Delhi District Court
Fir No. 158/2016 State vs . Amrik Singh Page No. 1 on 29 April, 2023
DLNW010014742017
Presented on : 17-02-2017
Registered on : 17-02-2017
Decided on : 29-04-2023
Duration : 6 years, 2 months,
12 days
IN THE COURT OF
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)
AT NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
(Presided Over by Sh. Vikram)
SC No. 100/2017
Annexure 'A'- List of witneses
Annexure 'B' - List of exhibits
STATE
Through Police Station Officer Keshav Puram
NORTH WEST DELHI
VERSUS
AMRIK SINGH
S/o Late Gurnam Singh,
R/o Chalk Mahal, Distt. Tarantal,
Tehsil-Khadurshahab, PP Tod,
Punjab.
RAM KUMAR
S/o late Suresh Prasad
R/o House No. 10447,
Bagichi Peerji, Kishanganj,
Delhi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
APP for State : Sh. K.D. Pachauri
Ld. counsel for accused persons : Sh. R.K. Giri
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 1
FIR No. : 158/2016
Police Station : Crime Branch
Under Section : 20/29 NDPS Act
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 29-04-2023)
1. Brief case of the prosecution as per chargesheet is :−
a) On 14.09.2016, at 03.30 am, SI Jai Prakash (Pw1), posted in Narcotics cell Crime Branch got a secret informatiopn from an informer that one Amrik Singh who is a resident of Chandauli Varanasi UP and drives Truck bearing no. UP 63J 9752, is a supplier of Ganja and brings huge quantity of Ganja from Orrisa and Chhatisgarh. That Amrik Singh is bringing huge consignment of Ganja in his truck and is going to deliver it to some one in between 5.00-6.00 am at Naharpur Cremation Ground Road, near Vardhman Grand Plaza, Opposite Tarun Enclave, Pitam Pura and if timely raided they can be apprehended with the lot. Pw1 verified from informer and after getting satified shared this information with Senior official Inspector Vijender Singh (Pw20) and at about 3.45 am Pw20 also verified the information from the informer. Pw20 after getting satisfied about the infromation, telephonicaly shared the same with ACP Sanjeev Kumar Tyagi (Pw6). Pw6 ordered to take immediate action on which Pw20 Directed Pw1 to constitute rainding party and take action. This entire process was recorded in the Roznamcha vide DD no. 3 (Ex.P1).
b) Pw1 prepared the raiding team consisting of himself, HC Jitender (Pw4), HC Om Prakash (Pw16) and Ct. Ankush and FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 2 they alongwith secret informer, vide DD no.4 (Ex.P2), left the PS to spot in a Govt. Gypsy driven by Ct. Jitender. At about 5.10 am the team reached at the spot and after briefing by Pw1 the team took positions after parking Gypsy on service road of Vardhman Mall. On the way to spot, at two three places, Pw1 asked public persons to join investigation but none agreed. Even at the spot no one agreed to join investigation and left without disclosing their identity.
c) At 5.30 am, from the side of Kali Mata Mandir from Outer Ring Road, a truck bearing no. UP 63J 9572 came to Naharpur Cremation Ground Road and halted at corner of Fish Market Road. The driver of the truck alighted and started waiting for someone. At that time secret infromer identified the driver as Amrik Singh. The infromer left after identifying Amrik Singh. At 5.40 am from same route one Maruti Ecco Van bearing no. DL 1CU 7882 came and halted at the driver side of truck. The driver of Van alighted and went to Amrik Singh. They had some talks after which the driver of Van went to the rear of truck and brought three sacks and loaded them in the van. The truck driver remained with him and after some talks he closed the side door of the van.
d) When the driver of Ecco Van was about to sit in the van Pw1 signaled the team to apprehend them. At 6 am both drivers were apprehended. Team introduced themselves to the drivers and on inquiry they disclosed that they are Amrik Singh and Ram Kumar. Pw1 told them about the secret information. He explained the accused persons about their legal rights that if they desire their personal search and the search of vehicle could be taken in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, and FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 3 one could be arranged at spot. IO also explained them that they have right to take search of police party, before the search of their vehicle and person. Thereafter, IO served notice u/s 50 NDPS Act (Ex.P3 and P4) upon both accused persons. Accused Amrik Singh was illetrate therfore the notice (Ex.P3) was read over to Amrik Singh by Pw1 and recorded his refusal. Ram Kumar read the notice (Ex.P4) and gave his refusal in writing. IO again tried to join passerbys but none agreed.
e) As the accused persons refused to get searched in presence of a gazzetted officer, Pw1 searched accused Amrik Singh but nothing was found in his person. Pw1 then searched the truck and observed that a cabin was made by creating a temporary partition behind the driver seat of the truck. On opening, the cabin was found containing 17 sacks (kattas) tide with ropes. The sacks were taken out and chacked after untying the ropes. The sacks were found containing some green leafy material and smelling like weed (Ganja). Those sacks were weiging 25 kg each and Pw1 took two samples of 100 gms each from each sack. Pw1 gave marking A to Q to sacks and A1, A2 and B1, B2 and so on to the two samples from each Sacks. Samples were wrapped saperately and sealed with seal of 8C PS NB Delhi. Similarly the sacks were tied again and sealed with same seal. IO filed FSL Form and affixed the seal on it.
f) Person of accused Ram Kumar was also searched but nothing was recovered. Thereafter the Van was searched in which found three sacks lying in the middle seat of the van. Like others sacks these sacks were also tied with ropes. They were taken out of the van and checked after untying the ropes and were found having leafy material smelling like weed/Ganja. These sacks FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 4 were weighed and found having 25 kgs each. IO took two samples each of 100 gms from each sacks. The sacks were given marking X, Y and Z and samples were given marking X1, X2, Y1, Y2 and so on. Samples were wrapped saperately and sealed sacks were also sealed and FSL Froms filled.
g) Pw1 handed over the seal to HC Jitender (Pw4). Recovered contrabanned from each vehicle was seized separately. The vehicles and their papers were seized. Thereafter Pw1 got prepared the Rukka through HC Om Prakash (Pw16) and handed over copies of all the documents to Pw16 and directed him to take contraband recovered and sealed alongwith samples and the truck, to PS Crime Branch. The Van related with accused Ram Kumar was sent to police station with Ct. Ankush. Pw1 directed Pw16 to produce everything before SHO PS Crime Branch. Pw1 and Pw4 remained at spot with both accused persons.
h) Pw16 went to PS Crime Branch and Got the FIR registered and produced the Ruqa, memos and case properties before SHO Crime Branch (Pw20) who called the DO (Pw15) in the room and mentioned the FIR number on the documents and parcels after verifying the same from DO and got them deposited in Malkhana. Pw16 and Ct. Ankush then went to Narcotics cell Old PS Kotwali Building Daryaganj and handed over the copy of FIR and Ruqa to SI Manoj (Pw22) who took over further investigation.
i) After taking the investigation second IO/Pw22 departed to spot vide DD no.28 (Ex.Pw22/X). At the spot Pw22 collected the original documents from Pw1. He then prepared the site plan, arretsed both accused, recorded their disclosures and conducted FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 5 their personal search. After that all left the spot and accused persons were taken to crime Branch where Pw22 prepared report u/S 57 NDPS (Ex.Pw6/C) and forwarded the same to higher official i.e. ACP(Pw6). Case properties were sent to FSL. PC remand of accused persons was obtained as it was disclosed by accused persons that they were courriers, but the main supplier and last receiver (Pradeep) could not be found. However, the location and mobile number of receiver was traced and IO collected the CDR. On finding connection of the last receiver and accused Ram Kumar IO proceeded against him under section 82 Cr.PC. After completion of investigation, charge− sheet was filed in the court. and after completion of investigation both accused were chargesheeted for commission of offence u/S 20/25/29 NDPS Act (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').
2. In view of the allegations against the accused persons in the charge−sheet, charges for conspiracy u/S 29 and for possesssion of contraband in commercial quantity, u/s 20 of the Act was framed against accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case prosecution examined 22 witnesses.
