Delhi District Court
State vs Parwej Khan on 10 October, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MANU VEDWAN, ADDITIONAL SESSION
JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), EAST DISTRICT,
KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-000126-2016
Session Case No. 932/2016
State versus Parvej Khan & anr.
First Information Report No. 108/2015
Police Station Crime Branch
Under Section 20/25/29 NDPS Act
In the matter of: -
STATE
Versus
1. Parvej Khan
son of Somo Khan,
R/o Village and Post Bhadaya,
PS Barchaki, Distt. Gaya, Bihar.
2. Javed
Son of Mehmood,
Resident of Village Mohammadpur Ahir,
Distt. Nooh, Haryana
3. Dalip Singh
S/o Mithu Lal,
R/o. 64-A, Pratap Vihar,
Kirari Suleman Nagar, Nangloi,
Delhi-110041. ---------accused persons
Date of Institution : 15.01.2016
Date of reserve for judgment : 06.10.2025
Date of decision : 10.10.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Javed and Dalip Singh have been charged for the offences under Section 20/25/29 Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (hereinafter, referred to as NDPS Act).
2. Facts of the Case 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that, on 21.07.2015, Sub Inspector Page no. 1 Shiv Darshan of the Narcotics Branch, received a secret and reliable information that a person namely Parvez who is the resident of Bihar alongwith a person namely Javed, who is the resident of Haryana, were indulged in illegal trafficking of ganja. It was informed that both these aforementioned persons huge quantity of ganja from Odisha to Delhi in order to supply it in wholesale. The information was reduced into writing and forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who, after due satisfaction directed Sub Inspector Shiv Darshan to take necessary action. In pursuance of the said directions, a raiding party was constituted and a raid was conducted in the intervening night of 21/22.07.2015 at about 12.10 a.m. near Sanjay Jheel Bus Stand, NH-24, Delhi. At the spot, both accused Parvez and Javed were apprehended, while, they were found in possession of five plastic kattas (bags). On checking, the said kattas were found to contain ganja. The total weight of ganja recovered from the possession of both the accused persons came to be 100 kilograms.
2.2 The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were complied with at the spot. The accused persons were duly served with notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act. The recovered contraband was duly sampled, sealed with the seal of SSD, and Forensic Science Laboratory form was prepared. The case property, samples and Forensic Science Laboratory form were later deposited with the Station House Officer who affixed his counter seal and lodged the same in the malkhana. Both accused Parvez and Javed were arrested after completing necessary legal formalities. During the course of investigation, the disclosure statements of both the accused persons were recorded. Accused Parvez disclosed that he used to procure ganja from a person named Manoj, whose address could not be ascertained. Accused Javed, in his disclosure also revealed that the consignment of ganja was meant to be delivered to one Dalip Kumar. Subsequently, accused Dalip Kumar was apprehended from the area of Kirari, Delhi.
Page no. 2 During interrogation, he admitted his involvement with accused Parvez and Javed in the supply and distribution of ganja. He further disclosed that the payments were routed through bank accounts namely ICICI Bank account of one Ratanakar Raut and IDBI Bank account of one Raju Kumar.
2. It is further stated/mentioned that during the later course of investigation, Customer Application Forms (CAF), Call Detail Records (CDRs) and certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act with respect to the mobile phones used by the accused persons were collected. Bank statements pertaining to the aforesaid accounts were also obtained. Deposit slips from IDBI Bank were procured and the same were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini for comparison of handwriting and signatures of accused Dalip Kumar. The case property was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. As per the Forensic Science Laboratory report, dated 14.08.2015, the exhibits marked A1 to E1 gave positive tests for ganja. This conclusively established that the contraband recovered from the accused persons was ganja within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the NDPS Act. Further proceedings under Section 52A of NDPS Act were conducted before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, wherein, inventory and photographic proceedings of the seized case property were duly carried out. Thus, on the basis of recovery of commercial quantity of ganja, Forensic Science Laboratory report, disclosure statements of the accused persons and the material collected during investigation the present chargesheet was filed against accused Parvez, Javed and Dalip Kumar for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 20/25/29 of the NDPS Act.
3. CHARGES AGAINST THE ACCUSED 3.1 Charges for the offences under Section 20/29 of NDPS Act were framed against accused persons Javed and Dalip Singh vide Page no. 3 order, dated 02.06.2016, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Charges for the offence under Section 20/29 & 20 (b) (ii) of NDPS Act were framed against accused Javed vide order, dated 02.06.2016, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Later on as the accused Parvej Khan was not appearing before the court, he was declared proclaimed offender vide order dated 19.10.2023.
4. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 4.1 After the framing of charges, prosecution chose to lead evidence. PW-1 Assistant Sub Inspector Jagnarain, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 22.07.2015, he used to work as Malkhana Head Constable at police station Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar, Delhi. On aforesaid day, the then Sub- Inspector Ravinder Kumar, called him in his office alongwith register number 19. It is deposed that PW1 then reached there, where, aforesaid Ravinder Kumar produced 10 cloth parcels sealed with the seal of 8 APS NB Delhi and RK alongwith five plastic gunny bags sealed with the said seal and Forensic Science Laboratory form, carbon copy of seizure memo. All the aforesaid items were then deposited by PW1 in malkhana and relevant entries were also made in register number 19 at serial number 2408, in that regard copy of which is Ex.PW1/A(colly)(OSR). It is further deposed that the Sub-Inspector Ravinder Kumar had also signed the relevant entries in register number 19. It is further deposed that on the same day that is on 22.07.2015, Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajbir had come to Malkhana and produced one swift car, bearing number DL3CCA5146, alongwith personal search of the accused which were also deposited by PW1 in malkhana vide entry at serial number 2409. The copy of the said entry is Ex.PW1/B(OSR). It is further deposed that on 24.07.2015, on the directions of Sub-Inspector PW1 handed over Page no. 4 the sample parcel Mark A1, B1, C1, D1, E1 sealed with the seal of 8APS NB Delhi and RK alongwith Forensic Science Laboratory form and other necessary documents to head constable Narender vide RC number 217/21/15, who deposited the same at Forensic Science Laboratory Rohini and handed over PW1 the receipt regarding the same. PW1 was cross-examined at length and in his cross-examination he stated that as such there was no written direction received from Station House Officer about Head Constable Narender.
4.2 PW-2, Assistant Sub Inspector Ishwar Prakash, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 14.10.2015, on the request of investigating officer he had come to the court of then Learned Magistrate and took photographs of the proceedings conducted under Section 52-A of NDPS Act. PW2 further deposed that later on the said photographs were converted to Compact Disc by using camera. Thereupon, one envelope sealed with the seal of BP was opened and two envelopes also sealed with the seal of BP alongwith photocopies of some documents were taken out. Both these envelopes were opened and from one envelope 18 photographs alongwith one Compact Disc was taken out and shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as prepared by him. Later on, from another envelope another set of the same photographs and one Compact Disc was taken out and shown to the witness who correctly identified the same as prepared by him.
