Delhi District Court
Sc No.57A/09 Dri vs . Gurjant Singh & Anr. on 30 July, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K.KUHAR
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Delhi Zonal Unit, New Delhi.
Through Sh Devendra Singh, Intelligence Officer.
VERSUS
1. Gurjant Singh
S/o Sardar Ajit Singh
R/o Village Shamshpur
P.O. Bahadurgarh
District Patiala, Punjab
2. Kailash Chand
S/o Sh Soran Singh
R/o T. Hut, Block-A
Sahibabad Dairy
Delhi-110042
Both presently lodged in Central Jail
Tihar, New Delhi
SC No.: 57A/09
U/S : 21 & 29 NDPS Act
Computer ID No: 02403R0434240009
Date of institution : 23.12.2009
Date of reserving judgment : 08.07.2015
Date of pronouncement : 30.07.2015
Decision : Accused Kailash Chand
acquitted u/s 21 (c) NDPS
Act & Sec.29 r/w Sec.21(c)
NDPS Act.
Accused Gurjant Singh
Convicted u/s21 (c) NDPS Act
& Acquitted u/s. Sec.29 r/w
Sec.21 (c) NDPS Act.
SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
2
JUDGMENT
Brief Facts of the case 1.1 On 26.06.2009, the complainant Devendra Singh, Intelligent officer, DRI, Delhi Zonal Unit, PW1 got an intelligence that a Silver colour Scorpio bearing registration no. PB 06E 1276 carrying narcotic drugs, would be coming from Punjab to Delhi at Yadav Dharamkanta, Alipur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi, at around 7/7.30 pm on 27.06.09 and the narcotic drug would be transferred to another vehicle carrying consignment on cargo that would be subsequently exported from the country. This information (EXPW1/A) was reduced in to writing by the complainant Devendra Singh, Intelligence officer and was put up before Sh. S.K. Nath, Senior Intelligence Officer, PW5 who put up the same before Sh. D. A. Nistane Deputy Director, PW3 for necessary directions. PW3 gave direction to form a team and to take necessary action. The complainant obtained Directorate of Revenue Intelligence's seal from Sh. Sanjay Kumar, TA, DRI, DZU (PW2). Two public witnesses were called in the office of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence on 27.06.09 at around 4 pm, who were briefed about the specific intelligence. The witnesses were requested to join the DRI team for interception and other proceedings. The DRI officers along with the Panch witnesses, thereafter, left the DRI office at 5:00 pm by their government vehicle for Yadav Dharam kanta, Alipur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi and reached there at about 06:30 pm. At around 07:50 pm, they noticed the Scorpio car bearing registration no. PB 06E 1276, approaching the Yadav Dharamkanta, which stopped near a green colour tempo bearing registration no. DL 1L-L3393 (Mahindra Champion) parked near Yadav Dharamkanta, Alipur, G.T. Karnal Road, Delhi. 1.2 Two persons came out of the said Scorpio car and went to the person sitting at the driver's seat of the Tempo and talked SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
3him. Both these persons then returned to the Scorpio car and said something to the third occupant of the said Scorpio. Thereafter, around 8:00 pm, it was noticed that the third occupant of the Scorpio car opened the back door of the said car and took one carton out of the said Scorpio and placed it into the said Tempo. The officers of DRI immediately rushed and intercepted the person shifting the cartons from the Scorpio car to the Tempo and also the person sitting in the said Tempo.
1.3 On seeing staff of the DRI Officers arriving on the spot, two persons, who initially alighted from the Scorpio car, managed to escape under the cover of darkness. The DRI officers then introduced themselves to both the intercepted persons and asked about their identities. The persons, who was transferring the cartons from the the Scorpio car introduced himself as Gurjant Singh, son of Sardar Ajit Singh (A1). The occupant of Tempo introduced himself as Kailash Chand, son of Sh. Soran Singh (A2). 1.4 Both accused were told by the DRI officials that they had a specific intelligence that narcotic drugs were concealed in the carton, brought by Gurjant Singh in the Scorpio car and they had to conduct search of the car as well as Tempo and both the accused in person. Both the accused A1 and A2 were served with notices u/s. 50 of NDPS Act, PW1/Z15 and PW1/Z16 respectively informing that their search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but they did not opt to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 1.5 The accused Gurjant Singh (A1), thereafter, on preliminary enquiry disclosed that the narcotic drugs were concealed in one of the four cartons of MDH spices, which were brought by him and two persons namely Balkar Singh Atwal @ Balwinder @ Bengali and Satender (Driver of the Scorpio car) from Punjab to Delhi, concealing in the cartons of MDH spices. However, SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
4he could not identify in which of the four cartons, the narcotic drug was kept. The accused Kailash Chand (A2) on preliminary inquiry stated that he had loaded 70 cartons of MDH Spices from Khari Baoli, Delhi, but he could not produce any document for the same. He also told that the documents of consignment were with the person, who was accompanying him from Khari Baoli, and who escaped from the spot at the time of the interception. Thereafter, finding that the place of interception was not safe for the search, the officers of DRI took both the accused along with their vehicles and the cartons lying in their respective vehicles, to the office complex situated at Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, for carrying out searches. The accused Gurjant Singh (A1) was asked about the keys of the Scorpio car, to which he replied that the keys were with the driver, who had fled away. Therefore, to take Scorpio car to the DRI office, the officers of DRI took the service of M/s. Rakesh Santosh Crane Service, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar for towing of the said Scorpio. Both the vehicles along with the accused were brought to the office complex of DRI.
1.6 Thereafter, the officers of DRI, in the presence of accused persons and Panch witnesses, searched the Scorpio car, wherein three cartons of MDH Spices were found lying. These cartons were given identification mark as Scorpio-1, Scorpio-2 and Scorpio-3. The cartons, which were found in the tempo, were also off loaded and they were given the identification marks as T-1 to T-71. All the cartons were examined one by one.
1.7 The carton Scorpio-1 was found with marking details as "MDH SPICES Hallmark of Quality, Purity & Authentic Taste", "KITCHEN KING LOT NO. 78, JUN.09 MRP Rs. 190,000/- PER UNIT (Incl. of all taxes) WHOLE SALE PACKAGE Qty. : 500g X 24 pkts. & "MDH Mfd. By: Mahashian DI Hatti Ltd. Regd. Office & Works: MDH SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
5House, 9/44, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015 Works: 216, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon (HR). Branches: GHAZIABAD, KHANPUR, AMRITSAR, SOJAT and also having marked with marker 276 & SK'. On opening, the said carton was found to contain 24 packets of cardboard boxes having details "MDH, Kitchen King, MIX SPICES POWDER, NET WT. 500g. and Lot No. DL78 Month of Packing JUNE
09. Thereafter, the DRI officers opened each 24 packets one by one and each packet was found to contain spices powder, and nothing objectionable was noticed. The Carton marked Scorpio-2, was found with markings details as "MDH SPICES Hallmark of Quality, Purity & Authentic Taste" "CHUNKY CHAT MASALA LOT NO. 107, JUNE, 2009 MRP NO. 165.00 PER UNIT (Incl. of all taxes) whole sale package Qty.: 500g X 24 pkts." & MDH Mfd. By: Mahashian Di Hatti Ltd. Regd. Office & works: MDH House 9/44, Kirti nagar, New Delhi-110015 Works: 216, Udyog vihar, Phase-1, Gurgaon (HR), Branches: GHAZIABAD, KANPUR, AMRITSAR, SOJAT and also having marked with marker 276 and SK". The DRI officers opened the said packet and found 24 packets of cardboard boxes which were having marking as "MDH Chunky Chat Masala HYGENIC, FLAVOURRUL & TASTY NET WT. 500 g. lot No. DL 107 month of packing JUNE 09". Thereafter, the DRI officers opened each of the 24 packets of cardboard boxes one by one and on examination, 10 out of the 24 packets were found to contain spices powder. Each of the other 14 packets was found to contain creamish powder packed in white transparent polythene and kept in each packet. The said white polythene packets were cut open from a side one by one and from each of the 14 packets a pinch of the creamish powder was taken out, which gave a strong pungent smell. The DRI officers then in the presence of witnesses and in the presence of Shri Gurjant Singh (A1) and Shri Kailash Chand (A2) tested the said powder with the UN Field Drug Test Kit, which gave a positive SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
6result for the presence of "heroin". Thereafter, the DRI officers took out the said 14 transparent polythene packets containing the creamish powder one by one and the same were marked as 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M', and 'N' with a marker. The corresponding cardboard packets from which the said polythene packets were recovered were also marked as 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', 'E', 'F', 'G', 'H', 'I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'M', and 'N' with a marker respectively. Thereafter, the offices of DRI weighed the 14 polythene packets one by one on the electronic weighing scale installed in the office of of DRI, and found the gross weight of the packets marked as 'A' as 0.508 Kgs. 'B' as 0.412 Kgs., 'C' as 0.708 Kgs., 'D' as 0.704 Kgs., 'E' as 0.536 Kgs., 'F' as 0.686 Kgs., 'G' as 0.716 Kgs., 'H' as 0.485 Kgs., 'I' as 0.616 Kgs., 'J' as 0.590 Kgs., 'K' as 0.512 Kgs., 'L' as 0.480 Kgs., 'M' as 0.523 Kgs., and 'N' as 0.501 Kgs. Thus, the total gross weight of the 14 small polythene packets marked as 'A' to 'N' was found to be 7.977 Kgs. For ascertaining the net weight, each polythene packet was emptied on paper and after weighment re-packed in the same packing from which it was taken out. The net weight of the creamish powder, so found were 0.498 Kgs. in packet marked 'A', 0.405 Kgs. in packet marked 'B', 0.695 Kgs. in packet marked 'C', 0.695 Kgs. in packet marked 'D', 0.528 Kgs. in packet marked 'E', 0677 Kgs. in packet marked 'F', 0.709 Kgs. in packet marked 'G', 0.472 Kgs. in packet marked 'H', 0.607, Kgs. in packet marked 'I', 0.580 kgs. packet marked 'J', 0.503 Kgs. in packet marked 'K', 0.471 Kgs. in packet marked 'L', 0.510 Kgs. in packet marked 'M' and 0.492 Kgs. in packet marked 'N' respectively. Thus, the total net weight of the creamish powder recovered from the 14 packets marked 'A' to 'N' was found to be 7.842 Kgs.