3.1 PW−1 SI Jai Prakash is the complainant/first IO. He deposed about the receipt of secret infromation and the raid as well as initial invetigation. He proved:
• DD no.3 regarding receipt of secret information Ex.P1, • DD No.4 regarding departure for raid Ex.P2, • Copy of notice u/S 50 served upon accused Amrik FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 6 Singh Ex.P3 and refusal thereon, • Copy of notice u/S 50 served upon accused Ram Kumar Ex.P4 and refusal thereon, • Seizure memo of contraband/Ganja from the Truck of accused Amrik Singh and sample taken therefrom Ex.P5, • Seizure memo of contraband/Ganja from the Eco Van of accused Ram Kumar and sample taken therefrom Ex.P6, • Seizure Memo of truck Ex.P7, • Seizure Memo of Eco Van Ex.P8, • Tehrir Ex.P9, • Site Plan Ex.P10, • Arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Amrik Singh Ex.P11, P12 and P13 respectively, • Arrest memo, personal search memo and disclosure statement of accused Ram Kumar Ex.P14, P15 and P16 respectively, • report u/S 57 NDPS Act Ex.Pw6/B, • Seizure memo of mobile of accused Amrik Singh (Ex.MO-2), Ex.P22, • Seizure memo of mobile of accused Ram Kumar (Ex.MO-1), Ex.P23, • Original notices u/S 50 NDPS Act issued upon accused Amrik Singh and Ram Kumar Ex.Pw1/A and EX.Pw1/B respectively, • Photographs of Truck Ex.Pw1/A1 to A7 in which Pw1/A6 and A7 are showing the hidden cavity from where the Ganja was recovered, • Photographs of Eco Van Ex.Pw1/A8 to A11, • Sealed plastic sacks, containing Ganja, recovered from hidden cavity of truck Ex.MO-3 to Ex.MO-19, • Sealed plastic sacks, containing Ganja, recovered from Eco Van Ex.MO-20 to Ex.MO-22, • 17 sealed envelops containg sample derived from sacks recoeverd from Truck and sent to FSL as Ex.MO-23 collectively, • 3 sealed envelops containg sample derived from sacks recoeverd from Eco Van and sent to FSL as Ex.MO-24 collectively, and FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 7 • DD No.9 dated 08.05.2017 PS Crime Branch recording plastic sack being found torn and seal on some of them having cracks, Ex.PX.
3.2 Pw2 Insp. Virender Singh was SHO PS Crime Branch Malviya Nagar before whom Pw16 brought 60 sealed parcels along with 2 FSL forms and copies of seizure memos of contaband(Ganja) having seal of 8C PS NB DELHI. Pw2 countersigned all sealed parcels, affixed his seal VSS, confirmed the FIR number from duty officer and marked the same on all parcels, FSL forms and copies of seizure memos. He then got the case properies and documents deposited with MHC(M) and recorded DD entry no.13 in this regard. He proved DD no. 13 as Ex.Pw2/A. 3.3 Pw3 ASI Arun Kumar was posted at Narcotics cell Daryaganj. He deposed that on 16.09.2016 on instruction of IO he collected 20 sample parcels along with FSL forms and copies of seizure memos from MHC(M) PS Malviya Nagar and took the same to FSL vide RC No. 339/21/16 and deposited against acknowledgment. He also deposed about effecting the execution of processes u/S 82 and 83 Cr.PC against accused Pradeep Kumar Gupta.
3.4 Pw4 HC Jitender and Pw16 ASI Om Prakash are from Narcotics Cell Crime Branch and they had joined in the raid with Pw1. They deposed in the line of Pw1, about the arrival of vehicles, shifting of three sacks from truck to van, raid, service of notice u/S 50 NDPS Act, seacrh of vehicles and respective recoveries, its seizure and arrest of accused persosn etc. They FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 8 also identified both accused persons and and the case properties.
Pw16 also proved the cursory search memos of accused Amrik Singh and Ram Kumar, in which no contraband was recovered from their person, as Ex.Pw16/A and Ex.Pw16/B respectively.
3.5 Pw5 Mr. M L Meena had rceived the 20 sealed parcels of sample in FSL Rohini and he examined them for its composition. He proved his report Ex.Pw5/A. 3.6 Pw6. ACP Sanjiv Kumar Tyagi from Narcotics cell Crime Branch Old Kotwali deposed about receiving of telephonic information from Pw2, on 14.09.2016 before 4 am, regarding heavy quantity of Ganja and he directed Pw2 to conduct the raid. He also deposed about receipt of infromation prepared by Pw1, forwarded by Pw2, in compliance of sections 42 and 57 NDPS Act. He proved the infromation sent by Pw1, Ex.Pw6/A. He also deposed about receipt of two reports u/S 57 NDPS Act, on 15.09.2016, and proved them as Ex.Pw6/B and Ex.Pw6/C. 3.7 Pw7 HC Krishan Kumar was the reader in office of Pw6 on 14-15.09.2016 and he proved the entries in diary of correspondence regarding reciept of Ex.Pw6/A to C as Ex.Pw7/A to Ex.Pw7/C respectively.
3.8 Pw8 Mr. Hem Singh @ Bhim Singh is the owner of sim number 7838832056 and he deposed that he had given this sim to one Anil who had given it away to some other person namely Pradeep Kumar Gupta. Pw8 also deposed that he had purchased FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 9 the sim at the instance of that Anil and handed it over to Anil after it was activated.
3.9 Pw9 Ankit Yadav deposed about leting of one room at house no. C-23 Peepal Wala Mohalla to one Pradeep Yadav and during investigation he had handed over the voter ID card of Pradeep Kumar Gupta, his own driving license and copy of electricity bill to IO and proved its eizure memo Ex.Pw9/A. He also proved his DL Ex.Pw9/B. 3.10 Pw10 ASI Mahesh Chand was MHC(M) at Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch Old Kotwali on 14.09.2016. he deposed about issuing one electronic weighing machine to Pw1 and proved relevant entries of issuance of Machine and sealed testing kit with office seal register as Ex.Pw10/A and Ex.Pw10/B. 3.11 Pw11 Ramesh Dutt Shukla proved the ownership record of Truck bearing no. UP63 J 9752 in the name of Amrik S/o Gurnam who had purchased the same from one Ramesh Singh form no. 29 and 30. He proved the forms Ex.Pw11/A and Ex.Pw11/B respectively. He also proved the particulars of vehicle Ex.Pw11/C. 3.12 Pw12 Mr. Ajit Singh Nodal Officer Idea Cellular proved the CAF of mobile no. 9814640222 in the name of one Jasjeet Singh as Ex.Pw12/A. He also proved the KYC documents of Jasjeet Singh Ex.Pw12/B and CDR of the phone from 01.02.2016 to 20.09.2016 Ex.Pw12/C. In support of CDR he FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 10 proved the certificate u/S 65B IEA Ex.Pw12/D. 3.13 Pw13 ASI Ram Avtar was duty officer in PS Crime Branch Malviya Nagar on 14.09.2016. he proved the FIR Ex.Pw13/A, its endorsement on Rukka Ex.Pw13/B, certificate u/s 65B IEA in support of FIR Ex.Pw13/C and the DD no. 12A regarding registration of FIR Ex.Pw13/D. 3.14 Pw14 HC Jag Narain was the MHC(M) PS Crime Branch who received the case properties i.e. 40 pulandas and 20 plastic kattas in sealed condition, alongwith FSL Forms and two copies of seizure memos, on instructions of Pw2 and deposited in Malkhana. He proved the entry of deposit in register no. 19 Ex.Pw14/A. He also proved the entries regarding deposit of seizure memos of Truck and Eco Van, by Pw16, as Ex.Pw14/B and personal search memos of accused persons, by SI manoj Kumar, as Ex.Pw14/C. He also proved the copy of road certificate Ex.Pw14/D regarding taking of 20 pulandas to FSL by Pw3 and the receipt of same Ex.Pw14/E. Pw14 also proved entry regarding deposit of two mobile phones by Pw17 as Ex.Pw14/F. 3.15 Pw15 Retd. ASI Tech. Devender Kumar proved the mechanical inspection report of truck and the Eco Van as Ex.Pw15/A and Ex.Pw15/B respectively.