4.3 PW-3, Head Constable Narender deposed that on 24.07.2015, he was posted at Narcotic Cell, Crime Branch, Old Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi as Head Constable. On that day on the directions of Station House Officer, he had taken five parcels that Page no. 5 are marked as A1, B1, C1, D1 and E1 alongwith Forensic Science Laboratory form sealed with 8APS NB Delhi and RK for depositing the same at Forensic Science Laboratory Rohini vide Road Certificate number 217/21/15. PW3 deposited the aforesaid samples at Forensic Science Laboratory Rohini in proper condition and receipt was obtained which was handed over by him to Malkhana Incharge. PW3 was cross-examined at length and in his cross-examination, he stated that the Station House Officer did not give any document in writing for showing the same to the malkhana incharge.
4.4 It is deposed by PW-4, Ms. Babita Puniya, Metropolitan Magistrate in her examination-in-chief that on 14.10.2015, when she was working as MM-I, East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, an application moved under Section 52-A NDPS Act by investigating officer/ Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajveer Singh, was assigned to her. PW4 further deposed that Investigating Officer/ Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajveer Singh appeared before her along with spring weighing machine, electronic weighing scale and other seizing articles, head constable Ishwar Singh, photographer/head constable Jag Narain also accompanied him. Investigating officer had then filed an inventory of the seized case property that is ganja. It is further stated that MHCM then produced the case property in five plastic kattas (bags) Mark A to E having particulars of the case. PW4 checked the same and found them sealed with the seal of RK and 8APS NB DELHI. Thereafter, photographer was directed to take photographs of the case property. It is further deposed that investigating officer had produced spring weighing scale which was set at zero, pullanda Mark A containing seized contraband was kept on the said Page no. 6 machine and its weight was found to be approximately 19 kgs. The said pullanda was opened and investigating officer/ Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajveer Singh was allowed to take out two samples of about 250 grams each from the said pullanda. Investigating Officer had produced the electronic weighing machine which was set at zero and two samples of 250 grams each were weighed from the same and kept in two small polythene bags which were tied with the help of rubber band, two separate pullandas were prepared which were marked F1 and F2 and the remaining case property was put in another plastic katta and it was marked F. 4.5 PW4, further deposed that, the spring weighing scale was again set at zero and pullanda Mark B containing seized contraband was kept on the said machine and its weight was found to be approximately 19 kgs. The said pullanda was opened and investigating officer was allowed to take out two samples of about 250 grams each from the said pullanda. Investigating officer again produced the electronic weighing machine which was set at zero, two samples of 250 grams each were weighed on the same, sample ganja was kept in two small polythene bags which were tied with the help of rubber band. Two separate pullandas were prepared which were marked G1 and G2 and the remaining case property was put in another plastic katta and it was marked G. It is further deposed that the spring weighing scale was again set at zero, pullanda Mark C containing seized contraband was kept on the said machine and its weight was found to be approximately 19 kgs. The said pullanda was opened and investigating officer was allowed to take out two samples of about 250 grams each from the said pullanda electronic weighing Page no. 7 machine was set at zero and two samples of 250 grams each were weighed on the same. Sample ganja was kept in two small polythene bags which were tied with the help of rubber band, two separate pullandas were prepared which were marked H1 and H2 and the remaining case property was put in another plastic katta and marked as H. It is further deposed that the spring weighing scale was again set at zero and pullanda Mark D containing seized contraband was kept on the said machine and its weight was found to be approximately 18 kgs.
4.6 It is further deposed that the said pullanda was opened and investigating officer was allowed to take out two samples of about 250 grams each from the said pullanda investigating officer produced the electronic weighing machine which was set at zero and two samples of 250 grams each were weighed on the same and the sample ganja was kept in two small polythene bags which were tied with the help of rubber band. Two separate pullandas were prepared which were marked 11 and 12, remaining case property was put in another plastic katta and it was marked I. It is further deposed that the spring weighing scale was again set at zero and pullanda Mark E containing seized contraband was kept on the said machine and its weight was found to be approximately 18 kgs. The said pullanda was opened and investigating officer was allowed to take out two samples of about 250 grams each from the said pullanda. Two samples of 250 grams each were weighed on the electronic weighing machine and the sample ganja was kept in two small polythene bags which were tied with the help of rubber band, two separate pullandas were prepared which were marked J1 and J2. PW4 further deposed that remaining case property was put in another Page no. 8 plastic katta and it was marked J. It is further deposed that mentioned samples were also photographed and investigating officer was directed to write the particulars of the case on the sample pullandas who had complied the directions. PW4 further deposed that after completion of above proceedings in her presence photographs were also taken. The certificate is Ex. PW-4/B which bears her signatures at point A. Investigating officer/ Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajveer Singh had received one set of photographs of the case property and receipt in this regard is Ex. PW-4/C which bears her signatures at point A and that of the Investigating Officer at point B. 4.7 PW-5, Israr Babu, Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services in his examination-in-chief deposed that he has been working as Alternate Nodal Officer since May 2010. He had brought the summoned record of mobile phone number 8447253502 that is Computer application form and call detail records along with required certificate. As per record, said mobile was registered in the name of Dalip Kumar son of Mitoo Lal resident of House Number A-64/1 Pratap Vihar Part-I, Kirari Suleman Nagar, Delhi-86. Certified copy of Computer Application Form along with supporting documents and copy of Adhar Card of Dalip Kumar and another supporting documents are Ex.PW5/A(Colly)(OSR) bearing his initial at point A on each page. The certified copy of call detail records of the said mobile phone for the period from 01.06.2015 to 12.08.2015 contained in 17 pages are Ex.PW5/B bearing his initial along with seal at point A. All documents are taken on record. He has also brought the certificate under Section 65B(4) (c) of Indian Evidence Act. It is further deposed that call detail record of the said mobile phone Page no. 9 number has been produced from the computer system using printer and its contents are true. Ex. PW5/C is the certificate that printouts are true reproduction of the original.
4.8 PW6, Sub Inspector Ram Prasad, in his examination-in- chief deposed that on the intervening night of 22/23.07.2015, he was posted at Police Station Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi as Assistant Sub Inspector and was working as Duty Officer from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. He stated that at about 6:00 a.m. on 23.07.2015, head constable Sanjeev Kumar brought a rukka sent by Sub Inspector Shiv Darshan, contents of which were dictated by him to the computer operator. The First information report was got registered vide No.108/15 under Sections 20/25/29 NDPS Act. He obtained the computerized copy of the First information report which was signed by him and consisted of three pages. The same was exhibited as Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point A (OSR). He also made endorsement on the rukka which was exhibited as Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point A and issued a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, exhibited as Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at point A. After registration of the case, he handed over the copy of First information report and original tehrir to head constable Sanjeev for delivering the same to Assistant Sub Inspector Rajbir Singh, to whom further investigation was marked. PW6 was cross-examined and in his cross-examination, he submitted that Station House Officer had verbally directed him to hand over further investigation to assistant sub inspector Rajbir Singh.