1.8 Similarly, carton No. Scorpio-3 was also examined and found with similar markings as mentioned on the carton No. SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
7Scorpio-2 above. The DRI officers opened the said packet and found 24 packets of cardboard boxes which were having marking as "MDH Chunky Chat masala HYGENIC, FLAVOURFUL & TASTY NET WT. 500g., Lot No. DL 107 Month of Packing JUNE 09". On examination of the said 24 packets, each was found to contain spices powder and nothing objectionable was found. Thereafter, the officers conducted the examination of the 71 cartons offloaded from the Tempo.
1.9 All the packets contained in these cartons were also examined one by one and found to contain the spices powder as per description mentioned on each packet. Nothing contraband/ objectionable was noticed in the said packets. The said 7.842 Kgs. of creamish powder which had tested positive for heroin, a narcotic drug, which was recovered from the 14 (fourteen) packets of the carton No. 'Scorpio-2' as detailed above, was seized. 1.10 The 14 cardboard packets, from which the seized heroin were recovered, and which were marked as 'A' to 'N' were also seized under the provisions of the NDPS Act. The other 10 card board packets of CHUNKY CHAT MASALA containing spices powder, which were recovered from the carton No. Scorpio-2 and the carton No. Scorpio-2 were also seized under the provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985. Thereafter, from the seized heroin, the officers of DRI drew two representative samples of 05 grams each from each of the 14 polythene packets marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M and N. The samples were kept in transparent self locking polythene pouches and then the same were marked as 'A-1', 'A-2', 'B-1', 'B-2', 'C-1', 'C-2', 'D-1', 'D-2', 'E-1', 'E-2', 'F-1', 'F-2', 'G-1', 'G-2', 'H-1', 'H-2', 'I-1', 'I-2', 'J-1', 'J-2', 'K-1', 'K-2', 'L-1', 'L-2', 'M-1', 'M-2', 'N-1', and 'N-2' respectively. Thereafter, these self locking polythene pouches containing the samples were further kept individually in brown paper envelopes and were also SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
8marked in the same manner as above. The brown envelopes were then sealed with Directorate of Revenue Intelligence seal over a paper slip bearing the dated signatures of the signatories to the panchnama. The test memos, (EXPW1/E to EXPW1/R) for the testing of these samples were prepared on the spot (at DRI office). The seized heroin which was repacked in the polythene packets from which they were recovered, were then stapled and then kept individually in yellow colour paper envelopes, which were given corresponding markings as 'A', 'B' and likewise upto 'N'. The yellow paper envelopes were then pasted and sealed by the DRI seal over a paper slip bearing the dated signatures of the signatories to the Panchanama. These packets were placed in a steel box and wrapped with marking cloth, stitched and sealed over paper slip bearing the dated signatures of the signatories to the Panchnama. The 14 cardboard packets from which the seized heroin was recovered were placed back in the carton No. Scorpio-2 alongwith the other 10 cardboard packets containing spices powder and were then fastened with adhesive tape, wrapped with marking cloth and sealed over paper slip bearing the dated signatures of the signatories to the panchanama. 1.11 The DRI officers also seized Scorpio vehicle, which was used for transportation of the narcotic drugs and from which the narcotic drug was recovered. The 71 cartons of different type of MDH recovered from Tempo were also seized under the provisions of NDPS Act alongwith the Tempo. During this course of search in the Scorpio car, the officers recovered policy of New India Insurance Company Limited in the name of one Mr. Balkar Singh Atwal and Registration Certificate in the name of registered owner Dilpreet Kaur, wife of Mandhir Singh issued by the District Transport Officer, Gurdaspur, Punjab. During the personal search of accused Gurjant Singh, Rs. 6,530/- were recovered, out of which SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
9Rs. 3,000/-, which stated to be paid by Balkar Singh to the accused Gurjant Singh (A1) as an advance for facilitating the act of shifting of narcotic drug. Therefore, the DRI officers seized this amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the provision of NDPS Act. During the personal search of accused Kailash Chand, nothing incriminating was recovered.
1.12 Panchnama proceedings, thereafter, were started at about 11 pm, on 27.06.09, which concluded at 4 pm on 28.06.09. The Panchnama EXPW1/Z17, was prepared which was duly read and signed by the Panch witnesses namely Monu and Deepak as well as by both the accused. The facsimile of DRI seal used for sealing the seized heroin and other seized goods was also affixed on Panchnama Ex. PW1/Z17.
1.13 On 28.06.09, Devendra Singh, Intelligence Officer, issued summon to Gurjant Singh (A1) vide Ex. PW1/B, pursuant to which he tendered his statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act, Ex. PW1/C, at 4.30 pm on 28.06.09. Sh. Rajender Verma, Intelligence Officer, PW4 similarly issued summon Ex. PW4/A, to Kailash Chand (A2) and recorded his statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act, Ex. PW4/B, wherein he admitted that he was assisting the accused Gurjant Singh in shifting the cartons from Scorpio car to his Tempo. Thereafter, both accused Gurjant Singh (A1) and Kailash Chand (A2) were arrested in the present case.
1.14 On 26.09.09, Sh. S.K. Nath, Senior Intelligence Officer, PW5 authorised Sh. Alkesh Rao, Intelligence Officer, DRI, PW10 vide authority letter Ex. PW5/A, to deposit the case property seized vide Panchnama Ex. PW1/Z17 dated 27/28.06.09 at Customs Valuable Godown, New Delhi. Accordingly, the case property was deposited in Customs Valuable Godown, New Delhi vide Deposit memo Ex. PW5/B where it was received by Sh. Lakhi Ram, PW8 Inspector of Disposal, at Customs Valuable Godown, New Delhi, in SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
10intact condition vide Valuable Godown entry no. 06(S) 09-10 dated 29.06.09, Ex. PW8/A. On the same day, Sh. Alkesh Rao, Intelligence Officer, PW10 deposited the case property mentioned at serial no. 6 of the inventory (EXPW5/B) of the seized goods i.e. T-1 to T-71 (71 packets) at CWC Warehouse, Safdarjung Flyover, New Delhi, which were carried in Tempo bearing registration no. HR 38C 8158.
The Central Warehouse Customs (CWC) issued an acknowledgement dated 23.07.09, Ex. PW10/A for deposit of the seized goods T-1 to T-71 mentioned at serial number 6 in the inventory of the seized goods Ex. PW5/B. 1.15 On 29.06.09, Sh. S.K. Nath, PW5 Senior Intelligence Officer, issued letter Ex. PW5/F to Director, CRCL, Pusa Road for testing of the samples of narcotic drugs, suspected to be Heroin. He (PW5) authorised Sh. Kiran Pal, PW6 Head Hawaldar, DRI, DZU, to deposit the 14 sample packets with the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) vide authorisation letter Ex. PW5/E. Sh. S.C. Mathur, PW7, Chemical Examiner, G-II, CRCL, received those 14 sealed envelopes in intact condition along with copies of 14 test memos in duplicate vide receipt dated 29.06.09 Ex. PW6/A. The 14 samples were examined by Dr.Raj Kumar PW 9, ACE in presence of Sh. R.P. Singh, PW22, Chemical Examiner-1, CRCL, New Delhi, and vide his report dated 07.07.09, Ex. PW 9/A opined that all the 14 samples were of Diacetylmorphine (Heroin).