3.16 Pw17 HC Yogender was given two mobile phones by SI Manoj, on 17.09.2016, for depositing the same in Malkhana and he deposited the same.
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 11 3.17 Pw18 Pw25 Israr Babu Nodal Officer Vodafone proved CAF, KYC documents and CDRs of mobile phone no, with certificates u/S 65B IEA, • 7838832006 of Hem Sih as Ex.P1 to P4 respectively, • 9999614635 of Ram Kumar as Ex.P5 to Ex.P8, respectively and • 9628052167 of Ram Kumar as Ex.P9 to Ex.P12 respectively.
3.18 Pw19 Sh. Pawan Kumar proved the registration record of Maruti Eco Van bearing no. DL 1CU 7882 in the name of Ram Kumar s/O SH. Suresh Pratap, as Ex.P13.
3.19 Pw20 Insp. Vijender Singh is the senior officer to whom Pw1 produced the secret informer. He had conveyed the information, telephonically, to ACP/Pw6 and on direction of Pw6 he asked Pw1 to constitute raiding team and take action. Pw20 also deposed about recording of DD no.3 Ex.P1 and its transmission to Pw6. He also deposed about constitution of raiding team by Pw1 and his departure to spot with IO kit, field testing kit and weighing machine vide DD no.4. He deposed about bringing of accused persons by IO/Pw22 before him on next day at about 12.30 am and verified the genuineness of recovery from accused persons. Pw20 also deposed about preparation of report, Ex.P14, u/S 57 NDPS Act by Pw1, its production before him and its transmission to ACP. He also deposed about similar report, Ex.P15, by Pw22 and its transmission to ACP.
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 12 3.20 Pw21 Surender Kumar Nodal Officer Bharti Airtel proved CAF, KYC documents and CDRs of mobile phone no, with certificates u/S 65B IEA, • 9556389199 of Rabindra Patial as Ex.P16 to Ex.P18 and Ex.P31, • 9938377534 of Rama Dhani as Ex.P19 to Ex.P21 and Ex.P31, • 7054459498 of Jitender Kumar as Ex.P22 to Ex.P26, and • 9878440222 of Prabhjit SIngh as Ex.P28 to Ex.P30 respectively.
3.21 Pw22 Insp. Manoj Kumar is second IO posted at Narcotics Cell Crime Branch. He received the Ruqa and FIR from Pw16 on which he departed to spot vide DD no. 28 Ex.Pw22/C. At spot he found accused persons in custody of Pw1 from whom he received carbon copies of notice u/S 50 NDPS Act and the seizure memos. He prepared the site plan Ex.P10 at the instance of Pw1. Pw22 interrogated the accused persons and arrested them vide memos Ex.P11 and Ex.P14 respectively, conducted their personal search in which he recovered the original notices u/S 50 NDPS Act from both accused along with other personal articles including one mobile phone each from both accused vide memos Ex.P12 and Ex.P15 respectively and recorded their disclosure statements Ex.P13 and Ex.P16 respectively. He seized the respective mobile phones of accused persons vide memos Ex.P22 and Ex.P23 respectively.
4. After completion of prosecution evidence the accused persons were examined u/S 313 Cr.PC and all the incriminating FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 13 material were put to them. Both accused claimed innocence and false implication.
5. Accused Amrik Singh Claimed that he brought his truck to Delhi on 13.09.2016 at about 11.00 pm and he was present in his truck in front of a shop at Swaroop Nagar, near Sanjay Gandhi Transport when he was lifted by 5-6 police officials of crime Branch. Those officials had come there in two cars and they took him as well his truck to Daryaganj where he was forced to sign on some papers and forms which has been fabricated against him. Amrik Singh claimed that nothing was recovered from his truck and case property was planted upon him to save the real culprits. He was never taken to Naharpur cremation ground.
6. Similarly accused Ram Kumar claimed that he was lifted by police of Crime Branch on 13.09.2016 at about midnight, from Gali no.7 Swaroop Nagar, from his shop. He was taken to his house at Bagichi Peer from where they took his vehicle Maruti Eco Van to the office of Crime Branch and then he was falsely roped in this case. He claimed that he never went to Shamshan Ghat i.e. the spot and police forcefully took his signatures on some papers and forms and fabricated them against him. Ram Kumar claimed that he never knew co-accused before and further claimed that prior to him his brother Dharmender was apprehended by police who was later on released.
7. Both accused opted to lead defence evidence and brought one witness each.
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 14 7.1 Dw1 Hari lal deposed on behalf of accused Amrik Singh that on 13.09.2016 between 10 to 11 pm he reached Sanjay Gandhi Transport to load some chemical on vehicle no. UP63 J 9752 but before that police officials took the driver Amrik Singh as well as the truck with them. Therefore he went back to Tilak Bazar to return the chemical to its owner.
7.2 Dw2 Dharmender is the brother of accused Ram Kumar and he deposed that on 13.09.2016 when he was present in his shop at Swaroop Nagar his brother Ram Kumar had come and at about 11-12pm 4-5 police persons came at the shop where ther conducted search at shop and his house and then took him and his brother alongwith his vehicle to Narcotic Branch. He was released after two days but his brother was falsely implicated.
8. With these witnesses defence closed its evidence. Arguments were heard from both sides and record perused.
FINDINGS
9. As per sections 35 and 54 of the Act there are pesumption against accused, that court shall presume the existence of culpable mental state for commission of offence and that, unless and until contrary is proved, the accused has committed offence under the Act in respect of the contraband for the possession of which he fails to account satisfactorily.
10. While upholding the constitutional validity of Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act in the case of Noor Agha v State FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 15 [(2008) 16 SCC 417], as not being offensive of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, Hon'ble Supreme Court has Observed as under:
"58. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise presumptions with regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the accused as also place the burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal of the said provision would clearly show that presumption would operate in the trial of the accused only in the event the circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, would the legal burden shift...... If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the Actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.
59. With a view to bring within the purview the requirements of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband was essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt."
11. Therefore, since there is reverse burden on accused, from the arguments advanced by learned Addl Public Prosecutor for State and Ld. Defence Counsel and facts and material on record, following points for determination are framed u/s 354 (1) (b) Cr.PC:−
1. Whether there is compliance of sections 41 and 42 NDPS Act and to what extent it is complied and its effect on prosecution case?
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 16
2. Whether there is compliance of section 50 NDPS Act and to what extent it is complied and its effect on prosecution case?
3. Non-compliance of section 52-A NDPS Act and consequence thereof.
4. Whether there is compliance of section 57 NDPS Act and to what extent it is complied and its effect on prosecution case?
5. What is the effect of non−joining of public witnesses in the present case?
6. Whether the link evidences i.e. vehicles seized, FSL forms, entries in register no. 19 and report are in confirmity with prosecution case?
7. Whether the investigation in the case is faulty?
Whether there is compliance of sections 41 and 42 NDPS Act and to what extent it is complied and its effect on prosecution case?
12. This is a case based on prior secret information received by Pw1 at Narcotics Cell Crime Branch Delhi on 14.09.2016 at about 3.30 am. The secret information was specific that one Amrik Singh resident of Chandauli, who drives Truck bearing registration no UP 63J 9752 and is involved in huge supply of Ganja, from Chhatisgarh and Orrisa to Delhi, would come to Delhi and, in between 5 am and 6 am, supply Ganja to someone at Naharpur Cremation Ground, near Vardhman Mall and can be causght if raided.
13. Chapter V of the Act from section 41 onwards provides for FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 17 procedure to be followed under the Act. Section 41 provides for persons who can issue warrant and authorization under the Act. Whereas section 41(1) mandates that warrants can be issued only by a Metropolitan Magistrate or Magistrate of First Class or any Magistrate of second class specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, section 41(2) provides for person empowered to issue authorisation for conducting arrest or search.