4.9 PW-7, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ravinder Kumar Tyagi, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 21.07.2015, he Page no. 10 was in charge of narcotic section. On that day, at about 11 pm in night, Inspector Vivek Pathak informed him on telephone that Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan had an information that one person namely Parwej who belonged to Bihar was involved in supply of ganja in Delhi. He produced ganja from one Manoj of Orissa and would supply the same to one Javed. He also informed that one person namely Parwej would come at NH24, bus stand near Sanjay Jheel in between 12 and 12.30 am (night) to supply ganja to Javed, if raided he could be caught. He ordered Inspector Vivek Pathak to take necessary action in this regard. The said information was reduced into writing vide daily diary number 26, dated 21.07.2015. Aforesaid, daily diary was lodged by Sub- Inspector Shiv Darshan and forwarded by Inspector Vivek Pathak to his office produced before him by his reader on 22.07.2015, which was seen by him and signed. The same is Ex.PW7/A bears his signatures at point A. It is further deposed that on the same day special report under Section 57 of NDPS Act regarding seizure of 100 kg ganja prepared by Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan, forwarded by Inspector Vivek Pathak was received in his office on 22.07.2015 and the same was placed before him seen and signed by him. The said report is Ex.PW7/B bear his signature at point A. It is further deposed that on the same day special report under Section 57 of NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused Parwej and Javed was prepared by Assistant Sub-Inspector and forwarded by Inspector Vivek Pathak, was received in his office and placed before him by his reader concerned which was seen and signed by him. The said report is Ex.PW7/C bears his signature at point A. 4.10 It is further deposed that on 11.08.2015, report under Page no. 11 Section 57 of NDPS Act regarding further arrest of accused Dalip Singh @ Dalip Kumar @ Langra prepared by Assistant Sub- Inspector Rajbir Singh, forwarded by Inspector Vivek Pathak received in his office seen and then signed by him. The said report is Ex.PW7/D bears his signatures at point A. It is further stated that daily diary number 26 was received in the office on 21.07.2015, was diaried by the reader concerned at serial number 2008, copy of which is Ex.PW7/E (OSR). It is further deposed that report under Section 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of 100 kg ganja was received on 22.07.2015 in the office which was diaried at serial number 2009, copy of which is Ex.PW7/E1 (OSR). It is further stated that report under Section 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused Parwej was received on 22.07.2015, in the office which was diaried at serial number 2010, copy of which is Ex.PW7/E2 (OSR). It is further stated that report under Section 57 of NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused Dalip was received on 11.08.2015, diaried by reader concerned in register at serial number 2189, copy of which is Ex.PW7/E3 (OSR).
4.11 PW-8, Assistant Sub Inspector Dinesh Kumar, deposed that on 22.07.2015, he was posted as reader to Assistant Commissioner of Police (Narcotics) and on that day, he received daily diary number 26 through dak in the office which was diaried by him in concerned register number at serial number 2008. Thereafter, PW8 deposed on the similar line as of PW7 and also relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex. PW7/A, Ex. PW7/E, Ex. PW7/E1, Ex. PW7/E2, Ex. PW7/C, Ex. PW7/E3, Ex. PW7/E, Ex. PW7/E3 and Ex. PW7/D. 4.12 PW-9, Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited deposed in his examination-in-chief that he has brought Page no. 12 the summoned record of mobile phone numbers 7042569371, 7077430424, 7894535488 and 9871805626 from 01.06.2015 to 12.08.2015. It is further deposed that the mobile number 7042569371 is registered in the name of Muneshwar Sharma son of Sh. Ram Roop Sharma resident of 245 Block D-4, Sultanpuri, Delhi. The certified copy of Computer Application Form along with certified copy of election I-Card of Muneshwar Sharma is Ex.PW9/A colly (OSR). The certified copy of Call Detail Records of the said mobile phone from 01.06.2015 to 12.08.2015 containing two pages is Ex.PW9/A1. It is further deposed that the mobile number 7077430424 is registered in the name of Somnath Patra son of Sh. Arakhita Patra resident of Village Nahiadia, Panthapala, Kendrapara, Orissa. The certified copy of Computer Application Form along with copy certified copy of election I- Card of Somnath Patra is Ex.PW9/B colly (OSR). The certified copy of call detail record of the said mobile phone from 01.06.2015 to 12.08.2015 containing three pages is Ex.PW9/B1.
4.13 It is further stated that the mobile number 7894535488 is registered in the name of Bhagirathi Lenka son of Sh. Aswin Lenka resident of Village Bimla Nagar, Berhampur, Orissa. The certified copy of Customer Application Form along with copy certified copy of election I-Card of Bhagirathi Lenka is Ex.PW9/C(Colly)(OSR). The certified copy of call detail record of the said mobile phone from 01.06.2015 to 12.08.2015 containing three pages Ex.PW9/C1 (colly). It is further deposed that the mobile number 9871805626 is registered in the name of Javed son of Sh. Mehmood resident of 259 3 rd Floor, Haujrani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The certified copy of Customer Application Form along with copy certified copy of election I-
Page no. 13 Card of Javed and other supporting documents that is Driving License et cetera is Ex.PW9/D (colly) (OSR). The certified copy of call detail records of the said mobile phone from 01.06.2015 to 12.08.2015 containing 38 pages is Ex.PW9/D1 (colly). It is further deposed that the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW9/E bearing his signature at point A. 4.14 PW-10, Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar, in his examination-in-chief deposed that on 21.07.2015, he was posted at Narcotic Cell Office, Kotwali, Daryaganj as Head Constable and was present in the office. At about 11.25 pm, Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan constituted a raiding party comprising himself, head constable Satyavan, head constable Om Prakash and head constable Lakshman Prasad. Sub Inspector Shiv Darshan thereafter informed them that he had received a secret information that one person namely Parwej Khan resident of Bihar, who procured ganja in huge quantity from one person namely Manoj resident of Orissa and used to supply the same in Delhi. It is further stated that person would come on that day in between 12-12.30 am (night) at Sanjay Jheel bus stand NH24 to supply the same to one Javed. Thereafter, investigating officer had taken his investigating officer bag, field testing kit, one spring actuated weighing scale, one electronic weighing scale and they all started from the office in gypsy bearing number DL1CM 4228 being driven by Head Constable Satyavan. The informer was also with them. Daily diary number 27, was lodged at about 11.30 pm, in this regard. After leaving the office, they reached Shantivan red light then Rajghat and Ring Road. They took left turn from Nizamuddin fly over and via Akshar Dham they reached near Sanjay Jheel bus stand, at about 12.05 am. On Page no. 14 the way Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan had requested at Shantivan red light 2 passers by and at Indraprasth Metro Station 3-4 auto drivers and passengers to join the raiding team after briefing them about the secret information, but, none agreed and left the place without giving their names and addresses.