1.16 During the further investigation in the matter, necessary inquiries were conducted with regard to the ownership of the Scorpio vehicle no. PB 06E 1276 and as per the said inquiry, one Ms. Dilpreet Kaur was found to be the registered owner, but the registered owner Ms. Dilpreet Kaur could not be located. Similar inquiry was conducted with regard to the ownership of the Tempo no. DL 1L 3393, one Smt. Geeta was found to be the owner, whose statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act was recorded on 14.07.09.
SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
11
1.17 Inquiry was also conducted with regard to three mobile
numbers 9814791081, 9779704000 and 9914702081. Pursuant to that Sh. Rajesh Jindal, Additional Director, DRI, Ludhiana, submitted the call detail in respect of mobile numbers 9814791081 and 9914702081. Further, summons were also issued to one Satvinder Singh @ Ladi, whose name was disclosed by the accused Gurjant Singh in his statement, however, he did not appear pursuant to those summons, therefore, appropriate legal proceedings were initiated against him.
1.18 On the basis of the investigation conducted subsequent to the apprehension of the accused, the complaint was filed against the accused Gurjant Singh and Kailash Chand for the offences punishable under Sections 21/29 NDPS Act.
CHARGE 2.0 The complaint was filed in this court on 23.12.2009 and cognizance of the above offences was taken by the court on the same day. A prima facie case for commission of the offence punishable U/S 21(c) and 29 r/w Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act was found to be made out against both the accused persons vide order dated 20.03.2010 and charges for the above said offences were also framed against them on the same day. It is necessary to mentioned here that the above charges were subsequently amended/modified by this court at a later stage, vide order dated 27.11.2014 as during the course of hearing final arguments, it was observed that there were some clerical and typographical mistakes in the said charges with respect to the date and timing of commission of the alleged offences. However, since the above amendment/modification of the charges was only formal in nature and did not require the holding of the trial de-novo or of adducing any further evidence, with the consent of both the parties, the matter was proceeded for hearing the remaining arguments of Ld SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
12counsel for the parties.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.0 The prosecution in support of its case has examined on record total 26 witnesses and their names and the purpose of examination is being stated herein below:-
3.1 PW1 Sh Devendra Singh is the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer of this case and he was heading the above raiding team of DRI, which had apprehended the accused persons from the above spot, recovered the above heroin and had conducted the entire proceedings regarding the above recovered substance and other articles and also recorded some statements u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, including the statement of accused no. 1. He has broadly deposed on the above lines of the prosecution story and has proved the various documents of this case prepared by him in connection with the investigation of the case. He has also identified both the accused as well as the case property. He has proved the complaint Ex. PW1/Z13.
3.2 PW2 Sh Sanjay Kumar, Tax Assistant of DRI had issued the DRI seal used in sealing of the parcels to the IO/PW1 vide entry Ex. PW1/Z14 of the seal movement register. He has deposed that on 27.06.09, while working as a Tax Assistant in DRI, he had given the brass seal of DRI to Sh. Devendra Singh and got a corresponding entry made in the Seal Movement Register, which was also signed by Devendra Singh. He also deposed that on 26.09.09, he received the back the brass seal from Devendra Singh and made entry in the Seal Movement Register to this effect. 3.3 PW3 Sh D. A. Nistane was working as Assistant Director of DRI at the relevant time and he had directed the necessary action on the above information Ex. PW1/A, which was put up before him by Sh S. K. Nath, SIO (Senior Intelligence Officer).
He had also received one letter Ex. PW3/A subsequently from the SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
13office of DRI, Ludhiana, alongwith some documents/annexures Ex. PW3/B collectively, which he directed to be placed in the concerned file.
3.4 PW4 Sh Rajender Verma also an Intelligence Officer of DRI, had served the summon Ex. PW4/A upon the accused Kailash Chand, recorded his statement Ex. PW4/B u/s 67 of the NDPS Act and also arrested him vide memo Ex. PW4/C. 3.5 PW5 Sh S. K. Nath, SIO is the person before whom the above secret information Ex. PW1/A was first put up by the IO/PW1 and who in-turn had further put it up before PW3. Besides the above, he also claims to be part of the above raiding team led by the IO/PW1, which had apprehended the accused persons from the above spot and recovered the seized heroin. He has also briefly deposed about the search, seizure and sealing work carried out regarding the above packets and the recovered heroin in their office. He had also got the parcels of case property and samples etc deposited with the authorities i.e. CRCL, New Customs House and CWC, sent the arrest intimations and issued letter for the medical examination of the accused persons and also received and issued some other correspondence.
3.5.1 He (PW5) has deposed that after the seizure of the heroin, the samples and the test memos prepared by the IO Devendra Singh, were handed over to him immediately after completion of Panchnama proceedings. He deposed that on 29.06.09, he had forwarded the sample packets to CRCL through Sh. K.P. Singh, HC, DRI. He had given a forwarding letter, samples and test memos to Sh. K. P. Singh for depositing in the CRCL. He further deposed that on 29.06.09, he also handed over the case property to Sh. Alkesh Rao for depositing the same in Valuable Godown, New Customs House, alongwith the authority letter Ex. PW5/A. He further deposed that Sh. Alkesh Rao informed him about SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
14the deposit of the case property on the same day. He also deposed that after the arrest of the accused persons, he had written a letter to RML Hospital for medical examination of the accused persons before they are produced in the Court. He further deposed that IO Devendra Singh (PW1) had submitted his report regarding seizure of 7.842 Kg. of heroin on 27/28.06.09. vide Ex. PW1/S. He further deposed that he had written a letter to the DRI, Ludhiana for verification of the registration certificate of the Scorpio car vide Ex. PW5/C. He further deposed that he had given intimation of the arrest of accused Gurnam Singh (A1) and Kailash Chand (A2) to their wives vide letter Ex. PW5/J and PW5/K respectively. 3.6 PW6 Sh Kiran Pal Singh, Head Hawaldar of DRI had deposited the set of 14 sealed sample parcels with CRCL on 29.06.2009, alongwith the duplicate test memos. He deposed that after he deposited the sample packets with CRCL in sealed condition, an acknowledgment receipt was issued in his name vide Ex. PW6/A 3.7 PW7 Sh S. C. Mathur, Chemical Examiner of CRCL had received the above sealed samples and test memos in CRCL vide acknowledgment Ex. PW6/A issued by him. He has stated that subsequently, the samples were allotted to Sh R. P. Singh, who had taken over charge of the Narcotic Section of the above laboratory. He has deposed that he had received the samples through Sh. Kiran Pal Singh (PW8). The seal were found having impression of DRI and he also tallied the sample of seal with the facsimile given on the test memos and also seals were found in intact condition. 3.8 PW8 Sh Lakhi Ram is the then Inspector and In-charge of the Valuable Godown, New Customs House with whom the sealed parcels of the case property of this case were deposited on 29.06.2009 by Sh Alkesh Rao of DRI and he proved his endorsement made on the deposit memo Ex. PW5/B and the entry of the Valuable SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
15Godown register as Ex. PW8/A in this regard.
3.9 PW9 Dr. Raj Kumar, Assistant Chemical Examiner of CRCL, who had examined the above samples, under the supervision and guidance of Sh R. P. Singh, Chemical Examiner and gave its report Ex. PW9/A and also the short analysis report in Section-II of the test memo Ex. PW1/T regarding the said analysis. He has stated that all the samples had tested positive for the presence of Diacetylmorphine (heroin).
3.10 PW10 Sh Alkesh Rao is also an Intelligence Officer of DRI and he had deposited the above parcels of case property in the Valuable Godown on 29.06.2009 and also of the above 71 cartons in CWC Warehouse on 23.07.2009.
3.11 PW11 Ms Anju Singh is another Intelligence Officer of DRI and she had only issued the summons dated 14.07.2009 Ex. PW11/A to Ms Geeta Devi, the registered owner of the above tempo and recorded her statement Ex. PW11/B on the same day. 3.12 PW12 Sh Surjit Singh, Nodal Officer of M/s Idea Cellular has produced some record pertaining to some mobile numbers of their company and has further identified the signatures of his predecessor on copies of such records supplied earlier to DRI during the investigation. He had brought the subscriber application form of mobile no. 9814791081 (in the name of Gurjant Singh), 9914702081 (in the name of Mandip Singh) and 9814060952 (in the name of Harjinder Singh) and placed the same on record as Ex. PW12/A, Ex. PW12/B and Ex. PW12/C respectively. 3.13 PW13 Sh Harminder Pal Singh, who was working as Commandant in 2nd Battalion, Bahadurgarh, Patiala, Punjab, in the 2009. He deposed that while working as such he had received a summon issued u/s 67 of NDPS Act in the office for service of the summon on Satvinder @ Ladi (This Satvinder Singh @ Ladi is the same person, who has been named by the accused Gurjant Singh in SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
16his statement recorded u/s 67 of the NDPS Act).