Section 41(2) reads:
(2) Any such officer of gazetted rank of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including the para-military forces or the armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken in writing that any person has committed an offence punishable under this Act or that any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which any offence under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or place, may authorise any officer subordinate to him but superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or a constable to arrest such a person or search a building, conveyance or place whether by day or by night or himself arrest such FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 18 a person or search a building, conveyance or place.
14. As per sub section 3 of section 41 the officer to whom the warrant is addressed under sub section (1) and the officer who authorised the arrest or search or the officer who is so authorised under sub section (2) shall have all the powers of an officer acting under section 42.
15. Section 42 provides about the officers who can arrest and search without warrant or authorisation and the procedure to be followed before proceeding for search, seizure or arrest. The section reads:
42. Power of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorisation.-- (l) Any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the departments of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intellegence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government, or any such officer (being an officer superior in rank to a peon, sepoy or constable) of the revenue, drugs control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken down in writing that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance in respect of which an offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 19 furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept or concealed in any building, conveyance or enclosed place, may between sunrise and sunset,-
(a) enter into and search any such building, conveyance or place;
(b) in case of resistance, break open any door and remove any obstacle to such entry;
(c) seize such drug or substance and all materials used in the manufacture thereof and any other article and any animal or conveyance which he has reason to believe to be liable to confiscation under this Act and any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of any offence punishable under this Act or furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; and
(d) detain and search, and, if he thinks proper, arrest any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed any offence punishable under this Act:
Provided that in respect of holder of a licence for manufacture of manufactured drugs or psychotropic substances or controlled substances granted under this Act or any rule or order made thereunder, such power shall be exercised by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector:
Provided further that if such officer has reason to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender, he may enter and search such building, conveyance or enclosed place at any time between sunset and sunrise after recording the grounds of his belief.
(2) Where an officer takes down any information in writing under sub-section (1) or FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 20 records grounds for his belief under the proviso thereto, he shall within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior.
16. In this case it was Pw1 who received the secret information and he shared the same with Pw20 being the superior official who then informed the same to to Pw6 and on direction of Pw6, Pw20 directed to prepare raiding team headed by Pw1. The difference between section 41(2) and 42(1) is that in case of section 41(2) it is the authorised persons who from his own knowledge or on reciept of information, reduced in writing, arrives at a reason to believe that any offence under the act is comitted and then authorises any officer subordinate (superior to rank of peon, sepoy or constable) to him to arrest, search and seize or proceed himself to arrest search and seize. As per section 41(3) the officer who authorised such arrest, search and seizure of the person who was so authorised u/S 41(2) shall have all the powers of an officcer under section 42 of the Act.
17. However, as per section 42 the the receipent of information, taken down in writing, or of the knowledge is any officer of police above the rank of peon, sepoy or constable, who arrives at a reason to believe that any offence under the Act has been committed. Such officer is empowered to conduct search, seaizure or arrest even without any warrant u/S 41(1) or authorisation u/S 41(2) of the Act. Only compliance such officer is required to comply, if the information is taken down in writing, is to send a copy thereof to his immediate superior within seventy two hours.
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 21
18. In Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2000)2 SCC 513 A three-Judge Bench of Apex Court held that compliance of Section 42 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is mandatory and failure to take down the information in writing and forthwith send a report to his immediate official superior would cause prejudice to the accused. But in a later case Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala(2001)6 SCC 692 which was also decided by a three- Judge Bench, it was held that Section 42 was not mandatory and substantial compliance was sufficient. In view of the conflicting opinions regarding the scope and applicability of Section 42 of the Act in the matter of conducting search, seizure and arrest without warrant or authorization, these appeals were placed before the Constitution Bench to resolve the issue.
19. In reference, the five Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Karnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2009) 8 SCC 539 held that :
In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows :
(a) The officer on receiving the information of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of section 42 from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 22 while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 23 police officer does not record the information at all, and does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case.
The above position got strengthened with the amendment to section 42 by Act 9 of 2001.
20. Pw1 being the receipent of the information did not immediately reduce the information in writing but produced the informer before his superior Pw20. Even after that the information was not redecued into writing. Pw20, before writing down the information, prefered to inform Pw6 i.e. the gazzetted officer, telephonically and only after his direction to take action, recorded DD no.3 (Ex.P1/Ex.Pw6/A).
21. Pw1 would not have required any authorisation before proceeding to spot, in normal circumstances, but the power to entry, search, seizure and arrest under section 42(1), without warrant or authorisation was available only during sunrise and sunset and since the information was received at 3.30. am i.e. between sunset and sunrise, as per second proviso to section 42(1) Pw1 could have exercised that power between sunset and sunrise also, if he had reasons to believe that a search warrant or authorisation cannot be obtained without affording oppertunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of an offender and recorded the grounds of his belief.
22. Ex.Pw6/A i.e. DD no. 3 is that information which was forwarded to Pw6. The deposition of Pw6 is that he received telephonic call from Pw20 at 4 am and he directed Pw20 to FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 24 conduct raid and in the next morning he received DD no.3 i.e Ex.Pw6/A in compliance of section 42 of NDPS Act.
23. This DD no.3 was recorded at 4 am on 14.09.2016 and it records that at 3.30 am secret informer met Pw1 in the Narcotoics cell and specified the time and place of excchange of contraband i.e. Naharpur cremation ground road near Vardhman Grand Plaza opposite Tarun Enclave Pitam Pura in between 5 am to 6 am of 14.10.2016. In the DD entry Pw1 has mentioned the ground for not seeking search warrant or authorisation, because there was insufficiency of time and the DD entry also records that this was discussed with Pw20. However, as Ex.Pw6/A itself shows that after getting information at 3.30 am, Pw1 did not immediately proceeded to spot and did not record the same till 4 am. The place where information was received is old Delhi i.e the office of Narcotics Branch and the place where the raid was to be conducted is Naharpur. Given the fact that it was early in morning the team from old Delhi would have reached Naharpur within half an hour. Therefore even if Pw1 had taken some time to verify the information and record the same the raiding team would have reached at spot anytime before 4.30 am sparing complete half an hour from the time of arrival of vehicle of accused . But as per Pw1, Pw4 and Pw16 the team reached at spot at 5.20 am as if there was no urgency. This shows that there was no insufficiency of time, with Pw1, to seek authorisation or warrant when everything was discussed with Pw20 as well as Pw6. Hence the reason given by Pw1 is not satisfactory to hold that there was compliance of section 42(1).
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 25
24. Furtrher, It cannot be said that Pw1 proceeded to spot on authorisation under section 41(2) of the Act because for giving that authorisation Pw6 should have the information taken in writing before Pw1 proceeded for spot and as the direction given by Pw6 was to Pw20, as per section 41(3,) it should have been Pw20 only who should have proceeded for conducting raid. In that scenario also there would have been complete non compliance of section 41(2) and 41(3) of the Act.
25. Non compliance of Section 42 may not vitiate the trial if it did not cause prejudice to the accused (see Bahadur Singh v State of Haryana, (2010) 4 SCC 445). Whether this non compliance has caused prejudice to accuse persons or not shall be dealt in later part of judgment. However, a grave doubt have been sowed, from the testimony of Pw1, on the case of prosecution and on the geniuneness of proceedings, since the begining of trial. That too shall be discussed in later part of judgment as it will touch on genuineness of proceedings conducted at every stage.
Whether there is compliance of section 50 NDPS Act and to what extent it is complied and its effect on prosecution case?
26. Section 50 of the NDPS Act prescribes the conditions under which personal search of a person is required to be conducted. Being the pivotal provision, the Section, is extracted in full. It reads as under:
"50. Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.--(1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 26 to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43 he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section or to the nearest Magistrate.
(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made.
(4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female.
(5) When an officer duly authorised under section has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."
27. It is the claim of prosecution that after accused persons were apprehended Pw1 introduced himself to them and told them about the secret information and also informed them that before taking their search and search of vehicle they can search the members of raiding party and if they require their search can be FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 27 conducted in presence of magistrate or a gazzeted offgicer. Notices u/S 50 Ex.Pw1/A and Ex.Pw1/B were searved upon accused Amrik Singh and Ram Kumar respectively and Ex.P3 and P4 are the carbon copies of those notices on which accused persons gave their refusal.