4.15 PW10, further deposed that, after reaching the spot, the secret informer pointed out one white colour Swift car bearing number DL3CCA 5146, standing near Sanjay Jheel bus stand at carriage road leading towards Akshar Dham. Secret informer had also pointed out towards two persons who were standing near the said car, they were lifting the bags from the road, were taking the same in the said car and the informer had also informed that their names were Parwej and Javed who were there in connection with supply and taking of ganja there. After pointing out, the secret informer had left the spot. At about 12:10 am, both the said persons namely Parwej and Javed who were lifting the bags and taking the same in the car, were apprehended with the help of raiding team members. There were five bags and both the persons were apprehended along with five bags and above mentioned car. It is further deposed that thereafter, Sub- Inspector Shiv Darshan introduced himself to both the said persons whose names were confirmed as Javed and Parwej. After confirming the names of the accused persons Javed and Parwej, they were informed by Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan that there was an information with him that accused Parwej had come there to supply ganja to accused Javed and it was also informed that in that regard they would be searched and it is their legal right that they can be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or Gazetted officer if they so required and also that they can take search of Page no. 15 any of the raiding team members and of the government gypsy prior to their search. They were also informed that arrangement for the gazetted officer or magistrate may be done if they so required, but, both the accused persons refused for the same. It is further deposed that thereafter, sub-inspector Shiv Darshan had prepared two notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act in original and its carbon copies and the carbon copy of the notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to each of the accused persons namely Javed and Parwej Khan.
4.16 It is further deposed that on the original notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act of accused Javed, the Investigating Officer/ Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan had written reply at the dictation of accused Javed as he had requested that he could not write the reply. The notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act of accused Javed is Ex.PW10/A, bearing his signatures at point A and reply of the accused to the same is Ex.PW10/B, bearing the signature of PW10 at point A1. It is further deposed that on the original notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act of accused Parwej Khan, the investigating officer Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan had also written reply at the dictation of accused Parwej Khan as he had requested that he could not write the reply. The notice under Section 50 NDPS Act of accused Parwej Khan is Ex.PW10/C, bearing signature of PW10 at point A and reply of the accused to the same is Ex.PW10/C1 bears signatures of PW10 at point A1. It is further deposed that Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan at that point of time also had also requested 2-3 passersby to join the proceedings after briefing them about the information, but, none agreed and left spot without giving their names and addresses. It is further stated that investigating officer had taken all the five Page no. 16 bags from the possession of the accused persons which were made of green canvass cloth and were having two hand strips each and all the bags were also having zip/chain with the help of which same used to be opened and closed. The zip of all the five bags were opened and the same were found containing green leaves, branches flower tops et cetera and after smelling the same, Sub-Inspector Shiv Darshan had found the same to be ganja.
4.17 All the five bags were respectively weighed on spring weighing scale and each bag was found to be of 20 kg. All the five bags were marked as A, B, C, D and E. From all the above mentioned five bags, investigating offier had taken two samples of 250 grams each and the same were kept in separate plastic polythenes which were converted into sample cloth parcels and the same were marked accordingly. From the bag given mark A, two samples of 250 grams each were drawn which were converted into cloth parcel and were given Mark A1 and A2. From the bag given mark B, two samples of 250 grams each were drawn which were converted into cloth parcel and were given Mark B1 and B2. From the bag given mark C, two samples of 250 grams each were drawn which were converted into cloth parcel and were given Mark C1 and C2. From the bag given mark D, two samples of 250 grams each were drawn which were converted into cloth parcel and were given Mark D1 and D2. From the bag given mark E, two samples of 250 grams each were drawn which were converted into cloth parcel and were given Mark E1 and E2. All the five bags A to E containing ganja were kept in separate five plastic bags and the same were tied with cloth and the same were marked as A to E again. Thereafter, Page no. 17 investigating officer had prepared Forensic Science Laboratory form at the spot. All the 15 parcels were sealed with the seal of 8APS NB DELHI and same seal was also affixed on the Forensic Science Laboratory form. Seal after use was handed over to Head Constable Om Prakash. All the parcels along with Forensic Science Laboratory form were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW10/D bearing his signatures at point A. Thereafter, investigating officer had prepared tehrir and it was handed over to PW-10 along with all the above mentioned sealed parcels, carbon copy of seizure memo and Forensic Science Laboratory form. PW10 was directed to produce the tehrir to duty officer for registration of the case and the parcels, Forensic Science Laboratory form and carbon copy of seizure memo to the Station House Officer for necessary action.
4.18 PW10 further deposed that at about 5.10 am, he left in the above mentioned government gypsy being driven by Head Constable Satyavan along with tehrir and parcels et cetera. PW10 reached police station Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar at about 6 am and produced the rukka to the Duty Officer and parcels et cetera to the Station House Officer /Inspector Ravinder Kumar Sharma. It is further deposed that the Station House Officer checked all the parcels and documents and thereafter, he had written first information report number on the parcels and documents and also put his seal of RK on each of the parcels and on the Forensic Science Laboratory form in his presence. He had also initialed the parcels and documents. Thereafter, he called Head Constable Jag Narain, the Moharrar Head Constable Malkhana along with register number 19, who came in his office and the Station House Officer handed over all the parcels and Page no. 18 documents to him and relevant entries were also made in register number 19, in this regard. Station House Officer had signed on the relevant entries in register number 19. Station House Office had also lodged daily diary number 3 in this regard. Thereafter, Duty Officer handed him over the copy of first information report along with original tehrir which were handed over by him to Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajvir at office of Narcotic Cell, Daryaganj, Delhi. Further investigation was marked to Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajvir. His statement was recorded in the office by Assistant Sub-Inspector Rajvir Singh. Thereafter, PW10 identified all the samples produced by Moharrar Head Constable Malkhana in between 4.30 pm to 6 pm, he can identify the case property if shown to him. PW-10 was cross-examined at length by learned counsel for accused Parwej Khan, during the course of his cross-examination, PW10 submitted that at the time of apprehension of both the accused, they had already kept two bags in the car and two were on the road and one in their hands.