3.14 PW14 Sh Jeevan Sati is an accountant of M/s Satvik Traders, a stockist of MDH spices at Khari Baoli, who was called during the investigation vide summons Ex. PW1/U dated 27.06.2009 and had tendered his statement Ex. PW1/V in the DRI office, alongwith documents Ex. PW1/V1 collectively regarding the sale of 71 cartons of MDH spices from the shop of their firm to one person, who disclosed his name as Jasbir Singh against cash amount of Rs. 1,76,494/- and deposed in the Court in this regard. 3.15 PW15 Sh Maan Singh Yadav SIO of DRI had only issued some letters for securing the presence of the above Satinder Singh @ Laddi, to the concerned Commandant of Punjab Police of PW13 and also some letter for obtaining the call detail record of a mobile phone.
3.16 PW16 Sh Ramesh Sharma was posted with DRI, Punjab and had conducted some enquiry regarding the ownership of the above Scorpio bearing registration number PB 06E 1276 and had sent the report of the enquiry with his covering letter to the DRI, Delhi. He deposed that Sh. Samir Shankar, IO, DRI, Amritsar, had written the letter Ex. PW16/A to the District Transport Officer, Gurdas Pur and the IO had submitted his report on this letter itself at portion X to X. He submitted that this report was forwarded to Sh. S.K. Nath (PW5) vide covering letter Ex. PW5/M. 3.17 PW17 Sh Narinder Mohan was also posted as an Intelligence Officer of DRI, Ludhiana and he was also involved in the follow up investigation of this case conducted in Punjab and he had conducted some searches and recorded statements of some persons u/s 67 of the NDPS Act, who appeared to be connected with the above seizure in this case.
3.18 PW18 Sh Arvind Kumar was working as a General Manager in Maharaja Hotel at G. T. Road, Panipat, Haryana and he SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
17had also tendered his statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/Z1, alongwith some documents/record Ex. PW18/A collectively, during the investigation of this case and deposed about the same. 3.19 PW19 Sh A. K. Bhatnagar was working as a Deputy Director of DRI at the relevant time and he had also issued some letters and reminders in the follow up investigation of this case and received some documents and replies thereof.
3.20 PW20 Sh Harbhajan Singh is a resident of a village in district Nawa Sahar, Punjab and he claims that in the year 2009, some officers from Crime Branch, Ludhiana visited their village and had asked about the house of one Balkar Singh, who belonged to the State of West Bengal and had started residing in their village recently. He had taken the above officials to the house of Balkar Singh where some proceedings of sealing of the said house were conducted by the above officials and he signed the documents prepared with regard to the same.
3.21 PW21 Smt Geeta Devi is the registered owner of the above tempo no. DL 1LL 3393 and she has deposed about the same and also about the tendering of her statement Ex. PW11/B dated 14.07.2009 in response to the summons Ex. PW11/A, alongwith the documents Ex. PW21/A and Ex. PW21/B of the said vehicle. She has deposed that she had given the said tempo to Kailash Chand for running the same as driver on hire basis and he was paid a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. She had also subsequently taken the above vehicle on superdari on orders of the court and had further produced the same in the court during her statement. 3.22 PW22 Sh R. P. Singh is Chemical Examiner, Grade-I. He is deposed that on 06.07.09, sample packets, which were registered in the laboratory vide CLD 660 (N) and CLD 673 (N) dated 29.06.09 were taken out for the purpose of analysis from the strong room of CRCL by Dr. Raj Kumar, ACE and Dr. Vinod Kumar, Chemical SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
18Examiner, Assistant, Grade-2 in his presence and under his supervision. He deposed that on the basis of chemical and Chromotographical examination, it was concluded by him and Dr. Raj Kumar that the sample was positive for Diacetylmorphine. He deposed that the final analysis report Ex. PW9/A was issued under his signatures and also of Dr. Raj Kumar.
3.23 PW23 Sh R. P. Singh was posted as a manager of the CWC Warehouse on 23.07.2009, when the above 71 sealed parcels were deposited vide acknowledgment Ex. PW10/A. 3.24 PW24 Sh Gurnam Singh is a clerk of the DTO office, Gurdaspur, Punjab and he has produced the ownership record of the above Scorpio, which stood registered in the name of Smt Dilpreet Kaur. He has placed on record, the relevant register maintained at the District Transport Office, Gurdaspur vide Ex. PW24/A. 3.25 PW25 Sh Sachin Jain is the then Deputy Commissioner, Disposal of the New Customs House, who authorized and permitted the deposit of the above 71 parcels with CWC Warehouse vide his letter Ex. PW25/A. 3.26 PW26 Jitender Kumar, Record Clerk of RML Hospital has deposed about the medical examination of the accused persons vide MLCs Ex. PW26/A and Ex. PW26/B respectively, which were prepared by Dr. Sandesh Gupta, who had already left the hospital and whose handwriting and signatures he was able to identify on the basis of record. He has deposed that as per the MLC Ex. PW26/A and Ex. PW26/B, no fresh external injury was observed at the time of medical examination of Gurjant Singh and Kailash Chand.
Statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. & Defence Evidence:
4.0 After the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, all the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution was put to the accused persons in their statements recorded u/s SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
19313 Cr.P.C. and the same was denied by both of them to be incorrect. The accused Gurjant Singh, A1 has claimed that on 26.06.2009, he had come to Delhi from Patiala to offer prayer at Gurudwara Shishganj and when he got down from the bus at ISBT Kashmiri Gate, few persons in plain clothes arrested him and took him to their office. He further said that he was tortured and beaten at their office and was asked to sign on many blank papers and some semi-written papers. It is submitted that he was forced to give statement in Hindi language under the dictation of DRI officers. He submitted that he does not know the person, in whose name the vehicle was, nor he has any concern with the vehicle mentioned therein. He submitted that the"heroin" has been planted upon him. He does even know co-accused Kailash Chand and had seen him for the first time in the DRI office. He submitted that he had filed a retraction application (qua his statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act) in the Court vide Mark A. He preferred to lead evidence in his defence. The accused Kailash Chand (A2) stated that he had loaded 70 cartons of MDH spices from Khari Baoli for taking the said cartons to Yadav Dharamkanta, G.T. Karnal Road, where he had reached at about 4 pm, but the cartons were not off loaded by the person, who had hired the tempo and had come along with him. There was a godown adjacent to above Dharamkanta. He further submitted that he was promised an extra amount of Rs. 100/- for waiting till 8:00 pm for off loading the Tempo. He further said that at around 8:00 pm, a Scorpio vehicle had come there with some cartons loaded therein. There were two persons in the said Scorpio. He further submitted that the person who was loading the cartons in this Tempo from the Scorpio and the person who had come alongwith him in his Tempo, ran away after some persons in plain clothes come at the spot. They introduced themselves as the officers of DRI. He further stated SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
20that the vehicles were brought by DRI office, but no search of the vehicles proceedings were conducted in his presence. He submitted that his co-accused Gurjant Singh was not apprehended from the above spot or in his presence and he saw him first time in the office of DRI. He further said that he was made to write a dictated statement under force and threat. He further said that he was not aware, if any heroin was concealed in any of the cartons brought in the above said Scorpio or in the MDH Spices cartons, which were loaded in his Tempo. He also submitted that he had filed a retraction application in the Court Mark X. 5.0 DWI Sh. Balihar Singh was examined by the accused Gurjant Singh in his defence. He has deposed that on 27.06.09, at about 12.00/1.00 pm, the accused Gurjant Singh had taken lift from him up to Patiala bus stand and he had told that he was going to visit and offer prayer at Gurudwara Shish Ganj in Delhi. He further deposed that he was dropped at outside the Patiala bus stand and in his presence he caught bus for Delhi. He further deposed that after one or two days, thereof he was informed by the village Chowkidar that some officials from Delhi had come to the residence of Gurjant Singh to take search of his house. In the cross-examination, he submitted that his mother was a member of Panchayat of the Village-Shamspur, District-Patiala. He has denied that at the time of search of the house of Gurjant Singh, his father Ajit Singh was also present. He also denied that the father of Gurjant Singh had disclosed the mobile number of Gurjant Singh to the officer of DRI. He admitted his signature on the Panchnama Ex. PW1/PZ.
6.0 I have heard the arguments advanced by Ms Mala Sharma, Ld SPP for DRI, Sh. S. S. Das, Ld counsel for accused Gurjant Singh and Sh. Kamal J. S. Maan, Ld counsel for the accused Kailash Chand. I have also gone through the evidence and entire SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
21record of this case, including the written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties.