28. First personal search of Amrik Singh was condcuted in which no contraband was recovered. After his serach Pw1 conducted search of the truck where he found teporary parttition behind the driver seat made to conceal the contraband and from that compartment Pw1 recovered 17 plastic sacks containing some leafy material which smelled like Ganja/weed. Similarly, in personal search of accused Ram kumar no contraband was recovered but the three sacks recovered from his Van contained leafy material smelling like Ganja/weed.
29. Defence would submit that the notice u/S 50 NDPS Act served upon accused persons is not in confirmity with section 50 of the Act as the choice given to accused persons was to get searched in presence of 'any' magistrate or gazzeted officer and not the 'nearest'. Therfore in view of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan Vs. Parmanand (2014) 5 SCC 345 the notice is invalid. Defence would submit that the purpose of informing the accused to have right to be searched in presence of nearest magistrate of gazzetted officer is two fold. First it ensures the independence and impartiality of search and second it zeros in the place of search and seizure. Otherwise FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 28 police can manufacture any document while sitting in police station.
30. The contention raised by the defence is convincing that the import of of word 'nearest' in section 50 is not only to ensure the independence and imaprtiality of search but also to zero in the place of search and seizure, however, in this case accused persons refused to excercise their right.
31. Further, in this case nothing was recovered from personal search, consequent to section 50, of the accused persons. The recovery was effected from the vehicles of accused persons and It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh (2019) 10 SCC 473 that
15. As regards applicability of the requirement under section 50 of the Act is concerned, it is well settled that the mandate of section 50 of the Act is confined to personal search and not to the search of a vehicle or a container or premises.
16. The conclusin (3) as recorded by the Constitution Bench in para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172 clearly states that the convictionmay be based 'only' on the basis of possession of illicit article recovered from personal search in violation of the requirements under section 50 of the Act, but if there be other evidence on record, such material can certainly be looked upto.
17. In the instant case, the personal search of the accused did not tresult in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of section 50 of FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 29 the Act. But the search for the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant theretoi having stood proved, merely because there was non- compliance of section 50 of the Act as far as personal search was concerned, no benifit can be extended so as to invalidate the recovery from the msearch of the vehicle. Any such idea would be directly in the teeth of the conclusion (3) as aforsaid.
32. Therfore even though the notice appears to be defective by not giving option of nearest magistrate this defect in notice u/S 50 will not bear any consequence on the merits of case so as to conclude that the trial is vitiated.
Non-compliance of section 52-A NDPS Act and consequence thereof.
33. As per prosecution two samples from each of the sack were drawn at the spot and the samples as well as the sacks were sealed. Thus the prosecution claims that the samples were prepared even before the sacks were sent to the SHO. The submission of Ld. Defence Counsel is that a grave suspicion is created about the prosecution case as this action by Pw1, was contrary to section 52-A of the Act. To this contention Ld. Defence Counsel has placed reliance on UOI Vs Mohan Lal & Another (2016) SCR 651 and Bothi Lal versus Intelligence Officer Narcotics Control Bureau Criminal Appeal No. 451 of 2011 dated 26.04.2023.
34. Section 52A of the Act provides for disposal of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance. It reads:
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 30 "Section 52A: Disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances:
(1) The Central Government may, having regard to the hazardous nature of any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, their vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space or any other relevant considerations, by notification published in the Official Gazette, specify such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or class of narcotic drugs or class of psychotropic substances which shall, as soon as may be after their seizure, be disposed of by such officer and in such manner as that Government may from time to time, determine after following the procedure hereinafter specified.
(2) Where any narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances has been seized and forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53, the officer referred to in sub-section ( 1) shall prepare an inventory of such narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances containing such details relating to their description, quality, quantity, mode of packing, marks, numbers or such other identifying particulars of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances or the packing in which they are packed, country of origin and other particulars as the officer referred to in sub-
section ( 1) may consider relevant to the identity of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances in any proceedings under this Act and make an application, to any Magistrate for the purpose of-
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory so prepared; or
(b) taking, in the presence of such Magistrate, photographs of such drugs or substances or conveyances and certifying such photographs as true; or
(c) allowing to draw representative samples of such drugs or substances, in the FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 31 presence of such Magistrate and certifying the correctness of any list of samples so drawn.
(3) When an applicr.ition is made under sub-section (2), the Magistrate shall, as soon as may be, allow the application.
(4) Notwithstanding anything containing in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), every Court trying an offence under this Act, shall treat the inventory, the photographs of [narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances, conbolled substances or conveyances] and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) and certified by the Magistrate, as primary evidence in respect of such offence.
In MohanLal supra, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that :
It is manifest from Section 52A (2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer incharge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. Sub-section (3) of Section 52-A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 32 presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct. The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52-A( 4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure. That is perhaps why none of the States claim to be taking samples at the time of seizure.
35. Following above observation in MohalLal supra, in Bothilal Supra Hon'ble Supreme Court pronounced that "Thus, the act of Pw-2 of drawing samples from all the packets at the time of seizure is not in confirmity with what is held by this court in the case of Mohanlal. This creates a serious doubt about the prosecution's case that the substance recovered was contraband."
36. Bothilal supra is a non reportbale judgement therefore prosecution would submit that this judgment cannot be accepted as precedent setting the law to be followed. The Judgment itself records that the same is NON-REPORTABLE. However, it makes no difference if the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Supreme Court is reportable or not.
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 33
37. In the words of Lord Denning, when he realised the futility of differentiating between reported and unreported decisions;
"Every decision is binding no matter whether it is reported in the regular series of Law Reports, or is unreported. Once you have the transcript, you can cite it as of equal authority to a reported decision. It behoves every counsel or solicitor to find, if he can, a case - reported or unreported - which will help him advise or win his case."
"If the system of precedents being regarded as binding is to prevail it must inevitably follow that no suggestion as to the restriction on the publication of reports or the conferring of rights to exclusive citation on an authorised series of reports can arise. These suggestions ignore the fundamental fact that the law in a particular matter is what it is not because it has been so reported to be but because it has been so laid down in the decision of a judge.......... Under article 141 of constitution the moment the decision is pronounced, the law declared in that decision becomes binding on all courts in the territory of India. The fact weather the judgment is reported or not would make no diifference on its binding nature." (Chapter 28. 14th Law Commision report).
38. The Judgment of Bothilal supra has been passed by hon'ble Supreme Court on 26.04.2023. It followed the pronouncement in Mohanlal supra in construing that non compliance of section 52-A gives rise to suspicion if the material recovered was contraband or not. This case being registered on FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 34 14.09.2016 i.e. after the pronouncement of Mohanlal supra, there is no reason why the prosecution case should not be doubted for non compliance of section 52A.
Whether there is compliance of section 57 NDPS Act and to what extent it is complied and its effect on prosecution case?
39. Section 57 of the Act mandates for submission of full report of arrest and seizure to his immediate superior officer. It reades:
57. Report of arrest and seizure.--Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure, under this Act, he shall, within 48 hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of the particulars of such arrest or arrest to his immediate official superior.
40. Prosecution has brought on record documents Ex.PW6/B and Ex.Pw6/C in order to prove the compliance of section 57 NDPS Act. Ex.Pw6/B is the report submited by Pw1 informing the proceedings starting from secret information to seizure of case property after its sealing and preparation of FSL form and of Ruqa and its transmission to SHO PS Crime Branch for compliance u/S 55 NDPS Act. Under section 55 NDPS Act official incharge of police station has to take charge of seized property and keep the same in safe custody after affixing his seal to such articles. Section 55 was so complied by Pw1 by sending the same with Pw16 and Ct. Ankush who produced the same before Pw2 i.e. SHO Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar who, after FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 35 regitration of FIR, sealed the same and deposited in malkhana vide Ex.P14/A (of 40 sealed pulandas, 20 plastic kattas and two FSL forms), Ex.Pw14/B (of Vehicles) and Ex.Pw14/C (personal search belongings of both accused). Pw2 recorded the receipt of seized material in DD no. 13 Ex.Pw2/A.