4.19 PW-11, Sh. Amit Kumar Sharma, Nodal officer Reliance Communication, deposed that he has brought the summoned record of mobile phone numbers 7855025347 and 8102068421 for the period of 01.06.2015 to 13.08.2015 running into 2 pages and 32 pages respectively. It is further deposed that the mobile number 7855025347 is registered in the name of Nidhi Ram Guranga son of Mohini Guranga resident of Balikad, District Angul, Odihsa. The certified copy of Customer Application Form alongwith certified copy of election I-Card of Nidhi Ram Guranga is Ex.11/4(Colly)(OSR) signed by PW11 at point A. The certified copy of call detail records of the said mobile from period 01.06.2015 to 13.08.2015 is Ex.PW11/B. The certificate Page no. 19 under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW11/C. PW11 further deposed that the mobile number 8102068421 is registered in the name of Murari Saran Singh son of Sh. Janardhan Prasa resident of Bypass Kali Mandir, Sohni Patti Buxar, Bihar-802101. The certified copy of Customer Application Form alongwith certified copy of Aadhar Card of Murari Saran Sinha is Ex.11/D (Colly)(OSR). The certified copy of call detail records of the said mobile from period 01.06.2015 to 13.08.2015 is Ex.PW11/E(Colly). The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW11/F. 4.20 PW-12, Sh. Pawan Singh, Nodal officer, Vodafone Idea Limited deposed that he had brought the summoned record of mobile phone number 9507064991 for the period of 01.06.2015 to 21.07.2015 running into 18 pages. Mobile number 9507064991 is registered in the name of Mohd. Pravej Khan son of Sh. Samo Khan resident of 6, Ghirjabigha, Town/ Village Karma, Anchal Barachatti District Gaya. The certified copy of Customer Application Form alongwith certified copy of election I-Card of Mohd. Pravej Khan is Ex.12/A (Colly)(OSR). The certified copy of call detail record of the said mobile from period 01.06.2015 to 21.07.2015 is already on record and the same is now Ex.PW12/B running into 18 pages bearing his signature at point A with seal of the company. The certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act issued by him is already on record and the same is Ex.PW12/C bearing his signature at point A. 4.21 PW-13, Sh. Manmohan record clerk, State Transport Authority in chief deposed in his examination that he had brought the summoned record pertaining to vehicle number DL3CCA5146. The said vehicle is in the name of Zahiruddin son Page no. 20 of Saleem Khan resident of 259 Hauj Rani, New Delhi. Inspector Navin Kochar had issued letter in this regard and the same is Ex.PW13/A which bears his signature at point A alongwith seal identified by him as he had signed the same in his presence. The same is taken on record. The certified copy of the said vehicle taken from the authority concern is Ex.PW13/B. Copy of Road Certificate of the said vehicle is already Ex.PW13/A. 4.22 PW-14, Assistant Sub Inspector Om Prakash, in his examination in chief deposed similarly as that of PW-10 being member of raiding team constituted by Sub Inspector Shiv Darshan upon receiving secret information of delivery/receiving of drugs by accused persons. Alongwith, it is deposed that statement of PW14 was recorded by Assistant Sub Inspector Rajvir Singh at the spot in between 9 am to 9:30 am. Swift car along with key was taken into possession by Assistant Sub Inspector Rajvir Singh vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/A. Both the accused persons were handed over to Assistant Sub Inspector Rajbir by the first investigating officer. Accused Javed was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/B. His personal search is Ex.PW14/B1. His disclosure statement was prepared which is Ex.PW1/14B2. Accused Parvez was arrested vide memo Ex.PW14/C. His personal search is Ex.PW14/C1. His disclosure statement was prepared as Ex.PW1/14C. It is further deposed that the accused persons had pointed out the house of another accused, Dalip, as the source of contraband. The pointing-out memo was prepared and signed by the Investigating Officer at point A. Dalip was not found at his house at that time. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer and Assistant Sub Inspector Rajbir Singh took both the accused to the Narcotic Cell Page no. 21 office where their statements were recorded. It is further deposed that on 11.08.2015, the Investigating Officer along with Assistant Sub Inspector Rajbir Singh visited the house of accused Dalip Singh in Pratap Vihar, Delhi. It is further stated that accused Dalip was found standing in the street, apprehended, and interrogated by Assistant Sub Inspector Rajbir Singh. His arrest memo (Ex.PW14/E) was prepared and signed by the Investigating Officer. His personal search and disclosure statement were recorded and signed at point A as Ex.PW14/E1 and Ex.PW14/E2 respectively. It is further deposed that at different stages of the investigation, sealed parcels A1, B1, C1, D1, E1 and sample marks A2, B2, C2, D2, E2 containing sample ganja and cloth were produced, opened, and shown to the witnesses. The witnesses correctly identified them as the samples drawn by the Investigating Officer at the spot. Each seizure was recorded and marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P10.
4.23 It is deposed by PW15, Sh. Zahiruddin, that he was a taxi driver and he had purchased Swift car no. DL3CC 5146 in the year 2015, the afore-said car was being used by him for his family purpose. His father-in-law was suffering from cancer and was going under treatment at Singhania Hospital, Sheikh Sarai, Delhi in the year 2015. It is further stated that accused Javed is his brother-in-law, on 21.07.2015, accused Javed requested him to give accused his car for his personal use as his dumper vehicle was caught by the police in Delhi. Thus, PW15 gave his aforesaid car to him for his personal use. It is further deposed that after about two days, he came to know that police had seized his car and it was used for supplying ganja by accused Javed. It is further deposed that he was called at Deputy Commissioner of Page no. 22 Police office Kotwali and after 2-3 days, he had gone there.
4.24 PW16, Sh. Harish Chander Dhyani, Branch Head, IDBI Bank deposed that he had brought the summoned record of account no. 0883104000012184 which is in the name of Raju Kumar and was opened on 27.06.2011. Photocopy of his account opening form along with necessary copies of documents is Ex.PW16/A (colly). It is further deposed that the copy of bank statement of the said account contained in 10 pages is Ex.PW16/B (colly). It is further deposed that the details of deposit slips from serial number 1 to 26 along with photocopies of the said slips are Ex.PW16/C (colly). It is further deposed that as per record, 13 deposit slips which are on judicial file pertains to the above mentioned account number deposited by Sh. Dalip and Neeraj in the account of Raju Kumar and the said deposit slips are Ex.PW16/1 to Ex.PW16/13. It is further deposed that he has also issued certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act in this regard and the same is Ex.PW16/D. The covering letter with regard to filing of the said documents is Ex.PW16/E. 4.25 PW17, Inspector Vivek Pathak, deposed that on 21.07.2015, he was posted as Inspector in Crime Branch and on that day at about 11:00 pm, Sub Inspector Shiv Darshan, produced before him a secret informer in connection with First Information Report No.108/15. He verified the informer and thereafter produced him before Assistant Commissioner of Police Ravinder Kumar. He passed the information to the Assistant Commissioner of Police and forwarded the same to the senior officers. The secret information was reduced into writing vide Daily Diary No.26 Ex.PW17/A which was signed by him. He further deposed that after the raid, Sub Inspector Shiv Darshan Page no. 23 handed over to him reports under Section 57 of NDPS Act regarding seizure and arrest of accused Parvej Khan, Javed Khan and Dalip, which he forwarded to the Assistant Commissioner of Police concerned through Assistant Commissioner of Police office, true copies of which are Ex.PW17/B to Ex.PW17/D. He also proved the forwarding letter of Forensic Science Laboratory result Ex.PW17/E. 4.26 PW18, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ravinder Kumar Sharma, deposed that on 22.07.2015, he was posted as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Narcotics Crime Prevention, Crime Branch. On that day Inspector Vivek Pathak produced before him 15 sealed pulandas with the seal of 8A PS NB DELHI, Forensic Science Laboratory form and seizure memo. He put his seal RK on all the pulandas as well as on Forensic Science Laboratory form and made relevant entry in Register No.19. He proved his endorsement vide Daily Diary number 3 Ex.PW18/A. He further deposed that he affixed his signatures on seizure memo also.
4.27 PW19, Sh. Ajit Singh, Senior Scientific Officer (Documents), Forensic Science Laboratory Rohini, deposed that on 05.11.2015, he received certain questioned documents Q1 to Q69 alongwith admitted signatures marked A1 to A8 and S1 to S20 in connection with this case. He examined the same and gave his report Ex.PW19/A. He opined that admitted signatures A1 to A8 tallied with the questioned signatures Q58 to Q69. However, he did not give any opinion with respect to writings marked Q1 to Q57 for want of sufficient admitted writings.