7.0 The Ld. Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for DRI has submitted that the secret information received by Devendra Singh, Intelligent Officer, has been proved on the record; Sh. D. A. Nistane, Deputy Director gave directions for necessary action pursuant to which, the raiding team was formed, which inter alia consisted of Sh. Devendra Singh, Intelligence Officer and Sh. S.K. Nath, Senior Intelligence Officer; that two public witnesses namely Deepak and Munna were joined in the team formed by DRI officers; the apprehension of the accused Gurjant Singh and Kailash Chand, search of the vehicles and recovery of 7.842 Kg. of heroin from one of the carton found in Scorpio car was effected in the presence of public witnesses; Panchnama Ex. PW1/Z17 has been signed by both the accused and the public witnesses; that summons u/s 67 NDPS Act were duly issued to accused Gurjant Singh and Kailash Chand and their statement u/s 67 NDPS Act was recorded vide Ex. PW1/C and Ex. PW4/B respectively, wherein they admitted about the recovery of contraband substance and also spoken about the manner, in which the contraband substance was brought to Delhi. The SPP further argued that all the statutory compliances have been made in the present case. The link evidence is complete. The sample and the test memos were sent to CRCL and it has come in the statement of the witness PW7 S.C. Mathur, PW9 Dr. Raj Kumar and PW22 Sh. R.P. Singh, Chemical Examiner, CRCL that the seal were found intact on the samples and the seal also tallied with the facsimile on the test memos. As regards case property, it was argued that Sh. Alkesh Rao (PW10) had taken the case property, which was handed over to him by PW5 S.K. Nath and he had deposited the case property in Valuable Godown, New Customs House and the statement of PW8 Lakhi Ram proved that seals were SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
22found intact. Sample of the case property was also deposited at CWC, Safdarjung Flyover, New Delhi in duly sealed condition. The Ld. SPP further submitted that the chemical examination report Ex. PW9/A proved that samples were positive for Diacetylmorphine (Heroin), which is a narcotic substance. It was further submitted that both the accused have thus committed the offence of possession and transportation of the narcotic drugs and that the offence stands proved beyond reasonable doubt from the evidence on the record.
8.0 Per contra the Sh. S.S. Das, Ld. counsel for accused Gurjant Singh (A1), argued that PW1 Devendra Singh is the Investigating Officer, but his statement would show that he is not aware about so many facts, which being the IO, should be in his knowledge. The Ld. counsel had submitted that PW1 was not even aware, who was the senior officer accompanying him in the raid; he has not filed the log book of the vehicle used by the DRI officials; no site plan was prepared at the spot; PW1 Sh. Devendra Singh and PW5 Sh. S.K. Nath, who was also a member of the team, are not aware from which direction the Scorpio vehicle had come; that PW1 was not even aware, if the Panchnama (Ex. PW1/Z17) signed by a senior officer. He further argued that the Panchnama was not prepared in the language known to the accused and the guidelines issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), have not been followed while conducting the search. It was further argued that no record of handing over or taking over of the seal used for sealing the case property, sample etc., has been proved and further as per PW1, he had kept the seal till 6 pm while the Panchnama proceedings were over by 4 pm. Therefore, the chances of tempering with the case property cannot be ruled out. He further argued that although PW5 Sh. S.K. Nath deposed about recovery he being a part of DRI team, but there is no document SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
23which could indicate his presence at the spot or in the DRI office. He further argued that even the link evidence is not complete and the statements of witnesses PW6 Kiran Pal, PW8 and PW9 Sh. Raj Kumar, show chances of tempering with the seal on the samples or case property. He further argued that the statement of accused recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act is not voluntary and it has been retracted at the earliest opportunity vide the application Mark A. It was also submitted by the Ld. counsel for A1 that and no public witness has been produced in the Court it indicate that no public witness has been joined at the time of search and the alleged recovery. Therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn. 9.0 Sh. Kamal J.S. Maan, Ld. counsel for accused no. 2 has argued that there is no compliance of mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. The Ld. counsel has submitted that the Dak Register to show the dispatch of various letters and correspondence from office of DRI and log book of the vehicle used by raiding party have not been produced in the Court. The Ld. counsel for accused no. 2 has specifically emphasised on the submission that the involvement of the accused Kailash Chand (A2) in the offence is not proved and there there is no evidence even to suggest that he was having any knowledge of any narcotic or contraband substance in any of the packet of cartons of MDH spices loaded in his tempo or in the Scorpio car. He submitted that the A2 has admitted that he had loaded cartons of MDH spices in his Tempo from Khari Baoli and had come to Yadav Dharamkanta. He further said that PW21 Smt. Gita Devi is the registered owner of the Tempo and at the instance of the husband of Smt. Gita Devi, the accused Kailash Chand had loaded 70 cartons of MDH in the Tempo. The Ld. counsel has submitted that although the statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act had been retracted but even if it is taken into account, there is nothing in the statement to show that SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
24A2 was having knowledge of any contraband substance in the cartons. He also submitted further that even the statement of the accused Gurjant Singh u/s 67 of NDPS Act Ex. PW1/C does not show that accused Kailash Chand, the driver of the Tempo was aware about the presence of the narcotic drug in the cartons. It was also submitted that no public witness has been examined in the case and no justified reason has been cited for not examining the punch witnesses. This, therefore, means that no public witness has been joined at the time of search and the alleged recovery. The Ld. counsel, therefore, submitted that the accused Kailash Chand is entitled for acquittal in the case.
Seizure and Recovery 10.0 The prosecution relied upon the statement of PW1 Sh. Devendra Singh and PW5 Sh. S.K. Nath apart from the documents prepared subsequent to the recovery of contraband to establish that the contraband was recovered from a carton, which was marked as Scorpio-2 and was taken out from the Scorpio car, in which the accused Gurjant Singh (A1) had come to Yadav Dharamkanta, Alipur G. T. Karnal Road. PW1 Sh. Devendra Singh has deposed about the secret intelligence, which he had received vide Ex. PW1/A. He also deposed that he put this information before Sh. S.K. Nath, Senior Intelligence Officer, who had given him direction to constitute a team of officers to take necessary action. Then he deposed about joining of two public witnesses namely Monu and Deepak, who were briefed about the intelligence. He deposed that at about 7 pm, they left the office of DRI on 27.06.09 and reached Yadav Dharamkanta, Alipur, G.T. Karnal Road at 7:30 pm. Thereafter, at 7:50 pm, the Scorpio bearing no. PB 06E 1276 was noticed by the DRI officers. He further deposed that there were three occupants in the Scorpio car. Two of the occupants escaped under the cover of darkness and the person, who was SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
25transferring the cartons from the Scorpio to Tempo, already parked there, was apprehended, who introduced himself as Gurjant Singh (A1). Then he had deposed about service of notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to accused Gurjant Singh and Kailash Chand. He further deposed that the accused Kailash Chand had disclosed to him that 70 cartons of MDH Spices were loaded by him from Khari Baoli, but he could not produce the documents to this effect. Then he deposed about taking of both the vehicles i.e. Scorpio car and the Tempo to DRI office and effecting the recovery from one of the cartons, which was lying in the Scorpio car and marked as Scorpio-2, which was found containing contraband items i.e. heroin, which weighed 7.842 Kg. He deposed about the preparation of Panchnama Ex. PW1/Z17. He also deposed that accused Gurjant Singh was given notice u/s 67 of the NDPS Act (Ex. PW1/B) and thereafter, he recorded his statement Ex. PW1/C. He deposed that thereafter he arrested the accused Gurjant Singh vide Ex. PW1/D. He also deposed about preparation of test memos Ex. PW1/E to PW1/R and putting the seal on the samples and the case property and facsimile of the seal at the test memos. He has also deposed that on 01.07.09, he gave his report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of the heroin and the arrest of accused persons to Sh. S. K. Nath (PW5) Senior Intelligence Officer vide Ex. PW1/S. 10.1 He further deposed that on 03.07.09, he had given a summon to Sh. Jeevan Sati of M/s. Satvik Traders, (Stockist of MDH Spices) vide Ex. PW1/U and recorded his statement Ex. PW1/V, u/s 67 of NDPS Act. During the recording of his statement through Jeevan Sati (PW14) had submitted documents Ex. PW1/VI to show that the cartons of MDH Spices recovered from the Tempo No. DL 1LL 3393 were purchased from M/s Satwik Traders. Then PW1 has deposed about the further investigation conducted in this case with regard to the stay of the accused Gurjant Singh at Hotel Maharaj SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
26Panipat, Haryana, and in that process, he had issued summon to the Manager, and recorded his statements as Ex. PW1/21. 10.2 He identified the case property produced in the Court. He identified the carton box having marking of MDH MASALA and also marked as Scorpio-2 as Ex. P-23. He identified 14 cardboard boxes of MDH Chunki Chat Masala taken out of the carton and bearing the marking A to N as the same from which the contraband was recovered by him. These cardboard boxes were marked as Ex. P-24/1 to 14. The other 10 cardboard boxes, which were containing the spices powder were marked as P-25/1 to 10. 11.0 PW5 Sh. S.K. Nath has supported and corroborated the statement of PW1 with regard to the apprehension of both the accused from Yadav Dharamkanta when the accused Gurjant Singh was transferring the cartons from Scorpio to the Tempo on which the accused Kailash Chand was driver. He also corroborated PW1 that out of three occupants of the Scorpio, two had escaped and the one, accused Gurjant Singh, was apprehended. He also deposed that both the vehicles were taken to DRI office for search and he has also deposed about the recovery of 14 cardboard boxes from one of those cartons, marked as Scorpio-2, which was found containing contraband substance suspected to be heroin. He deposed further that the substance recovered from 14 cardboard boxes, was tested on UN Test Kit, which gave positive test for the presence of heroin. He deposed that a total weight of the contraband seized was 7.842 Kg. (Net). Thereafter, he has deposed about seizure of heroin and preparation of the sample. He also deposed that after the seizure of the heroin, the sample and test memo prepared by Sh. Devendra Singh (PW1), were handed over to him after the completion of Panchnama proceedings. Thereafter, PW5 Sh. S.K. Nath had deposed about the forwarding the sample to CRCL and the case property to Valuable Godown, SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
27New Customs House and Central Warehouse Corporation. 12.0 Thus, statements of PW1 and PW5 established the case of the prosecution about the recovery of heroin from the 14 contraband boxes, which were kept concealed in a carton of MDH Masale and which was one of the 4 cartons, which were brought in the Scorpio car (Ex. P-1), in which the accused Gurjant Singh alongwith the two other persons had come to the spot. The Ld. defence counsels have challenged the statement of these two witnesses on ground of various discrepancies noted in the statements. It was submitted by the Ld. Defence counsels that PW1, Intelligence Officer, does not even know, which senior officer accompanied him in the raid. It was submitted that it was unbelievable that if the PW5 Sh. S.K. Nath, Senior Intelligence Officer had joined the raid, PW1 would not be knowing about it. It was submitted that the log book of the vehicle used by the DRI officers, has not been produced in the Court. It was submitted that neither PW1 Devendra Singh, nor PW5 Sh. S.K. Nath, could tell from which direction, the Scorpio vehicle had come. It was further submitted by the Ld. counsels that two witnesses, which as per case of DRI, were joined in the raid, have not been examined in the Court. In view of the submissions so made by the Ld. defence counsel, let us first see what is the effect of the discrepancies in the statement of PW1 and PW5.