41. Ex.Pw6/C is report dated 15.09.2016 regarding arrest of accused persons sent by Pw22 i.e. The second IO and it records regarding prepration of site plan, recording statements of Pw1 and Pw4, name parentage and address of accused persons and their time of arrest and the information of the persons to whom arrest of accused persons were communicated. Both, Ex.Pw6/B and Ex.Pw6/C were sent in time i.e. With 48 hours. Therefore on document there is no non-compliance of section 57.
What is the effect of non−joining of public witnesses in the present case?
42. As per prosecution case the time of raid is early morning near around 5.30 am. Pw1 deposed that he requested some public persons after stopping the vehicle at ISBT Kashmiri Gate, Mukarba Chowk GTK Road and a place after crossing Madhuban Chowk underpass. However, no public person joined the raiding team. All these three places where Pw1 claimed to have asked public persons are not the place where raid was to be committed. Therefore it is not expected that police will ask public persons to join investigation when they are on the way to another place in a vehicle. Asking in such manner is completely futile. No one will go to an unknown/unrelated place to become a witness to the incident. Pw1, however, also deposed that at the FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 36 apot also he called some public pewrsons to join the investigation but they refused and left witout disclosing their identity.
43. Pw1 in his cross examination dated 01.08.2017 has admitted that there is a police station Rohini South at a distance of 400-450 meters from spot and there is a petrol pump opposite to cremation ground. No police oficial from PS South Rohini nor any employee from Petrol pump was called to join in investigation. Pw1 however claimed that Petrol Pump was closed at that time.
44. In the case of Mohd. Masoom Vs State of NCT of Delhi, Crl. A. 1404/2011, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi quoted the observations of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ram Prakash Vs State, as follows :− "16. Mr. Gaur pointed out that while the Appellant was apprehended around 3.30 pm, the formal arrest was recorded at 11 pm i.e. after eight hours. Throughout this period the police remained present at the spot and yet they could not get a single public witness to be associated.
17. This is perhaps the weakest line in the entire case of the prosecution. In his evidence PW−9 stated that "he requested 5− 6 public persons to join the proceedings but they did not join the investigation." It is not clear who those public persons were. Their names were not noted. In his cross− examination PW−9 stated "People who were managing the parking were present in the parking. I did not call any person from the parking, any employee of the Railway and the police officials deployed there to join the proceedings."
18. It seems extraordinary that although PW−9 and the entire raiding party remaining at the spot i.e. the parking lot of Old Delhi railway FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 37 Station, well be beyond 11.15 pm, i.e. nearly eight hours (they ultimately left the spot at 11.45 pm to reach the Crime Branch at 12.30 am) they were unable to locate a single public witness including any railway official or any personnel of any other security force to be associated in the proceedings.
19. The trial Court has referred to the decision in Ajmer Singh Vs State of Haryana 2010 (2) RCR (Crl) 132 to hold that the failure to associate independent witness is not fatal to the prosecution case, as long as it is shown that efforts were made and none was willing.
However, it is seen that in the said decision the Supreme Court emphasised that it had to be shown that after making efforts, which the Court considers in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer was not able to get public witnesses to associate with either the raid or the arrest of the culprit. In other words in every case it will have to be examined whether serious efforts made by the police to associate public witnesses. In Ram Swaroop Vs State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) (2013) 14 SCC 235 the Supreme Court found the evidence of the police witnesses "absolutely unimpeachable" and therefore held that the failure to associate independent witnesses did not affect the prosecution case. However, as will be seen hereafter, that cannot be said of the prosecution witnesses in the present case.
20. In the present case as already noticed the entire raiding party remained at the Old Delhi Railway parking lot which is an extraordinarily busy area from around 3.30 pm till midnight. This is a place where apart from security personnel, there are bound to be parking attendants and railway employees as well. The IO in his cross−examination has admitted that he did not make any effort to associate any such member of the security forces (including the railway forces, parking attendants or railway employee). In other words no sincere effort was FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 38 made.
21. It has almost become a routine practice for the police to state that passersby were asked to join and they declined and went away without disclosing their names. The Court should be way of readily accepting such explanations. In a case where a raid takes place in broad daylight in a busy area, a more convincing explanation has to be offered why despite remaining at the spot for about eight hours the police did not find a single public witness to join the proceedings.
(emphasis supplied).
45. Learned counsel for accused persons have also relied upon the following judgments to submit that non− joining of public persons despite availability is fatal to the case of the prosecution:
−
1. Krishan Chand Vs State of H.P., 2017 (3) JCC (Narcotics)
112.
2. Inder Dev Yadav and Ors; 2014 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 129.
3. Rattan Lal Vs State, 32 (1987) DLT 1.
4. Ritesh Chakarvarti Vs State of MP, (2006) 12 SCC 321.
46. In the case in hand neither any public witness has been joined during entire search and seizure procedure nor the IO has recorded the particulars of any person who was asked to join the investigation. Since the place of search and seizre is always a question in any trial this requirement of joining public witness of the area where investigation is conducted gains its significance. In absence therof, place of investiagation always gets questioned. This could have been avoided had any police official present on duty from PS South Rohini was joined in investigation. In the facts and circumstances, it is held that no effort was made by the FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 39 IO for joining of the public/independent witnesses to raid and the recovery of contraband is hit by non−compliance of section 100 Cr.PC and section 51 NDPS Act.
Whether the investigation is faulty, to what extant and its effect on prosecution case
47. As per case of prosecution the raiding team led by Pw1 witnessed the arrival of truck of accused Amrik Singh and saw him alight and wait for someone. They also witnessed arrival of Ecco Van of accused Ram Kumar and saw him meet accused Amrik after which three sacks were shifted in the van of Ram Kumar and when accused Ram Kumar was about to start the Van they were surrounded by the team. Out of five members in the raiding team, except the driver of gypsy, Ct. Jitender and one Ct. Ankush, all the members are examined by the prosecution. Pw1 SI (then ASI) Jai Prakash the first IO and complainant, Pw4 HC Jitender and Pw16 ASI (then HC) Omprakash, all have deposed that truck bearing no. UP63J 9752 arrived at spot at about 5.30 am and after some time accused Ram Kumar arrived in his Van. All three witnesses of spot have deposed that three sacks were shifted from truck of accused Amrik Singh to Van of accused Ram Kumar. However, there is a contrdiction in the deposition regarding manner of shifting of those three sacks. Pw1 deposed that "in 4-5 minutes, accused Ram Kumar came there in his Eco Sport Maruti Van .......... both accused talked to each other and then they went toward the rear side of the truck. Both removed three sacks (katta) from the Truck and kept them in the Van. Accused Ram kumar sat in the driver seat and was about to start the same, when all the members of raiding party surrounded both FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 40 the accused and apprehended them". To these facts Pw4 depoosed that "the driver of Eco van came out from the vehicle and started talking with accused Amrik Singh. The driver of Eco Van took Three plastic Kattas, which were kept in the truck of accused Amrik Singh and shifted those Kattas in his Van. The driver of Eco van sat on the driver seat of his vehicle and was about to start the same, when all the members of the raiding party surrounded both the accused and apprehended them". Pw16 on the other hand deposed that "after about 10 minutes, accused Ram Kumar (present....) reached at the spot in EECO Van bearing Registration no. DL 1CU 7882 of white colour and parked the same van behind the truck of accused Amrik Singh. And both the accused would have made talks for about 2 or 4 minutes and three plastic kattas were brought down from said truck and the same kattas were kept in the middle seat of EECO van of accused Ram Kumar and then both accused talked each other. And soon after closing the door of the middle door of EECO van and accused Ram Kumar sat on the seat of the driver and we apprehended both accused".