4.28 PW20, Inspector Shiv Darshan, deposed that on 21.07.2015 he was posted as Sub Inspector in Crime Branch and Page no. 24 on that day at about 11:00 pm, he received secret information that two persons, namely Parwej and Javed, would come near Shakarpur red light in a Swift car with ganja. He reduced the same into Daily Diary number 26, informed Inspector Vivek Pathak and thereafter produced the informer before Assistant Commissioner of Police Ravinder Kumar who directed him to conduct a raid. He thereafter constituted a raiding party and reached the spot where accused Parwej and Javed were apprehended and from their possession 100 kilograms ganja was recovered. He prepared notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act Ex.PW10/A to Ex.PW10/C and seizure memo Ex.PW10/D. He further prepared rukka and sent the same through Constable Rajesh for registration of First information report. He drew 10 samples of 250 grams each and sealed the case property with seal of 8A PS NB DELHI and handed over the seal to Head Constable Om Prakash. He also filled up the Forensic Science Laboratory form. During the course of his cross-examination, PW20 specifically denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the accused persons and all documents were prepared while sitting in office.
4.29 PW21, retired Sub Inspector Rajveer Singh deposed that on 22.07.2015, he took over investigation of this case from Sub Inspector Shiv Darshan. He prepared the site plan Ex.PW21/2, arrested accused Parwej and Javed vide memos Ex.PW14/A and Ex.PW14/B and conducted their personal search vide memos Ex.PW14/C1 and Ex.PW14/B1. He also seized the Swift car vide memo Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that on 11.08.2015, he arrested accused Dalip from Hazaribagh, Jharkhand and prepared his arrest memo and personal search memo. He also recorded Page no. 25 disclosure statement of Dalip and prepared report under Section 57 of NDPS Act which is Ex.PW17/D. He collected Call Detail Records, Customer Application Forms of mobile numbers, bank documents and specimen signatures of accused Dalip. During the course of his cross-examination, PW21 admitted that he did not prepare any site plan of place of arrest of Dalip.
5. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED under section 313 Cr.P.C. 5.1 After completion of evidence on behalf of prosecution, statements of accused persons namely Javed and Dalip under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. Accused Javed in his afore-said statement submitted that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the present case and that no contraband was recovered from him. Accused Dalip Singh has also submitted that no contraband was recovered from him and he was falsely implicating in after picking from house by the police. Accused persons despite opportunity given did not lead defence evidence.
6. Arguments 6.1 As accused persons have refused to lead evidence so arguments at length heard from both sides. All relevant documents perused carefully. Ld. Addl. APP has also filed the written submissions apart from making detailed oral submissions. In written submissions, it is stated that court, while appreciating the evidence must not attach undue importance to minor discrepancies arisen during the course of recording evidence. The errors occued due to lack of memory may be given due allowance. It is also stated that court should not expect some extra ordinary standard to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution agencies. It is also stated that at the same time, courts can't start with the presumption that police records are not trustworthy or that the interested witnesses must always speak lie. It is stated that if on scrutiny the interested testimonies found to be reliable or probable, it must be sufficient to base the conviction Page no. 26 thereupon. It is further stated that the material witnesses considered necessary by the prosecution for unfolding the prosecution story only needs to be produced. It is also stated that any lapse of delay in compliance of Section 52 A of NDPS Act neither vitiates the trial nor entitles the accused to be released on bail. Also any procedural irregularities or illegality in conducting the search and seizure during the course of investigation or thereafter would not by itself make the entire evidence inadmissible. Reliance is placed upon the judgments titled as Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0485/2012, Appabhai and Anr. v. State of Gujarat AIR 1988 SC 696, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 3 SCC 52, Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab (2020) 2 SCC 563, Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1965 SC 328 (331), Mahendra Singh v. State of UP (2017) II SCC 129, Hari Obula Reddy v. State of A.P., MANU/SC/0128/1980, Dahari v. State of U.P. 10 SCC 256, Kallu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 19 SCC 197, Jagwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Crl. Appl. No. 027/2012 dated 02.11.2023 and Ram Swaroop v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2013) 14 SCC 235. All the judgments have been perused very carefully vis-a-vis the facts of the present case. 6.2 On the other hand, learned counsel for accused persons have also filed written submissions, in which apart from reiterating the case of prosecution, it is stated that five bags containing ganja weighing 100 Kg in total were allegedly recovered from accused Parwej and Javed and subsequently accused Dalip was implicated on the basis of disclosure statement. However, the prosecution version suffers from serious contradictions and non-compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, which makes the entire case doubtful and unreliable. The mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act have not been complied with. Though, it is alleged that Daily Diary entry number 26 was recorded, yet the witnesses themselves admitted that the information was not reduced into writing in their presence and informer was not produced before any senior officer. Similarly, Page no. 27 compliance of Section 50 is also defective. The prosecution claimed that notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act were served upon accused Javed and Parwej, but PW10 categorically admitted in his cross- examination that the notice shown in court does not bear the signature of accused Parwej, whereas PW14 went a step further and stated that the notices exhibited in court are not the same notices which were prepared at the spot. This clearly established that genuine and valid compliance of Section 50 has not been done, and no meaningful option of being searched before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer was ever offered. Further, there are contradictions regarding Section 57 of NDPS Act also. PW8 admitted that the diary entries regarding receipt of reports under Section 57 are in different handwriting, partly written by his assistant, which makes the authenticity of compliance doubtful. It is further stated that the investigation is further rendered doubtful as no independent public witness was joined at any stage of recovery proceedings. It is further stated that PW10 and PW14 contradicted each other regarding number of bags, preparation of notices, and the signatures of the accused.
6.3 The alleged secret information was neither reduced into proper writing nor communicated to superior officers in the manner required. Senior officers were admittedly not present at the time of constitution of the raiding party. There are serious doubts regarding the safe custody and sanctity of case property. The Forensic Science Laboratory form was not sealed and was sent in open condition. Assistant Commissioner of Police Ravinder Kumar Sharma (PW-18) admitted that he was not informed about the recovery prior to production of case property, which is again fatal to the prosecution. As far as accused Dalip Singh is concerned, no recovery has been effected from him. His name surfaced only in the disclosure statement of co-accused Javed, which by settled law is inadmissible against a co- accused. The alleged disclosure of Dalip regarding bank accounts and mobile numbers has not been corroborated by any cogent and Page no. 28 independent evidence. Thus, the implication of Dalip Singh is clearly false and baseless. It is stated that in totality, the prosecution case suffers from glaring contradictions, non-compliance of mandatory provisions, absence of independent witnesses, and false implication of accused Dalip Singh. It is therefore humbly prayed that both accused Dalip Singh @ Dalip Kumar @ Langra and Javed may be acquitted of all charges, as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Reliance is placed on Bantu v. State (NCT of Delhi) 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4671, Boota Singh v. State of Haryana, 16 April 2021, Najmunisha v. State of Gujarat Crl. Appeal Nos. 2319-2320 of 21009 SCC, Dr. Mahesh Chandra Gupta v. State of UP. Allahabad High Court, Crl. Revision No. 386 of 2015, Pankaj v. State of Punjab CRM M No. 25498/2021 14.06.2022, where in identical circumstances, the Hon'ble Courts have acquitted the accused by extending benefit of doubt. All these judgments have also been perused carefully vis-a-vis facts of the case and these seem not apply to present facts and circumstances.