13. At the outset, it may be stated that the discrepancies in the statement of witnesses, is a natural phenomenon and there cannot be any criminal case, in which there is no discrepancies, contradictions in the statement of witnesses. With the passage of time, variation in the reproduction of the facts by different persons is normal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Leela Ram vs. State of Haryana (1999) 9SCC 525 had held that there are bound to be discrepancies between the narration of various SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
28witnesses when they speak about the details and unless the contradiction is material, it should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety.
14. Thus, minor inconsistencies, contradictions etc. on trivial matters should not be a ground to reject the evidence. In the case of Raju vs. State Crl. Appeal No. 1221/2012, the Delhi High Court had observed that in all criminal cases normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the deposition of the witnesses due to normal errors of observation namely, error of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition. In the case of Sunil kumar Sambhudayal Gupta vs State of Maharashtra (2010)13 SCC 657 the Supreme court summarised the law on material contradiction in evidence and held that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such a magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety.
15. The discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses of recovery PW1 and PW5 are not such which go to the root of the matter. The statements have to be read in entirety an not in piece- meal by giving too much importance to an omission or discrepancy here and there in the statement. PW1 and PW5 are official witnesses. There is no allegation of any animosity or prejudice against them. No circumstance has been pointed out which could indicate an intention of these officers to falsely implicate the accused in the present case. They have been consistent in their statements about the manner in which both the accused have been apprehended and about the recovery of the contraband substance concealed in one of the cartons of MDH Masale. As per their SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
29statement, there were 4 cartons in the Scorpio car, in which Gurjant Singh had come along with two other persons. The accused Gurjant Singh was transferring the cartons to the tempo which was parked there in which accused Kailash Chand (A2) was sitting. He had transferred one carton and before he could transfer other 3 cartons to the tempo the officials of DRI apprehended them. The said Tempo was also containing 70 cartons of MDH Malale. Thus, out of the total 74 cartons, the contraband substance has been recovered only from 14 cardboard boxes, which were contained in one of the cartons marked for identification as Scorpio-2. This carton was containing 24 cardboard boxes in all, but contraband was recovered only from 14 boxes. I could not be persuaded to accept that PW1 and PW5 would make such a story of recovery of contraband in the above circumstances. Moreover, it is also to be noted that there were two Panch witnesses namely Monu and Deepak in the team formed by DRI officials, who had witnessed the recovery and had signed the Panchnama Ex. PW1/Z17. They also signed all the paper slips, which were placed under the seal which was affixed on the samples taken out from the packets containing contraband and other case property. There is nothing to substantiate the submissions of the Ld. defence counsels that PW1 and PW5 are not truthful witnesses.
16. The two Panch witnesses namely Monu and Deepak could not be examined during the trial and the prosecution had to drop them from the list of witnesses on 30.08.11. The reason for dropping these witnesses was that they were not traceable at the given address. The summon sent to Panch witness Deepak, son of Vijay Kumar, at the address House No. 415, Sewa Nagar, was received back with the report that the house was located in a Jhuggi Basti and the said Jhuggi Basti was removed from Sewa SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
30Nagar area. The summon to the other Panch witness Monu, son of Late Sh. Suresh was sent at his address, House No. S-190, Khan Market, Hanuman Road, New Delhi. The process server reported that this house was also located in a Jhuggi Colony and all the Jhuggis have been removed from the area.
17. Though had these Panch witnesses come to the witness box, they would have further fortified the case of the prosecution, but their non-examination is not due to any fault of the prosecution, but for the reason that they are not available at the given address. The fact that two Panch witnesses had joined, stands established from the statement of PW1 and PW5 and also from the contemporaneous documents i.e. Panchnama and paper slips put under seals affixed on seized case property and sample. They all bear their signatures. A similar situation had come in the case of Sumit Tomar vs. State of Punjab (2013) 1 SCC 395, where one Kaur Singh joined as a witness, was not examined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that signatures of Kaur Singh appended on all the memos show that he was present at the time of recovery. It was further held that it was true that prosecution could have examined him, but it was the stand of the prosecution that in spite of necessary steps taken by issuing summons, he did not appear and for that reason prosecution case can not be thrown out. If the statements of the police officials are reliable and no animosity is established against them by the accused then conviction based on their statement cannot be found faulted with. 17.1 Similarly in the case of Brijesh Kumar Gupta vs. NCB 2014 Crl. Law Journal 4203, which was also a case under NDPS Act, two public witnesses could not be examined as they were not found residing at the given address. A plea was taken that non- examination of these two independent witnesses was fatal, however, this contention was repelled by the Court.
SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
31
18.0 Therefore, the prosecution case cannot be rejected and
the statement of PW1 and PW5 cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground that two Panch witnesses have not been examined. When on perusal of the evidence on the record the prosecution case is found trustworthy and the evidence of the official witnesses is found trustworthy and credible it can definitely form the basis of conviction. The statement of PW1 and PW5 is found trustworthy. There is no allegations of animosity, prejudice or ill will against them and there is no reason for them to falsely implicate the accused in the case.
19.0 The accused no. 2 Kailash Chand has admitted that he was apprehended from the spot i.e. Yadav Dharamkanta alongwith the Tempo. He also admitted that the cartons were being transferred from the Scorpio car to his Tempo. He has also admitted that he was brought alongwith his tempo to the office of DRI. However, he has denied in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the accused Gurjant Singh was apprehended alongwith him. The defence taken by accused Gurjant Singh, is that on 27.06.2009 he had come to Delhi to offer his prayer at Gurudwara Shishganj and when he got down at ISBT Bus Stand, Kashmiri Gate, he was apprehended by the DRI officials. This defence is not found very convincing. Although Gurjant Singh has examined DW1 Balihar Singh in support of his defence. DW1 had deposed that Gurjant Singh had boarded a bus from Patiala Bus Stand to visit Delhi in his presence. It would interesting to note that when PW5 was being cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Gurjant Singh and a very different and specific suggestion was put forward and the witness was suggested that he (accused Gurjant Singh) was forcibly brought from his house at Shamaspur village, Punjab under torture. The accused therefore has taken two contradictory stands, none of which is found convincing.
SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
32
20.0 Before the accused Gurjant Singh was apprehended in
this case, his statement was recorded u/s 67 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/C. His statement is written by him in his own handwriting after understanding the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act, which were explained to him. He had given his entire family background, right from the time of his birth. He has also named one Satvinder Singh @ Ladi with whom he studied in class VI and through him, he came in contact with one Balkar Singh with whom he had come to the Yadav Dharmkanta, Delhi alongwith contraband substance. He has further given detail how he reached Delhi with one Satinder Singh. That they visited number of places including Chandni Chowk etc. He further stated that in the evening they started back from Delhi towards Kundli. They met other person coming in black colour Scorpio from Karnal side who shifted cartons in their silver colour Scorpio. Then they came at Yadav Dharmkanta. He further said that those cartons were being shifted to the Tempo standing there when they were apprehended by officials of DRI. The Ld. counsel for the accused had submitted that the statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act cannot be used as an evidence against the accused as it was not voluntary and was obtained by force. The statement was later on retracted also vide application Mark A . The law with regard to Section 67 of NDPS Act is very clear.
21.0 It is now well settled that such a statement tendered under section 67 of the Act by an accused is very much admissible in evidence and the same can also be made the basis of the conviction of an accused, if the same is found to be made voluntary and is truthful. Further, it cannot be equated with the statement of an accused made in custody, even if it is confessional in nature, as the same is made by an accused prior to his arrest in the case and hence, the bar of Section 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act and even SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
33Article 20 (3) of the Constitution would not be attracted to such a statement. However, if such a statement is found to be made by an accused under some pressure, coercion or influence etc and is not voluntary then it cannot be believed and acted upon with out some independent corroboration of facts stated therein.
22.0 If the accused subsequently retracts from such a statement, then the court has to look into the entirety of the facts and circumstances leading to the making of the above statement and its subsequent retraction, so as to form an opinion regarding the voluntariness of such a statement and the effect which has to be given to subsequent retraction thereof. However, it is also well settled that such a retracted statement is a weak piece of evidence and the court should not proceed to base a finding of conviction on the basis of such a retracted statement, unless there is some other independent evidence to corroborate the same. Reference with regard to the above can be made to some of the judgments in cases Raj Kumar Karwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 409; Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India 2008 (1) AD (Crl.) (SC) 277; Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2008 (9) Scale 681: Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund and othrs. 2009 (2) Crimes 171 (SC); DRI Vs. Raj Kumar Mehta & Ors. 2011 (3) JC (Narcotics) 156.
23.0 In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has dealt with the admissibility of the statement u/s 67 NDPS Act in the case Rapheal Vs. Devendra Singh (Intelligence Officer, DRI) Crl. Appeal No. 1394/2013 decided on 27.05.15, wherein it has been observed ;
"21. It is trite that a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence and can be considered by the Court against the accused. It is also settled law that if the same is found to be made SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.34
voluntarily, then the same can even be made the sole basis of conviction of accused. However, if the same is subsequently retracted by the accused then such a statement cannot be made the sole basis of conviction of accused and independent corroboration is required."
24.0 Ld. counsel for the accused, however, argued that the statement of the accused u/s 67 NDPS Act cannot be used to base the conviction of accused. They have placed reliance on the Noor Aga's case (Supra), and Bal Mukund's case (Supra). No doubt there is a slight shift in the manner of appreciation and in the evidentiary value of statement u/s 67 NDPS Act, but even in Bal Mukund's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, did not say that the statement tendered u/s 67 NDPS Act cannot be relied upon. It was observed; "That the court while weighing evidentiary value of such a statement cannot loose site of ground realities. Circumstances attended to making of such statement, which in our considered opinion be taken into consideration." Even in Noor Aga's case (Supra), the Court had held, whether the confession was made under duress and coercion and/or voluntarily should be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
25.0 Coming to the facts of the case, although the statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act has been retracted, but it is not at the earliest opportunity. The accused was arrested and produced in the Court on 29.06.09 and this application for retraction Mark A is dated 13.07.09. In this application, he has mentioned that his signatures were taken on blank papers and pre-written statement. He also said that he was brutally beaten. Now the fact is that the statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act Ex. PW1/B is not a pre-written statement. It is written in the own hand writing of the accused Gurjant Singh. So far as the allegation of brutal beating of the accused is concerned, the same is also not supported by any SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
35evidence, rather the statement of PW26 Jitender Kumar, Record Clerk, Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital would show that the accused was not having any mark of external injury. The MLC of accused Gurjant Singh Ex. PW26/A, does not show mark of any external injury on his person. Had he been tortured by DRI officials he would have made a complaint to this effect when he was first produced before the Court. Moreover, what is the effect of retraction ? In the in case of Rapheal vs. Devendra Singh (Intelligence Officer, ) (supra), the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has held :
"That the effect of retraction of confessional statement at best is that conviction should not be based only on the basis of confessional statement. However, in the instant case, besides the confessional statement of the appellant, the case stood established from the testimony of DRI official. The appellant/accused is a foreign national. No animosity has been been alleged against any of the official for which reason such a heavy quantity of contraband cannot be planted upon him."
26.0 In the present case also the statement u/s 67 NDPS Act, wherein there is an admission of recovery of contraband, gets necessary support and corroboration from the statement of PW1 and PW5, who have also deposed about the recovery of contraband and the seizure thereof subsequently. So, the evidence on the record established and proved beyond doubt that the contraband substance i.e. heroin has been recovered from 14 cardboard boxes labelled as MDH Chunki Chat Masale, which were concealed among other similarly branded cardboard boxes contained in a carton labelled as MDH Masale. This carton was recovered from Scorpio car, in which the accused Gurjant Singh had come to the spot.
27.0 Thus, the possession of contraband substance by
SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
36
accused Gurjant Singh stand proved, which invoke the presumption u/s 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act against him. Section 35 of the NDPS Act deals with the culpable mental state of an accused in a prosecution under the NDPS Act and it prescribes that in any offence under this Act which requires such a culpable mental state of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. Section 54 of the NDPS Act also lays down that in trials under this Act, it may be presumed, until and unless the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act in respect of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance etc, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily. A combined effect of the above two provisions is that if an accused is found to be in possession of any contraband substance, then the court shall presume that he has committed an offence under the above said Act pertaining to the said substance, unless and until the contrary is proved, if he fails to account satisfactorily for the said possession. Further, if a criminal mental state of the accused is required to be established for the said offence, then the court shall also presume that the accused had that criminal mental state and it shall only be a defence of the accused to prove that he had no such mental state. However, the accused is found to have failed to discharge the above burden as nothing has been brought on record to establish that he was not aware regarding the presence of the above contraband substance in the cartons brought in Scorpio car. The accused has not offered any explanation about the possession of this contraband substance.
28.0 The Ld. defence counsels have submitted that there
SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
37
was no statutory compliances during the investigation. It was
submitted that Section 50 NDPS Act was also not complied with. In this regard, it would be suffice to say that the recovery has been effected from a carton, which was in the Scorpio car and not from the personal search of the accused Gurjant Singh. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case, Megh Singh vs. State of Punjab (2003) 8SCC 666 has held that Section 50 NDPS Act only applies in case of personal search of a person, but it is not extended to a search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. Similar view was expressed in a case, State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pawan Kumar (2005) 4 SCC 350.
29.0 The Ld. Counsel for accused Kailash Chand also submitted that Section 55 NDPS Act has not been complied with in this regard which says that recovery effected has to be deposited with incharge of police station. In this regard it can be said that the official, who has effected the recovery, has the option to deposit the case property with an officer-in-charge of the police station. This is evident from the language of Section 55 of NDPS Act itself, which inter-alia says that an officer-in-charge of police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody article seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and "which may be delivered to him". So, Section 55 NDPS Act puts an obligation on the officer-in-charge of a police station to keep in safe custody articles seized under the Act, if the seizing officer delivers those articles to him. Section 55 NDPS Act does not say nor it puts an obligation on the seizing/recovery officer to mandatorily deposit the seized article with the officer-in-charge of the local police station.
Link Evidence
30.0 It was also submitted by the Ld. defence counsels that
SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
38
the link evidence is also not believable and chances of tempering with case property and samples can not be ruled out. This has been countered by the Ld. Special PP, who relied upon the statement of PW1 Sh. Devendra Singh, PW5 Sh. S.K. Nath, PW6 Sh. Kiran Pal Singh, PW7 Sh. S.C. Mathur and PW8 Sh. Lakhi Ram, and submitted that there was no tampering with the case property or the samples. PW1 Devendra Singh had handed over the sample after putting the seal of DRI to Sh. S.K. Nath, Senior Intelligence Officer. He had sent the sample packets to CRCL through PW6 K.P. Singh. PW7 has deposed that he had received 14 sealed packets Mark A1 to N1 alongwith the forwarding letter, authorising letter and 14 test memos in duplicate through Sh. K.P. Singh. He further deposed that the seals found appearing on the sample packed were having impression of Director of Revenue Intelligence and the said impression of seal was tallied by him with the facsimile given on the test memos and the seal bearing on the sample packets were in intact condition. PW9 Dr. Raj Kumar deposed that Sh. S.C. Mathur (PW7) allotted to him 14 sealed sample packet received on 29.06.09, which he kept in strong room in CRCL for the purpose of its safe custody. These packets were taken out on 06.09.09 and at that time also the seal was found intact and tallied with the facsimile on the test memos. There remains no doubt in view of the above statements of the witnesses that there is no tempering with the seal on the sample of the case property till they reached the CRCL and were examined on 06.07.09. The report of chemical examination Ex. PW9/A has proved that the samples tested positive for Diacetylmorphine.
