Delhi District Court
State vs 1. Rizwan (Bail) on 29 October, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY SHARMA : SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) / ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, (NORTH-EAST): KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No. : 05/12 FIR No. : 471/11 PS : Seelampur U/Sec. : 21/61/85 NDPS Act Case ID : 02402R0040312012 State Versus 1. Rizwan (Bail) S/o Sh. Anwar Khan R/o Village Sarandaj Pur, PS Wazirganj, Teh. Bisoli Saidpur, District Badaun, U.P. Date of Institution : 07.02.2012 Date of reserving order : 25.09.2014 Date of Judgment : 29.10.2014 JUDGMENT
1. On 07.02.2011 at 6.30 p.m., PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad with PW-3 HC Rameshwar Prasad and PW-2 Ct. Ganga Ram were checking vehicles near theka sharab, Shastri Park, Delhi. At that time, accused Rizwan was coming on foot from the side of Old Yamuna Bridge. On seeing the police party, he turned about. It arose suspicion. PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad with the help of accompanying staff apprehended accused Rizwan. On cursory search, one polythene was recovered from the right side pocket of his jacket. It contained a small paper packet containing brown colour powder. On smelling, it was found emanating smell of smack.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 1/192. On enquiry, accused Rizwan disclosed the said brown powder was smack which he brought for the purpose of sale in Shastri Park. PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad informed accused Rizwan that he could be carrying more smack and therefore, his personal search was required to be conducted. He informed the accused that if he desired, any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate can be called there for conducting his search and also that if he desired, he could be taken to a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for conducting his search. PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad given a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act Ex.PW2/D to accused Rizwan and carbon copy thereof is Ex.PW4/A. Accused Rizwan stated that he was not carrying more smack and stated that PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad could conduct his search. He stated that he did not want to call any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for conducting his search. PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad offered him to conduct search of the members of the police team but accused Rizwan refused the said offer. Accused Rizwan affixed his left thumb impression on the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. His refusal was recorded by ASI Yamuna Prasad and accused Rizwan affixed his left thumb impression thereon. PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad requested 4-5 passer-byes to join the proceedings but they proceeded on their way without disclosing their names and addresses and thereafter, he conducted personal search of accused Rizwan. However, nothing incriminating was recovered from his search.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 2/193. It is further case of the prosecution that PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad weighed the recovered smack. It was found to be 8 grams. He drawn a sample of 4 grams of smack from the recovered smack and kept it in a small plastic box and remaining 4 grams smack was also kept in another small plastic box and after capping the said plastic boxes, he converted them into cloth parcels and marked them as Serial No. 1 and 2. He affixed his seal having impression 'YP' thereon and filled form FSL. He affixed his seal on form FSL and seized the said cloth parcels and form FSL vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/A. He handed over his seal after use to PW-3 HC Rameshwar. He prepared a rukka Ex.PW4/C. He handed over rukka and both cloth parcels and form FSL to PW-2 Ct. Ganga Ram with the direction to produce the rukka before Duty Officer and to hand over the remaining documents and form FSL alongwith a copy of seizure memo to SHO concerned.
4. In due course, FIR No. 471/11 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act was registered at PS Seelampur by PW-1 HC Jaswant Singh, Duty Officer and further investigation was assigned to PW-7 SI Fateh Singh. During the course of investigation, PW-7 SI Fateh Singh prepared site plan Ex.PW7/A, arrested accused Rizwan vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/B and conducted his personal search vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/C and recorded statement of the witnesses conversant with the facts of the case.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 3/195. PW-7 SI Fateh Singh prepared a special report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act Ex.PW8/A and submitted it to PW-9 Insp. Sanjiv Gupta for onward transmission to senior officers of police. On 14.12.2011, sample parcel serial no. 1 was sent to FSL for chemical examination. Dr. Lingaraj Sahoo, Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry), Forensic Science Laboratory, Delhi examined the sample parcel. Seals on the sample parcel were found intact and matched with the specimen seal. On Chemical, TLC & GC examination, sample parcel was found to contain Diacetylmorphine, Paracetamol and Caffeine. The percentage of Diacetylmorphine was found to be 56.1% in sample parcel.
