has stated that the form FSL was filled and the pulanda was taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex. PW3/A. He took the pulanda and the FSL form in his possession along with the seizure memo and deposited the pulanda and FSL form along with a copy of the seizure memo in the malkhana on 2nd May, 1999 at around 10 p.m. The testimony of PW3 Inspector Jeevan Singh also finds support from the testimony of PW 9 Bhagmal Singh who also states that the samples and pulanda were deposited with him duly sealed with the seal of R.K. and J.S. He made the entry in the register No.19, Ex. PW9/A. The contention that the form FSL was not sent to CFSL Chandigarh, is unfounded. The CFSL report Exhibit PX states that "Seals were intact, and tallied with specimen seals impressions". The seals on the samples cannot be tallied except with the specimen seals on the FSL form. Thus, even without specifically stating that form FSL has been received with the samples, this endorsement clarifies that the form FSL FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 13/21 was received. Delay in sending parcel to the CFSL is not fatal especially when as per the CFSL report, the seals are intact and tallied with the specimen seals. In State of Rajasthan v. Daul @ Daulat Giri MANU/SC/0881/2009 : 2009 (14) SCC 387 it was held:
1. The factual scenario goes to show that Jaswant Singh (PW.1), the I.O., seized the articles on 15/6/1995. The search memo is Ex. P.4 and the specimen impression of the seal Ex. P.5. PW.1 deposited the seized articles and sample with Bhanwarlal (PW.8) who was the Malkhana InCharge in the Malkhana register in Ex. P.15A. PW.8 handed the material to Surendera Singh (PW.5) for depositing the sample in FSL. PW.5 reached the Superintendent of Police office and gave the samples to Jamnalal at 10.00 a.m. and received back the samples from Jamnalal at 5.00 p.m. and also obtained forwarding letter which is Ex. P.12 and is dated 20/6/95. PW.5 submitted the samples to FSL and obtained acknowledgment receipt it is Ex. P.13. The role of Jamnalal is very limited; that is receiving sample at 10.00 a.m. and handing samples back at 5.00 p.m. It is not understandable as to how the nonexamination of Jamnalal in any way affected the veracity of the prosecution version. The High Court came to an attempt and unsustainable conclusion that because Jamnalal was not examined "possibility of the sample having been tampered with could not be ruled out".
The conclusion is unsustainable in view of the FSL report which clearly stated that the seals were intact and matched with the specimen seals.
FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 14/21
11. In Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab MANU/SC/7956/2008 : 2008 (8) SCC 557 it was held:
16. So far as the question of delay in sending the samples of opium to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) is concerned, the same in our opinion has no consequence for the fact that the recovery of the said sample from the possession of the Appellant stands proved and established by cogent and reliable evidence led in the trial. PW 5 has categorically stated and asserted about the recovery of opium from the possession of the Appellant, which fact is also corroborated by a higher officer, namely, SS Mann, DSP who was also examined at length during the trial.
The said recovery was effected in the presence of the said SS Mann, DSP, as senior police officer, who also put his seal on the said parcels of opium.
17. The then Station House Officer, Inspector Baldev Singh, who was examined as PW 1, was posted at Police Station Ajnala on the date of occurrence. He received the said samples of opium along with case material, being produced before him by PW 5. It has come on evidence that Inspector Baldev Singh kept the entire case property with him till it was deposited in the office of Chemical Examiner, Amritsar on 30.9.1997 through ASI Surinder Singh, (PW3). It has also come on evidence that till the date the parcels of sample were received by the Chemical Examiner, the seal put on the said parcels was intact. That itself proves and establishes that there was no tampering with the aforesaid seal in the sample at any stage and the sample received by the analyst for chemical FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 15/21 examination contained the same opium which was recovered from the possession of the Appellant. In that view of the matter, delay of about 40 days in sending the samples did not and could not have caused any prejudice to the Appellant. The aforesaid contention, therefore, also stands rejected."
20. In the present case also, Inspector Vivek Pathak, PW10, has deposed that after the recovery of Heroin, it was tested with the field testing kit, on weighing with the electronic weighing machine, it's weight was found as 265 grams. Thereafter, he took out two samples of 5 grams each from the recovered Heroin and prepared the samples. Thereafter he filled up the FSL form and affixed his seal of "VP" on the FSL form and all the three cloth pulandas. This witness has further stated that the seal was handed over to HC Mukesh, after use and all the parcels were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/D. He has further deposed that he got prepared the rukka through HC Mukesh and handed over the same to Ct. Dharmender, alongwith three sealed pulandas, FSL Form and the carbon copy of the seizure memo, with the directions to hand over the rukka to the Duty Officer and the remaining articles to the SHO. PW4 HC Dharmender has also deposed that he handed over the rukka to the Duty Officer and remaining articles to the SHO, Inspector Akshay Kumar. He has FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 16/21 further deposed that PW8 Inspector Akshay Kumar, had affixed his seal of "AK" on all the pulandas & the FSL Form and also put the FIR number on all these articles and the documents and called the MHC(M) HC Chan Ram to his office and handed over the aforesaid articles to him. This testimony of PW4 HC Dharemender finds corroboration from the testimony of PW5 HC Chand Ram, MHC(M), who has also deposed that on 21.03.2009, Inspector Akshay Kumar, SHO, called him to his office and handed over three sealed pulandas & form FSL, all duly sealed with the seal of "VP" and "AK", to him and he made entry No. 175 in register No. 19, in this regard. He has also proved the entry of register no. 19 as Ex.PW5/A.