48. These three witnsess are members of raid. They had only one job i.e. to track and observe the moment of accused persons. Since all these witnesses saw only one fact in a particular sequence their deposition on those facts have to be identical. Any deviation in testimony of any of the witness, in a circumstance when the only job of raiding team was to focus on the accused persons and their movement, has to be considered material contradiction. Witnesses can differ on how they perceived the FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 41 facts or how they interpreted the facts, as it is subjcetive. But they cannot be allowed to differ on what they saw.
49. Pw1 and Pw4 have not specified the place of parking of Eeco Van. At this satge if site plan Ex.P10 is referred it shows that the spot is an intersection forming T junction at Naharpur Cremation Ground road from Fish Market road, towards north and to the east there is another T junction on the same road from road in between Hotel Seven seas and Vardhman Grand Plaza towards south. Point A is the place where the vehicles were parked to the left side at the corner on fish market road.
50. As per testimonies of Pw1, and 4 the raiding team parked the official vehicle i.e Gypsy on the side road of Vardhman Plaza Mall. Point C is the place, in site plan, where the Gypsy was parked. This point C as per site plan is Naharpur Cremation Ground Road and it is not opposite to Vardhaman Plaza but to the south side of Seven Seas Hotel. However the word used is 'side road' which is not mentioned in site plan. Pw16, however, has given accurate position of parking of gypsy as "50 meters away from Shamshan Ghat" which is in confirmity with site plan.
51. To the positions they had taken, Pw1 has deposed nothing. Pw4 deposed that Pw1 and secret infromer took position 25 meters from the place where gypsy was parked, he took positiom opposite to Vardhaman Plaza and Pw16 and Ct. Ankush took position on the opposite side of road. However, this position of FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 42 Pw16 at opposite side of road has no reference point. As per site plan point C and D are the points where Pw1 and Pw16 had taken their position respectively and E is the point where Pw4 was positioned. The point C and D are on Naharpur cremation ground road to the south side Hotel seven seas and point E is at the corner of road in between Hotel Seven Seas and Vardhman Plaza, near the intersection from north.
52. Therefore if testimony of Pw16 is considered that the Van was parked behind the Truck at point A it is only point E from where one can see what was being done at the rear of the truck. This means that only Pw4 had the oppertunity and occasion to witness the actions of acused persons at point A. Pw1 and Pw16 had no oppertunity to witness what was going on behind the truck. Yet Pw1 and Pw16 claim themselves to be the witnesses of acts of accused persons. Pw4 who is supposed to have seen everything gave a casual deposition and Pw16 who had no occasion to see what was happening behind the truck deposed about the movement of accused persons. This shows that what Pw1, Pw4 and Pw16 have deposed is not the account they had seen but the version they shared with each other. Or may be they created this version but forgot to stick to that version. As already discussed the members of raiding team cannot be expected to give any contradictory deposition about what they saw, as they had only one jop at that time. It was the duty of prosecution to refresh these witnesses to remove the contradiction.
FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 43
53. However, everything appears to be manufactured. Pw1 in his examination in chief as well as in cross examination have deposed that the information was received at 3.30 am on 15.09.2016 i.e. in the intervening night of 14.09.2016 and 15.09.2016. Pw1 further went on to depose that the raid was conducted on 15.09.2016 and all the proceedings were conducted on 15.09.2016 which is contrary to the case projected by prosecution. Pw1 is a material witness as he led the raiding team and is the author of Ruqa. He is the one who served notices upon accused persons and carried search and seizure and sent the reports. Therefore his testimony cannot be discarded. Record shows that prosecution did not seek any clarification from Pw1 on his contraditory deposition regarding the date of receiving information, search, seizure and arrest.
54. The cross examination of Pw1 rules out the posibility of mistake in giving date of 15.09.2016 because to the question of defence, Pw1 answered that he arrived in in his office on 14.09.2016 at 11.30 am. Therefore there could not have been any occasion for Pw1 to meet the secret informer at 3.30 am of 14.09.2016. This deposition of Pw1 demolishes the entire case of prosecution and suggests that all the documents were antedated.
55. There is another fact which forces this court to question the credibility of investigation. It is claimed that Pw1 had conducted personal search, consequent to notice u/S 50 of the Act, of both accused persons and it is claimed that all the articles including personal search memos and the case properties were sent to Pw2 in compliance of section 55 of the Act. If the claim is FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 44 that everything recovered from accused persons was sent to Pw2, how come come Pw22 after arrest of accused persons recovered mobile phones from the possession of accused persons? These mobile phones should ahave been part of the report u/S 55. These phones were their personal belonging. Even if the mobiles were to be required to be seized to unearth the network, if there is any mobile phone, it must first form the part of report u/S 55.
56. From the CDRS and CAF proved, I have no doubt in accepting that mobile phones belonged to accused persons but the manner in which the mobile is shown to be seized by Pw22, about which Pw1, Pw4 and Pw16 have utterd nothing shows that there was complete disregard in following the procedure under Chaper V of NDPS Act which forces this court to doubt the genuineness of investigation.
57. There are photographs of the Truck and Van proved on record. There is nothing incriminating the the photographs of Van Ex.P1/A8 to Ex.P1/A11. However, in the photographs Ex.P1/A1 to Ex.P1/A7, there are two photographs showing a temporary cabin prepared at the rear of truck. These photographs were not taken at the spot. IO should have, not only of the vehicles but also of the sacks of contraband. These phographs were taken at the time of the release of the truck and van and the geniuneness of these two photographs can be questioned on two counts. First the photographs showing temporary cabin, Ex.P1/A6 and Ex.P1/A7 do not show the body of truck to show its make, colour and registration number, therefore it could be of any vehicle. Second the person who took these photographs never stepped in FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 45 witness box to prove that he entered the cabin of truck no. UP 63J 9752 and clicked the photographs Ex.P1/A6 and Ex.P1/A7. These photographs were brought in testimony of Pw1 for identification of the truck and Pw1 did not depose that he clicked those photographs. Therefore, under the circumstances where everything, in the case of prosecution is questionable, even if Pw6 has deposed in his testimony that "The photoghraphs Ex1/A6 and Ex.1/A7 reflect the hidden cavity in the truck i.e. the portion between cabin anf driver and trolly. It is the same hidden cavity in which the 17 sacks containing Ganja were found kept." the doubts on these photographs will remain. Pw1 has not clicked these photographs and he is the one who brings every document prepared by him under question of antedating by deposing that the proceedigs of raid, search and seizure were conducted on 15.09.2016.
58. Under these circumstances, having so may lapses and contradictions discussed above, the testimoney of defence witnesses gains signifance and it is quite possible, as claimed by defence witnesses, that the accused persons were respectively lifted from Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and shop of accused Ram Kumar and thereafter the case was planted upon them. The cross examination of defence witnesses done by State do not show that there is any inconsistency in their testimony nor any suggestion was put to these witnesses.