6. On completion of investigation, accused was charge-sheeted for committing offence U/s.21 of the NDPS Act.
7. On appraisal of material on record, accused was charged for committing offence U/s. 21 of the NDPS Act.
8. During the course of evidence, prosecution has examined 9 witnesses, as under:
The witnesses Description of the witness
PW-1 HC Jaswant Singh Duty Officer
PW-2 Ct. Ganga Ram Recovery witness
PW-3 HC Rameshwar Recovery witness
PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad Recovery witness
PW-5 HC Lal Babu Sample depositor
PW-6 HC Narayan Singh In-charge, Malkhana
PW-7 SI Fateh Singh Investigating Officer
PW-8 HC Kamta Prasad Reader to ACP, Seelampur
PW-9 ACP Sanjiv Gupta Officer-In-Charge, PS Seelampur
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 4/19
9. Incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against the accused were put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
10. According to accused Rizwan, no smack was recovered from him. His thumb impressions were taken in the police station on blank papers which were misused by the police for preparing the documents against him. Police had planted heroin upon him. No search or seizure had taken place and all the proceedings were conducted in the police station to frame him in this case. All the documents were prepared by police in the police station.
11. According to accused Rizwan, he had gone to his sister's house Ms. Shehzadi near theka sharab, Shastri Park for giving invitation card of the marriage of his sister Ms. Phool Bano. At that time, police had apprehended around 50-60 persons. He was taking tea in his sister's house. Police officials entered into the house of his sister and brought him outside the house. His sister-in-law Ms. Sakila was also there. Police officials conducted his personal search and kept with him a sum of Rs. 2500/- which he was carrying. ASI Yamuna Prasad had demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from him. Since he could not pay the said amount, he was implicated in this case. He was not carrying any heroin. He was innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case. No recovery was effected from his possession and alleged contraband was planted upon him.
12. The defence has examined 4 witnesses in defence evidence, as under:
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 5/19(a) DW-1 Smt. Shehzadi is the relative of accused Rizwan. She is residing in a jhuggi under ISBT-Kashmiri Gate Bridge, Delhi-6. According to her, on 07.12.2011, accused Rizwan alongwith Ms. Shakila, Sister-in-law (Bhabhi) visited her house to deliver an invitation card of marriage of his sister. She served tea to them. In the meantime, two police officials entered in her jhuggi and caught accused Rizwan and her husband Irshad. Police officials brought them out from her jhuggi and demanded Rs. 5,000/- from Irshad and Rs. 10,000/- from accused Rizwan in order to release them. She stated that she had given an amount of Rs. 5,000/- to the said police officials and therefore, they released her husband. She stated that accused Rizwan was not having money and therefore, the said police officials had taken Rizwan to police station Seelampur.
She alongwith Ms. Shakila reached police station Seelampur and found that the police was giving beating to accused Rizwan. She stated that police had obtained thumb impressions of accused Rizwan on some blank papers forcibly and implicated him in the present case.
In her cross-examination by the State, she stated that accused Rizwan used to drive rickshaw thela in Tilak Bazar. She stated that she had not visited any senior officers of police or Court to make a complaint about lifting of Rizwan by the police or demand of Rs. 10,000/- from him as well as regarding receiving of amount of Rs. 5000/- from her. She appeared before the Court on the date of production of accused Rizwan.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 6/19At that time, accused Rizwan was represented by a counsel and she did not inform his lawyer to file a complaint against illegal demand and implication of accused Rizwan in this case.
(b) DW-2 Smt. Shakila stated that she alongwith accused Rizwan, her brother-in-law visited jhuggi of Ms. Shehzadi under Yamuna Bridge to give marriage invitation card. She stated that when they were taking tea, two police officials came there and taken Rizwan out of jhuggi. The said police officials stated that they would release him after enquiry and taken him to police station Seelampur. She alongwith Shehzadi reached at police station Seelampur. Police officials released Irshad after taking Rs. 5000/- but accused Rizwan was not having the said amount and therefore, they had falsely implicated accused Rizwan in this case.
In her cross-examination by the State, she stated that accused Rizwan was not doing any separate work. She had not made any complaint to any senior police officers or before the Court against the police. She had not made any complaint to the Court when the accused was produced before the Court by the police. She did not ask his lawyer to file any complaint.
(c) DW-3 Mohd. Irshad is husband of Ms. Shehzadi. According to him, accused Rizwan and his sister-in-law visited his house and when they were being served with tea and snacks, two police man entered in his jhuggi.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 7/19According to him, the said police officials slapped him twice and forced him and accused Rizwan to come out from his jhuggi. He enquired the reason for the said behaviour. He stated that the said police officials demanded Rs. 5000/- from releasing them. His wife paid an amount of Rs. 5000/- and thereafter, they released him. They demanded Rs. 10,000/- for releasing accused Rizwan which he could not pay. They had taken accused Rizwan to police station and he also followed him. He stated that police had taken thumb impressions of accused Rizwan on blank papers in his presence. Accused Rizwan was also assaulted in the police station.