21. Furthermore, the sample of Heroin, which was sent to FSL, Rohini, for Chemical analysis was duly chemically analysed by Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Assistant Director (Chemistry), Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi. She has submitted her report, bearing No. FSL. 2009/C1226 dated 24.04.2009, which is Ex.PW2/H. This report is admissible in evidence, by virtue of section 293 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. As per the report, Ex.PW2/H, the sample 'MarkA' was found to contain, 2.9% Diacetylmorphine. It was also reported that the seals of the parcel were intact and tallied with the FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 17/21 specimen seals, as per the FSL Form.
22. PW8, Inspector Akshay Kumar, SHO, PSCrime Branch has also deposed that on 21.03.2009, HC Dharmender came to his office at about 5.47 p.m. and produced three sealed pulandas Mark A, B & C, alongwith form FSL, all duly sealed with the seal of 'VP', alongwith a carbon copy of the seizure memo and he affixed his own seal of 'AK' and mentioned the FIR number on the parcels and the documents and also put his signatures and called the MHC(M), HC Chand Ram with register no. 19, to his office and deposited all the documents and parcels with him and the MHC(M) made entry, in register no. 19, in this regard. He has further stated that he also lodged DD No. 10 in this regard. He has proved the DD no. 10 as Ex.PW8/A.
23. Perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, shows that the witnesses have corroborated the testimonies of each other, on all the material points. Perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses indicates that the various provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, have been duly complied by the Investigating Officers. All these witnesses have been crossexamined by the Ld. defence counsel at length, but, no material discrepancy has come on record, to discard their testimonies or to make the prosecution case doubtful. FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 18/21
24. Another objection is raised by the Ld. defence counsel that no public witness or a Gazetted Officer has joined the investigations, despite of the fact that the raiding team remained at the spot for several hours & the raid was conducted at a very congested & busy place, like Shastri Park red light. I do not find any merit even in this argument. It has been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in case titled as 'Rattan @ Ratan Singh Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)', reported as 2013 II AD (Delhi) 288, as under:
"SI Balbir Singh (IO) deposed about three attempts being made by him to join independent witnesses. First at Chirag Delhi bus stand, then at Kalkaji Mandir and ultimately after apprehension of the Appellants and before making their searches. PW4 and PW6 also deposed about the attempts made by the IO to join independent witnesses. Thus, it cannot be said that no attempt was made by the IO to join any independent witness before conducting the search of the Appellants. I am in agreement with the learned APP for the State that public witnesses are reluctant to come forward to join police investigation in order to avoid their repeated visits to the Police Station and Court. In Ajmer Singh v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0111/2010 : 2010 (2) SCR 785, the Supreme Court held that it is not always possible to find independent witnesses at all the places at all the times. The obligation to join public witness is not absolute. If the police officer is unable to join any public witnesses after genuine efforts, the recovery made by the police officer would not be FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 19/21 vitiated. The Supreme Court held that in such circumstances, the Court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence to determine whether the evidence of a police officer is believable so as to place implicit reliance thereon. A learned Single Judge of this Court in Union of India v. Victor Nnamdi Okpo, Criminal Appeal No. 617/2004 decided on 16.09.2010 in a case under the NDPS Act echoed the sentiments that public is averse to become a witness because of the attitude of the court in summoning the witnesses time and again and sending them back unexamined on the ground that either the counsel of the accused was not available or the accused was not there ."
25. Even in the present case, PW10 Inspector Vivek Pathak, PW4 HC Dharmender and PW7 HC Mukesh Singh have all deposed that requests were made to several pubic persons, to join the investigations, but they all refused and left the spot, without disclosing their names and addresses.
26. The last contention of the Ld. defence counsel has remained that there are several contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, from the documents on record. But, in the concerned opinion of this Court, the minor discrepancies in the depositions of the witnesses, as pointed out by the Ld. defence counsel, are not fatal to the prosecution case, as some minor discrepancies are bound to creep in the testimonies of the witnesses when the witnesses depose before the Court in a natural manner and after a lapse of long time. FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 20/21
27. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case against the accused, for the offence punishable U/s 21 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act. Therefore, the accused is hereby held guilty for the offence punishable U/s 21 (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act & is convicted accordingly.
It is ordered accordingly.
Announced in the open court Brijesh Kumar Garg on this 14th day of October, 2013. Special Judge NDPS (NorthEast) ASJ:KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR41/2009 PSCrime Branch ASJ/Special Judge NDPS (N/E) Page 21/21