31.0 So far as the recovery of contraband is concerned, the prosecution has proved its case. There is no explanation offered by accused Gurjant Singh regarding his possession of contraband SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
39substance. The quantity is so large that question of implanting does not arise nor any circumstance has been shown which could indicate false implication of accused. But the prosecution has not been able to link accused Kailash Chand with this recovery. Admittedly, the recovery of contraband is not from the possession of the accused Kailash Chand. Since the charge for the offence u/s 29 NDPS Act has been framed, the conspiracy angle need to be examined. A conspiracy is committed when two or more persons agree to do or caused to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegal means. Therefore, unlawful agreement is the gist or the essence for the offence of conspiracy. The agreement pre- supposes a meeting of minds. In the present case, this element of meeting of minds/agreement to commit an illegal act between the accused Gurjant Singh and the accused Kailash Chand is lacking. In his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/C, accused Gurjant Singh has nowhere stated that he knew Kailash Chand or that Kailash Chand also knew that the cartons which are being put in his tempo would be containing contraband substance/drugs. The accused Kailash Chand in his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act Ex. PW4/B has admitted that on 27.06.09, he was present at Yadav Dharamkanta, Alipur, G.T. Karnal Road. He also explained that how a Scorpio car came to the spot. He also stated that the person, who had hired his tempo from Khari Baoli, has been transferring cartons from Scorpio to the Tempo, but he has nowhere stated about his knowledge that any of the cartons would be containing contraband substance or drug. He has stated that he runs the Tempo on hire basis and on 27.06.09, his tempo was hired for loading 70 packets of MDH Malase, which were to be delivered at Alipur. He stated that they had reached Yadav Dharamkanta around 4 pm, but the person, who had hired his tempo, asked him to wait till goods are unloaded. He was also offered Rs. 100/- extra for the waiting SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
40charges. He said that the person who had hired the Tempo and had come with him went a little ahead he himself dozed off for a while. He further said that at about 8:00 pm, a silver colour Scorpio car came with three persons therein. One of them was the same person, who had hired his tempo from Khari Baoli. He further said that the person who had come with him ran away when DRI official came to the spot.
32.0 There is no evidence that accused Kailash Chand was known to the person, who had hired his Tempo from Khari Baoli. The identity of said person is not established. It is also a fact that 70 cardboard boxes loaded in his tempo were containing MDH spices and no contraband substance was recovered from those cartons.
33.0 PW14 Sh. Jeevan Sati has stated that he was an Accountant in M/s. Satwik Traders, who is stockist of MDH Spices and on 27.06.09, 70 cartons of MDH Spices were purchased from the firm by one Jasbir Singh on cash payment of Rs. 1,76,494/-. The purchaser has hired a Temp to load the cartons of MDH Spices. He filed the documents showing the loading of 70 cartons of MDH Spices in the Tempo.
34.0 PW21 is the registered owner of the tempo driven by the accused Kailash Chand. She deposed that the vehicle was given to Kailash Chand for running the same as driver on hire basis and he was paid a salary of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Therefore, the accused Kailash Chand was simply a driver of the Tempo owned by Smt. Gita Devi, in which 70 cartons of MDH spices were loaded from M/s. Satvik Traders from Khari Baoli and the said Tempo was brought to Yadav Dharamkanta, Alipur, for the delivery of the cartons.
35.0 There is nothing to indicate that the accused Kailash
SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
41
Chand had any knowledge about contraband substance/drugs.
Admittedly, he was not possessing any contraband substance. Possession as such for the purpose of NDPS Act would mean physical possession with animus, custody or dominion over the prohibited substance. In the case of Mohan Lal vs. State of Rajasthan (2015) 5 Scale 330, it was observed, "The animus and the mental intent is the primary and the significant element to show and establish possession. Further, personal knowledge as to existence of the "chattel" i.e. the illegal substance at a particular location or site, at a relevant time and the intention based upon the knowledge, would constitute the unique relationship and manifest possession."
36.0 The prosecution was unable to bring any evidence connecting the accused Kailash Chand with the contraband substance. In the absence of a knowledge about existence of contraband substance in the carton in a Scorpio car, the accused Kailash Chand cannot be connected with any criminal conspiracy to possess or transport the contraband substance. Thus, the accused Kailash Chand can neither be attributed any intent to be a part of criminal conspiracy to transport contraband substance nor he can be held as an abettor of the offence of transporting the contraband substance.
37.0 Therefore, in view of the above discussion and after considering the evidence on record, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully proved, beyond reasonable doubts its case against the accused Gurjant Singh for possessing and transporting contraband substance i.e. heroin in commercial quantity as the total weight of heroin was 7.842 Kg. Therefore, the accused Gurjant Singh is held guilty and convicted accordingly for the offence u/s 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. Bail bonds furnished SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
42by him under section 437A Cr.P.C. stand discharged.
38.0 The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused Kailash Chand beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, he is acquitted of the charges u/s 21 (c) of the NDPS Act.
39.0 The prosecution was also unable to prove and establish any criminal conspiracy between the accused Gurjant Singh and Kailash Chand. Therefore, both the accused are acquitted of the charges under section 29 r/w section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
40.0 Bail Bonds of accused Kailash Chand u/s 437A Cr.P.C. have already been furnished on record. The case file be consigned to record room after completion of the necessary formality of digitisation and pagination.
41.0 The case property be confiscated and disposed of as per law, after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of the appeal or subject to the outcome of the appeal to be filed against this judgement, if any, or the orders of the Appellant court, as the case may be.
Announced in the open court on 30.07.2015 (A.K. KUHAR) ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS South District Saket Court Complex New Delhi SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
43IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR KUHAR, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS ACT), SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No. 57A/09 u/Sec. 21/29 NDPS Act PS: DRI Unique ID No.: 02403R0434240009 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh S/o Sardar Ajit Singh R/o Village-Shamshpur P.O. Bahadurgarh District-Patiala, Punjab Date of Judgment : 30.07.2015 Date of order on sentence : 04.08.2015 ORDER 1.0 Accused Gurjant Singh has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 21 (c) NDPS Act, 1985 for possessing and transporting contraband substance i.e. heroin in commercial quantity as the total weight of heroin was 7.842 Kg., which is a narcotic substance.
2.0 I have heard the submissions on the point of sentence from learned Special PP for DRI and the convict. 3.0 I have taken into account all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case.
4.0 Learned Special PP has submitted that the convict has been found in possession of commercial quantity of contraband, for which sentence can extend up to 20 years with a fine, which can also go up to Rs. 2 Lacs. He submitted that considering the increase in the trafficking in the narcotics substance and its use, a strict view is required to be taken and severe punishment is called for in such SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
44cases.
5.0 The convict on the other hand has prayed for a lenient view on the ground that convict is the only earning member in the family, which consists of two children, aged between 7 years to 9 years. That he has no previous criminal record of conviction. 6.0 I am conscious of the fact that a too harsh sentence and too lenient sentence, both loose its significance. But, there can be circumstances when a lenient view is taken by Court. It is generally noticed that in such cases, the main drug paddlers go scot free and the conduit used by such paddlers, who are invariably poor people, get caught. The harsh punishment provided for offence under the NDPS Act is an indication that offences are to be considered very serious in nature, but while awarding sentence, the court has also to keep in mind, if there is any chance of reformation of the convict. If there is noting on the record to suggest that the convict has been engaged in any such type of offence in past, and if not kept behind the bars, he may engage himself in similar activity, then court must adopt a lenient view to give the convict a chance to reform himself. 7.0 I have considered all the facts and circumstance of the case. Keeping in view the nature of the offence and circumstances of the accused and the manner, in which the convict involved in this case, the following sentence is being awarded :
For the offence u/s 21 (c) of the NDPS Act, the convict Gurjant Singh is sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only) and in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
8.0 Case property be confiscated and disposed of as per law, after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of the appeal or subject to the outcome of the appeal to be filed against SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.
45this judgment, if any, or the orders of the Appellate Court, as the case may be. Benefit of Section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict.
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence is supplied to convict, free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court on (Ajay Kumar Kuhar) 4th August, 2015 Special Judge (NDPS Act) South District: Saket SC No.57A/09 DRI Vs. Gurjant Singh & Anr.