7. Analysis & Reasoning 7.1 To start with it needs to be raised that in a criminal case the prosecution is bound to prove the commission of offence on the part of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt. Basically, there are two levels of proof in criminal cases; for the prosecution, that level of persuasion is that proof must be beyond reasonable doubt; for the defence, that standard is proof on the balance of probabilities. Denning J while elaborating on the nature of proof beyond reasonable doubt stated that it need not reach certainty, but it must carry a high degree of probability. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible, but not in the least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice. The evidence of the prosecution must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable doubt of the guilt of the Page no. 29 accused. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt all ingredients of an offence with which the person accused is charged and it cannot fall back solely upon the evidence adduced by the accused persons in their defence. Reliance is placed upon Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (2009) 13 SCC 729, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 755 and Mallanna v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 8 SCC 523.
7.2 Further, with respect to Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013, decided on 29.10.2020, observed with respect to the aim and objectives of the Act that:-
41/ This itself refers to the Act being a "stringent" measure to combat the menace of crimes relatable to drugs and psychotropic substances. Under Chapter IV, which deals with "Offences and Penalties", sections 15-24 speak of various drugs and psychotropic substances, in which the golden thread running through these sections is that where the contravention involves "small quantity as defined, there can be a rigorous imprisonment for a term that may extend to one year, or a fine that may extend to ten thousand rupees or both; where the contravention involves an intermediate quantity, i.e. between "small" and "commercial" quantity, with rigorous imprisonment that may extend to ten years and with fine that may extend to one lakh rupees; and where the contravention involves "commercial quantity" as defined, with rigorous imprisonment for a minimum of ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and also be liable to a fine which shall not be less than one lakh, but which may extend to two lakhs the court, for reasons to be recorded, is also given the power to impose a fine exceeding two lakhs. Under sections 28 and 29, punishments for attempts to commit offences, and for abetment and criminal conspiracy, are then set out. An extremely important section is section 30, where even preparation to commit an offence is made an offence. Under section 31, where a person is already convicted of the commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment of, or criminal conspiracy to commit, any of the offences punishable under the NDPS Act, and is subsequently convicted of the commission of, or attempt to commit, or abetment of, or criminal conspiracy to commit, an offence punishable under the NDPS Act, the punishment then goes to up to a term which may extend to one and one-half times the maximum term ofimprisonment, and shall also be liable to a fine which shall extend to one and one-half times of the maximum amount of fine. In certain circumstances under section 31A, the death penalty is also awarded. Under section 32A, no sentence awarded under the NDPS Act, other than a sentence under section 27, shall be suspended, remitted or commuted. Equally, we have seen how under section 33, the Page no. 30 Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not apply where the offender is above 18, or if the offence is for offences other than those under sections 26 and 27 of the Act.
42. Several presumptions are also made under the NDPS Act in which the burden of proof is reversed, now being on the accused. They are all to be found in three sections sections 35, 54 and 66. These sections state as follows:
"35. Presumption of culpable mental state.-(1) In any prosecution for an offence under this Act which requires 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.
Explanation. In this section "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive, knowledge of a fact and belief in, or reason to believe, a fact.
(2) For the purpose of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the court believes it to exist beyond a reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability."
"54. Presumption from possession of illicit articles.-In trials under this Act, it may be presumed, unless and until the contrary is proved, that the accused has committed an offence under this Act in respect of-
(a) any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance;
(b) any opium poppy, cannabis plant or coca plant growing on any land which he has cultivated;
(c) any apparatus specially designed or any group of utensils specially adopted for the manufacture of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance; or
(d) any materials which have undergone any process towards the manufacture of a narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, or any residue left of the materials from which any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance has been manufactured, for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily."
"66. Presumption as to documents in certain cases.-Where any document-
(i) is produced or furnished by any person or has been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or
(ii) has been received from any place outside India (duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government) in the course of investigation of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by a person, and such document is tendered in any prosecution under this Act in evidence against him, or Page no. 31 against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall-
(a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person's handwriting; and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested;
(b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such document is otherwise admissible in evidence;
(c) in a case falling under clause (i), also presume, unless the contrary is proved, the truth of the contents of such document."
43. Section 37(1) makes all offences under the Act cognizable and non-
bailable, with stringent conditions for bail attached:
"37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),-
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A and also for offences involving commercial quantity shall be released on bail or on his own bond unless-
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force on granting of bail."
44. Under section 40, where a person is convicted of any of the offences punishable under the Act, the court may, in addition, publish at the expense of such person - in a newspaper or other manner - the factum of such conviction. The NDPS Act is said to be in addition to the Customs Act, 1962 and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, so that, notwithstanding that offences may be made out under those Acts, offences under the NDPS Act will continue to be tried as such - see sections 79 and 80."
7.3 Further, as per section 2(iii) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the word 'cannabis (hemp)' has been defined as under:-
Page no. 32
(a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish,
(b) ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designed;
(c) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.
Terms like production, manufacture, transport, import inter- State, export inter-State and other related names are found defined in aforesaid section of the Act. Cannabis is commonly known as cannabis, Indian hemp, marihuana, and is usually consists of flowering tops, leaf and small stems material varying in colour from chocolate brown to spicy green. It looks like crushed and dry mint and tobacco-like substance with smell of grass and herbal plant. According to UNO's world drug report, cannabis is the most abused drug. Cannabis is a general term used to describe different forms of drug obtained from cannabis plant. The principal psycho-active ingredient of cannabis is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and the percentage of THC present depends upon to a certain extent on where and what variety of cannabis plant is grown. Reliance is placed upon commentary on the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Second Edition by Dr. JN Barowalia.
7.4 Also, as almost all the witnesses cited by prosecution are police officers so, it is not out of place here to discuss the relevancy of the testimony of police officers. It is not the law that the police witnesses should not be relied upon, and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence. No infirmity is attached to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force. Venkatarama Iyer J stated that the presumption that a person acts honestly applies as much in Page no. 33 favour of a police officer as of other persons, and it is not a judicial approach to distrust and suspect him without good grounds there for. Where no independent witness was available and other witnesses had turned hostile, the evidence of the police witnesses, being reliable, could form basis of conviction. In such a fact situation, a duty is cast on the court to adopt greater care while scrutinizing the evidence of the police official. Reliance is placed upon the judgment titled as Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1997 SC 2985 Cr LJ 3647, Girja Prasad v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2007 SC 3106 and Govindaraju v. State, AIR 2012 SC 1292. Now, coming to the aspect of the confession made by the co-accused/by a particular accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Undoubtedly, the ban on self-accusation and the right to silence, while investigation or trial is under way, goes beyond that case and protects the accused in regard to other offence pending or imminent, which may deter him from voluntary disclosure of criminatory matter. The consistent view which has been taken with regard to confession made under provisions of section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and other criminal enactments, such as the Customs Act, 1962, has been that such statements may be treated as confessions for the purpose of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, but with the caution that the court should satisfy itself that such statements had been made voluntarily in connection with the alleged offence. Reliance is placed upon Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 2018 8 SCC 271, Amit Ranjan v. Narcotics Control Bureau 2022 SC Online Del 1532, Phundreimayum Yas Khan vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 SCC online Del 135 and Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu Criminal Appeal No. 152 of 2013 decided on 29.10.2020.