In his cross-examination by the State, he stated that he had not made any complaint to any senior police officers or before the Court regarding lifting of accused Rizwan and demand of bribe from them.
(d) DW-4 Pappu is a resident of Shastri Park, Delhi. According to him, accused Rizwan visited Shehzadi to deliver invitation card of her sister. He stated that he was talking to Shehzadi and Irshad. He stated that accused Rizwan was taking tea and snacks in the house of Shehzadi. He was also called there. He stated that at about 1.30 p.m.-2.00 p.m., around 8 to 10 police men visited jhuggi of Shehzadi and brought Dilshad and accused Rizwan outside the jhuggi. He enquired about the matter. At some distance, police officials had parked their vehicle and they had taken them near the said vehicle.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 8/19Police had apprehended around 15-16 persons at that time. The said police officials asked a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from him as bribe. He paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- and returned to his house. He stated that the said police officials demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- from accused Rizwan for releasing him.
In his cross-examination by the State, he stated that he is a rickshaw puller. Accused Rizwan is the relative of Shehzadi who is his neighbour. House of Shehzadi is situated after 3 jhuggies from his jhuggi. He did not make any complaint regarding payment of cash amount of Rs. 2,000/- to the said police officials. In his presence, about 25-30 persons paid cash amount to the said police officials. He did not make any complaint to any authority or any prominent figure or pradhan of their locality. He did not lodge any complaint or visited SHO, ACP or DCP of the area. He did not file any complaint case regarding extortion by police officials. He could not tell the name of the said police officials. He did not appear before the Court at the time of remand or any stage to make a complaint or to apprise the Court about the false implication of accused Rizwan.
13. I have heard arguments of Sh. I.H. Siddiqui, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Sh. S.K. Vishwakarma, Advocate for accused Rizwan and considered the material on record.
14. Ld. Addl. PP for the State submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove recovery of 8 grams of smack from the possession of accused Rizwan.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 9/1915. Ld. Addl. PP for the State further submitted that PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad, PW-3 HC Rameshwar and PW-2 Ct. Ganga Ram are recovery witnesses. He submitted that there is no blemish in their depositions. He submitted that their depositions are cogent, consistent and truthful. He submitted that the defence has not been able to elicit any contradiction, much less than material contradiction, in their cross- examination. He submitted that case of the prosecution cannot be doubted in the absence of public witnesses. He submitted that there is general tendency in the public to maintain a distance from becoming witnesses. He submitted that police officials are competent witnesses and there is no reason, proved, suggested or otherwise demonstrated, to false depose against accused Rizwan. He submitted that the recovery witnesses have no enmity or ill-will towards accused Rizwan. He submitted that the prosecution has proved compliance to the provision under Section 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act. He submitted that in the alternative, Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable as it is a case of chance recovery. He submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove that the samples were properly drawn, preserved and remained intact till they were examined by FSL. He submitted that FSL report proved that the recovered contraband contained Diacetylmorphine and as such accused is liable to be held guilty under Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act for possessing 8 grams of smack without any license or permit in contravention of Section 8 of the NDPS Act.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 10/1916. Sh. S.K. Vishwakarma, Ld. Defence Counsel submitted that the accused Rizwan is earning his livelihood by running a rickshaw thela and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that accused Rizwan visited the house of his foster sister Shehzadi with his sister-in-law to deliver invitation card of marriage of his sister and he has been falsely implicated in this case as he could not pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- demanded by police officials. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove compliance to mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. He submitted that PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad did not call any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer to conduct search of accused Rizwan. He submitted that PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad made no effort to produce the accused before any Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He submitted that notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act Ex.PW2/D does not mention that accused Rizwan could be taken to a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for his search. He submitted that the provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is applicable to the present case as PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad carried out personal search of accused Rizwan after recovery of alleged 8 grams of smack. He submitted that no public witness was associated at the time of search, seizure and arrest of accused Rizwan despite availability. He submitted that there are material contradiction in the depositions of recovery witnesses and as such, the case of the prosecution is shrouded in suspicion and therefore, accused Rizwan deserves acquittal in this case.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 11/1917. I have carefully considered the evidence on record, oral and documentary, written submissions filed by the defence and arguments addressed by the prosecution.
18. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.2011 at 06.30 p.m., accused Rizwan was seen coming from the side of old Yamuna Bridge and he turned about and tried to move from the spot on seeing the police party checking the vehicles and on suspicion, PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad carried out his cursory search and recovered one polythene packet containing smack from right side pocket of the jacket of the accused Rizwan. However, PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad suspected that accused Rizwan might be carrying more smack and therefore, he informed him that his further personal search was to be conducted and he served a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act Ex.PW2/D and carbon copy thereof is Ex.PW4/A informing the accused Rizwan that if he wanted, his search can be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate which offer accused Rizwan declined and thereafter, he conducted his personal search. However, nothing incriminating could be recovered.
19. PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad carried out personal search of accused Rizwan after recovery of 8 grams of smack after intimating him that his search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and also served a written notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act Ex.PW2/D upon him and thus, Section 50 of the NDPS Act would apply.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 12/1920. A bare perusal of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act Ex.PW2/D would go to show that the accused Rizwan was given an option rather intimation of legal right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act does not mention that accused Rizwan was informed that it was his legal right that he desired, he could be taken to a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate for conducting his search.
21. In order to have a clear picture, of what stated above, it would be apposite to reproduce the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, as under:
" Aap Rizwan s/o Anwar Khan R/o Gaon Sarandaj Pur, Thana Wazirganj Tehsil Bisoli Saidpur Badaun, U.P. and aged about 25 years ko daurane checking theka shraab Shashtri Park, Delhi pakda gaya hai jo apki sarsari talashi se smack baramad hui hai. Muje shak hai ki iske alawa aap ke paas or bhi smack ho sakti hai. Mai aap ki talashi lena chahta hu. Aap apni talashi kisi rajpatrit adhikari ya magistrate ke samne dena chahte hai to unhe bhi mauke par bulaya ja sakta hai. Aap apni talashi dene se pehle police ki talashi le sakte hai.
Prarthi ASI Yamuna Prasad PS Seelampur, Delhi 07.12.2011"
22. It is, therefore, evident that accused was not communicated his legal right to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 13/1923. In State of Delhi Vs. Ram Avtar reported as AIR 2011 SC 2699; Hon'ble Supreme Court considered an identical notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and held as under:
"22...... As is obvious from the bare language of Ex.PW-6/A, the accused was not made aware of his right, that he could be searched in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, and that he could exercise such choice. The writing does not reflect this most essential requirement of Section 50 of the Act. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity."
24. The case of the prosecution is based on the police witnesses. PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad did not associate any public witness at the time of search and seizure proceedings. As a legal proposition, it is firmly established that the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted on the sole ground that the recovery witnesses are police officials. Absence of an independent witness is by itself is not a ground to discard the prosecution case. Police officials are competent witnesses and in the absence of any enmity or animosity, their evidence deserves due consideration. We are aware of public apathy or indifference towards crime and victims. Public does not come forward to depose against violators for varied reasons.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 14/1925. In an offence punishable under stringent provision of the NDPS Act, it is desirable that public witnesses must be associated at the time of search and seizure proceedings. However, absence of public witnesses cannot be a ground to view the depositions of the police witnesses with suspicion. In such a case based on the evidence of police officials, the first quest of the Court is to satisfy to itself as to whether any effort was made by the police to associate any public person at the time of search, seizure and arrest proceedings. Thereafter, it is to be examined as to whether the said effort was adequate or a mere formality. Once the Court is satisfied that the police made adequate effort to join public person but no one agreed to join the investigation, then the Court must not view the depositions of police witnesses with suspicion. However, if no effort was made to join public witnesses despite availability, the evidence of police witnesses must be analysed with due care and caution.
26. In the present case, PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad made no effort to join any public person despite availability. According to him, he had requested 4-5 passer-byes to join the investigation but they left without disclosing their names and addresses. In his cross-examination he admitted that place of apprehension was located in a crowded area. Routinely, such excuse is given for non-association of public witnesses. Though the area is a crowded area, site plan Ex.PW7/A does not depict the presence of residential houses or shops near the spot.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 15/1927. Site plan Ex.PW7/A is a mere sketch and it does not give a clear picture of the spot of apprehension of the accused.
28. Now let us proceed to analyse the evidence of recovery witnesses namely PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad, In- charge of the recovery team and PW-3 HC Rameshwar Prasad and PW-2 Ct. Ganga Ram who were accompanying him at that time.
29. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.12.201 at 06.30 p.m., PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad with PW-3 HC Rameshwar Prasad were checking vehicles near theka sharab, Shastri Park, Delhi. However, prosecution has not produced and proved the departure entry of the said police officials. The prosecution has also not produced the register maintained by PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad in which he was making entries in respect of the vehicles checked by him at theka sharab, Shastri Park, Delhi. In such case which exposes a person to stringent punishment, it is always expected from the prosecution to prove the entire chain of the prosecution evidence so as to evoke confidence of the Court on the case of the prosecution.
30. According to ASI Yamuna Prasad, he weighed recovered smack and it was found to be 8 grams and he had taken out 4 grams of smack as sample. Admittedly, ASI Yamuna Prasad was checking vehicles. He has not stated as to he was carrying IO bag containing any weighing machine. He has also not stated that he arranged any weighing machine from a nearby shop or requisitioned it from police station.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 16/1931. In such a case, when the recovery officer was checking vehicles and he was not carrying his IO bag, it becomes incumbent on the prosecution to prove as to how the weighing machine was arranged to weigh the recovered contraband.
32. It is admitted case of the prosecution that 8 grams of smack was recovered and a sample of 4 grams was drawn therefrom. In case of such small recovery and a sample of such small quantity, the weighing machine must have a high degree of precision and accuracy. In the case of smack, possession of more than 5 grams of smack would expose a person to stringent punishment upto 10 years imprisonment whereas in case of small quantity i.e. upto 5 grams is punishable upto 6 months imprisonment.
33. Error of one or two grams in the measurements may have adverse consequences for a person accused of such offence. IO has not stated that he arranged such weighing machine having such precision or accuracy that it can exclude possibility of error in the measurement of the recovered heroin. IO has not even stated as to what was the nature of the weighing machine which was used for measurement of the recovered smack and sample prepared therefrom.
34. According to IO, he had kept 4 grams of smack in a small plastic box and converted it into a cloth parcel. FSL report Ex.PW7/C shows the weight of the sample powder along with dibbi as 8.88 grams.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 17/1935. Chemical Examiner has also not measured the sample powder independently.
36. It has already been observed that site plan Ex.PW7/A is quite sketchy and it does not depict the correct picture of the place of apprehension of the accused.
37. According to PW-9 Inspector Sanjiv Gupta, he lodged a DD entry vide DD No. 23-A regarding deposit of case property in the police malkhana but the said DD entry has neither been produced nor proved.
38. According to PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad and PW-7 SI Fateh Singh, they returned to the police station along with police team. However, the prosecution has neither produced nor proved their arrival entry to the police station after apprehension of the accused.
39. PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad did not submit special report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act regarding search and seizure of 8 grams of smack from the possession of accused.
40. So far as the evidence of the defence witnesses is concerned, this Court is of the opinion is that they have been introduced as a strategy to falsify the case of the prosecution. They are not the witnesses of the truth. According to them, they were closely related and affectionate towards the accused Rizwan and in their presence, accused was apprehended and involved in this case but they maintained silence and never approached any civil or police authority to register their grievance.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 18/1941. However, the weakness of defence would not help prosecution in any manner. The case of the prosecution must stand on its inherent strength and it cannot derive any advantage from the weakness of the case set up by the defence.
42. The prosecution has not been able to prove presence of PW-4 ASI Yamuna Prasad along with his team at theka sharab, Shastri Park, Delhi. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that the alleged contraband was recovered, weighed and preserved at the alleged place. The prosecution has also not been able to prove compliance of provision of Section 50 and 57 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution has also not been able to prove that PW-7 SI Fateh Singh has visited the place of apprehension of accused Rizwan, preparation of site plan Ex.PW7/A and production of accused before officer in- charge after apprehension as required under Section 55 of the NDPS Act.
43. This Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove that accused Rizwan was found in possession of 8 grams of smack in contravention of Section 8 of the NDPS Act.
44. Accordingly, accused Rizwan is hereby acquitted from offence under Section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act.
Announced in the open court SANJAY SHARMA on this 29th day of October, 2014. Special Judge NDPS (North-East) ASJ:KKD Courts, Delhi.
FIR No. 471/11 State Vs. Rizwan Page No. 19/19