7.5 Adverting, to the facts of the present case here admittedly accused Dalip was arrested on the basis of disclosure made by co- accused Javed. Again admittedly, no contraband substance/drug/any Page no. 34 other material banned under the NDPS Act was recovered from the possession of accused Dalip at the time of his arrest or any time thereafter. Prosecution though has endeavored to link the accused Dalip with the remaining accused persons, especially to the accused Javed with the help of evidences/testimonies of Nodal Officers who have brought the call detail records and Computer Application Forms of various mobile numbers. It is claimed that these mobile numbers were either used by the accused persons, their acquaintances/friends or otherwise linked with them. It is to be noted that call detail records or even for that matter Computer Application Forms at the most may confirm the location of the concerned person/that is the place where the person uses the mobile phone, but, these type of data can't be used to prove the commission of crime that too within the realm of the aspect that is beyond the reasonable doubt. Calling for conviction of a person purely on the basis of call detail records seems to be more of a flimsy ground rather than a legal/lawful approach. This discussion needs to be seen in the light of the fact that there is as such no transcript available which may point towards the type of the conversation undertaken by the persons concerned/involved. Reliance is placed upon Azad v. State of GNCT of Delhi 2023 SCC Online Delhi 1769 and Shyam Gupta & ors. v. State, Criminal Revision Petition 421/2019 decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 13.03.2023. Now, with respect to the money trail which is the additional piece of the evidence brought forward by the prosecution to establish the complicity of the accused Dalip with other accused persons, qua the money trail, it is basically a record of series of connected financial transactions that can be followed to uncover the flow of money, identify the source of funds and determine who benefits from them. Ultimate goal is to reveal where the money comes from, who ultimately benefited from it and to expose illicit activities. Here, prosecution has relied upon the testimony of the bank witness to show the deposition of money alongwith the testimony of Page no. 35 the witness from the Forensic Science Laboratory qua establishing the signatures on the money deposition slips. Some of the signatures were claimed to be established, but, here again the landmark question is how the money linked to the other accused/how it was handed over to accused Dalip to be deposited/whether it was withdrawn by the other accused persons remains unanswered. In the overall circumstances, it is not wrong to say that there are obvious missing links of the flow of money from accused Parvej, Javed and Dalip or it can be said that the data produced for establishing money trail lacks meticulous tracing of funds from source to the final destination. Reliance is placed upon Vishnu Prabhakar v. Union of India Through Director of Enforcement-2025 Supreme (All) 2237, Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. Directorate of Enforcement-2025 Supreme (SC) 484 and P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement-2019 7 Supreme 613. In view of the above-said discussion, it is not wrong to sum up that prosecution has failed to prove its case qua the accused Dalip and he is hereby acquitted for the offences charged with. 7.6 With, respect to the status of accused Javed, who was apprehended and then arrested at the spot with the five bags each containing twenty kilograms of ganja in it. As, already detailed above in previous paragraphs all the due/relevant procedures were followed by the Investigating Officer and other accompanying members of the raiding team including the senior officers who were called on by the officers who had received the requisite information as well as by the assigned Investigating Officer later on. The secret information was recorded and thereupon communicated to Assistant Commissioner of Police as according to the procedure. The daily diary entry which was sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police also produced before him for his perusal/further directions were proved by the corroborative evidence of PW6, PW7, PW8, PW10 and PW20. PW20 has specifically deposed that after recording the secret information vide daily diary number 26, he informed Inspector Vivek Pathak, who Page no. 36 further forwarded the same alongwith informer to Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ravinder Kumar. PW17, Inspector Vivek Pathak deposed that he passed the secret information received through aforesaid diary number to Assistant Commissioner of Police. Similarly, PW18, Assistant Commissioner of Police acknowledged the receiving of above information in his testimony. PW8 Reader to the Assistant Commissioner of Police has also proved the receiving of daily diary number 26 in the concerned office. Prosecution has also proved that after the arrest of accused reports regarding the seizure as well as arrest of the accused were prepared by respective Investigating Officer and sent to higher officer as according to the NDPS Act. PW7, PW10, PW14, PW17, PW20 and PW21 specifically deposed in that regard as discussed herein before. The necessary compliance of provisions have been made especially with respect to Section 50 as well as section 57 of the NDPS Act. Though, the learned for the accused has raised objections with respect to notice of Section 50 under the NDPS Act, but, as such no relevant ground in that regard mentioned and same has been found to be signed by the accused Javed which was never denied by the accused Javed at any stage of case. Cross-examination of any of these witnesses failed to extract anything relevant in favour of accused Javed.
7.7 Recovery witnesses of the prosecution have corroborated the stand of the prosecution qua the recovery of ganja. PW10 in his testimony detailed how Sub Inspector Shiv Darshan after receiving the information constituted a raiding team including PW10, and, they all went by gypsy at the spot where accused Parvej and Javed were apprehended and later on, arrested after following the due procedure with the five bags of ganja. Again, during the course of his cross- examination nothing notable/relevant/concrete has come out as such against the case of prosecution. Recovery witnesses have also deposed about the drawing of samples and preparation of pullandas. Learned Magistrate has also deposed in detail about the drawing of Page no. 37 samples. Samples were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory after following due procedure and well received there. Testimonies of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4 in that regard is quite relevant and remain blemished free throughout the trial. It is also proved that seals remained intact and tallied with specimen seal till the samples reached Forensic Science Laboratory and opinion on samples given by Forensic Science Laboratory are that of ganja. With respect to the non availability of public witness, it has been divulged in detail by police recovery witnesses that request were made to public persons to join the investigation at relevant stages, but, they refused to join the same and relevant entries in that regard have been made. It needs to be pinpointed here that mere non-joining of independent witnesses where evidence of prosecution witnesses found to be convincing seems not to be fatal to the case of prosecution. Reliance is placed upon the judgment Gian Chand v. State of Haryana, Crl. Appeal No. 2302/2010 dated 23.07.2013 and Rohtas v. State of Haryana JT 2013 (8) 181. On evaluation of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, it stands proved that they remained consistent in their depositions and no infirmity/discrepancies have emerged during their cross-examination qua their depositions regarding the role of accused Javed. In the light of above discussion, I am of the view that prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused Javed beyond doubt. Accused Javed is, therefore, convicted under section 20 (b) (ii) (c) read with section 29 of the NDPS Act. Let him be heard on the point of sentence on 25.10.2025.
Digitally
signed by
Announced in the open court MANU
on this 10th Day of October, 2025. MANU VEDWAN
VEDWAN Date:
2025.10.10
(Manu Vedwan) 16:58:17
+0530
Additional Session Judge-2/
Special Judge (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) East/Karkardooma/Delhi.
Page no. 38