59. In light of the abovesaid findings, observations and reasoning, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove their case on the touchstone of beyond FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 46 reasonable doubt against both the accused persons. There are number lacunas which raise doubts over the case of prosecution and benefit in this regard has to be given to the accused persons. The accused persons are accordingly acquitted from the charges levelled against them under section 29 and 20(b) (ii) (c) of NDPS Act. Digitally signed by VIKRAM Date:
VIKRAM 2023.04.29 16:50:38 Date : 29.04.2023 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/29.04.2023 Dictated on : 29.04.2023 Digitally Transcribed on : 29.04.2023 signed by checked on : 29.04.2023 VIKRAM Signed on : 29.04.2023 VIKRAM Date: 2023.04.29 16:50:45 +0530 (Vikram) ASJ-02/Spl. Judge (NDPS), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi/29.04.2023 FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 47 Annexure 'A' List of Prosecution Witnesses S.No. PW No. Name of Witness Details of Witness 1. PW-1 SI Jai Prakash 1st IO 2. PW-2 Insp. Virender Singh Witness of proceedings under Section 55 NDPS Act and statement dated 14.09.2016 3. PW-3 ASI Arun Kumar Deposited exhibits with FSL 4. PW-4 HC Jitender Raiding team member 5. PW-5 Mr. M.L Meena Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) FSL Rohini 6. PW-6 ACP Sanjiv Kumar Witness of DD entry Tyagi under Section 42 NDPS Act and reports under Section 57 NDPS Act 7. PW-7 HC Krishan Kumar Witness of submission of relevant DD entry of information and relavant reports to ACP 8. PW-8 Mr. Hem Singh @ Deposed that Mobile Bheem Singh No. 7838832006 was taken by Pardeep Kumar 9. PW-9 Mr. Ankit Yadav Deposed that Pardeep Kumar Gupta was his tenant 10. PW-10 ASI Mahesh Chand MHC(M) 11. PW-11 Mr. Ramesh Dutt LDC, Transport Shukla Authority, Mirzapur, UP FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 48 12. PW-12 Mr. Ajit Singh Nodal Officer Idea Cellular Ltd. 13. PW-13 ASI Ram Avtar Duty Officer 14. PW-14 HC Jag Narain MHC(M) 15. PW-15 Mr. Devender Kumar Mechanical Inspector 16. PW-16 ASI OmPrakash Proved his statement dated 15.09.2016 17. PW-17 HC Yogender Singh Deposited case property in malkhana 18. PW-18 Mr. Israr Babu Alternate Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services 19. PW-19 Mr. Pawan Kumar Clerk, Transport Department, Mallroad Authority (DL-1) Delhi 20. PW-20 Insp. Vijender Singh Witness to reports under Section 42 & 57 NDPS Act and statement dated 15.09.2016 21. PW-21 Mr. Surender Kumar Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. 22. PW-22 Insp. Manoj Kumar IO FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 49 Annexure 'B' List of Exhibits S.No. Exhibit No. Details of Remarks Documents 1. Ex. P1 Copy of DD No. 3 2. Ex. P2 Departure entry 3. Ex. P3 & P4 Copies of notice under Section 50 NDPS Act 4. Ex. Pw P5 & Seizure memos P6 recovered Ganja 5. Ex. P7 Seizure memo of truck and documents i.e. RC, permit and insurance 6. Ex. P8 Seizure memo of Eco Van and documents i.e. RC and Insurance 7. Ex. P9 Therir 8. Ex. P10 Site plan 9. Ex. P11 Arrest memo of accued Amrik Singh 10. Ex. P12 Personal search memo of accused Amrik Singh 11. Ex. P13 Disclosure statement of accused Amrik Singh 12. Ex. P14 Arrest memo of accused Ram Kumar 13. Ex. P15 Personal search memo of accused Ram Kumar 14. Ex. P16 Disclosure statement FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 50 of accused Ram Kumar 15. Ex. Pw 1/A & Notices under PW 1/B Section 50 NDPS Act 16. Ex. Pw 1/A1 Seven photographs to PW 1/A7 of truck 17. Ex. Pw 1/A8 Four photographs of to 1/A11 Eeco Van 18. Ex. PX Copy of DD no. 9 19. Ex. Pw 2/A Copy of DD No. 13 dated 14.09.2016 20. Ex. P17 Statement of Sh. Rajan Kumar Chaurasia 21. Ex. P18 Report on process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. 22. Ex. P19 Statement of Mr. Upender Paswan (Mukhiya) 23. Ex. P20 Statement of Mr. Chandan Kumar Gupta 24. Ex. P21 Report on process under Section 83 Cr.P.C. 25. Ex. Pw 5/A Report dated 28.10.2016 26. Ex. Pw 6/A Original report Prepared by SI Jai regarding secret Prakash information 27. Ex. Pw 6/B & Reports U/s 57 6/C NDPS Act 28. Ex. Pw 7/A Copy of entry made at serial no. 2235 29. Ex. Pw 7/B & Copy of entries FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 51 7/C made at serial no. 2277 & 2278 30. Ex. Pw 9/A Seizure memo of copy of voter I card of Pradeep Kumar Gupta, copy of DL of PW-9 and Copy of electricity bill of C-23, Peepal Wala Mohalla, Badli. 31. Ex. Pw 9/B Copy of DL 32. Mark P-9 Copy of electricity bill 33. Ex. Pw 10/A Electronic weighing machine register 34. Ex. Pw 10/B Copy of entry made at serial no. 31 35. Ex. Pw 11/A Copy of Form 29 & & 11/B 30
36. Ex. Pw 11/C Particulars of vehicle
37. Ex. Pw 12/A Customer Mobile no.
application form 9814640222 38. Ex. Pw 12/B Certified copy of passport 39. Ex. Pw 12/C CDR w.e.f Running into 10 01.02.2016 to pages 20.09.2016 40. Ex. Pw 12/D Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 41. Ex. Pw 13/A Copy of FIR 42. Ex. Pw 13/B Endorsement on ruqqa 43. Ex. Pw 13/C Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 44. Ex. Pw 13/D Copy of DD No. FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 52 12A 45. Ex. Pw 14/A Entry no. 2595 in register no. 19 46. Ex. Pw 14/B Entry no. 2596 in register no. 19 47. Ex. Pw 14/C Entry no. 2597 in register no. 19 48. Ex. Pw 14/D Copy of RC no. 339/21/16 49. Ex. Pw 14/E Receipt 50. Ex. Pw 14/F Entry no. 2602 in register no. 19 51. Ex. Pw 15A & Mechanical 15B nspection report 52. Ex. Pw 16/A Memo of cursory search of accused Amrik Singh 53. Ex. Pw 16/B Memo of cursory search of accused Ram Kumar 54. Ex. P-1 Customer application form 55. Ex. P-2 Copy of voter ID card 56. Ex. P-3 CDR from 01.07.2016 to 30.09.2016 57. Ex. P-4 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 58. Ex. P-5 Customer application form 59. Ex. P-6 Copy of DL 60. Ex. P-7 CDR from 01.07.2016 to 14.09.2016 61. Ex. P-8 Certificate under FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 53 Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 62. Ex. P-9 Customer application form 63. Ex. P-10 Copy of election ID card 64. Ex. P-11 CDR from 01.07.2016 to 14.09.2016 65. Ex. P-12 Certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act 66. Ex. P-13 Report of MLO 67. Ex. P-14 Report u/S 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of ganja 68. Ex. P-15 Report u/S 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused persons 69. Ex. P-16 CDR from Mobile No. 01.08.2016 to 9556389199 20.09.2016 70. Ex. P-17 Certified copy of customer application form 71. Ex. P-18 Copy of voter ID card 72. Ex. P-19 CDR from Mobile No. 01.05.2016 to 9938377534 31.07.2016 73. Ex. P-20 Certified copy of customer application form 74. Ex. P-21 Copy of Voter ID card 75. Ex. P-22 Customer Mobile No. application form 7054459498 FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 54 76. Ex. P-23 Copy of voter ID card 77. Ex. P-24 CDR from 01.08.2016 to 02.09.2016 78. Ex. P-25 CDR from 29.08.2016 to 20.09.2016 79. Ex. P-26 & P- Certificate under 27 Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act 80. Ex. P-27 Customer Mobile No. application form 9878440222 81. Ex. P-28 Copy of voter ID 82. Ex. P-29 CDR from 01.02.2016 to 20.09.2016 83. Ex. P-30 & P- Certificate under 31 Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act 84. Ex. 22/X Departure entry 85. Ex. PW 22/A Appliation seeking police custody of accused persons
86. Ex. PW 22/B Interrogation report & PW 22/C of accused persons
87. Ex. PW 22/D Pointing out memo
88. Mark PW Photocopies of 22/A (colly) documents of both & 22/B vehicles i.e. truck (colly) and ecco
89. Ex. MO-1 Mobile Phone make Recovered from Samsung personal search of accused Ram Kumar
90. Ex. MO-2 Mobile phone make Recovered from Micromax personal search of accused Amrik Singh FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 55
91. Ex. MO-3 to Plastic kattas MO-22 containing ganja
92. Ex. MO-23 Samples Mark A1 to Q1
93. Ex. MO-24 Samples Mark X1, Y1 & Z1
94. Ex. MO-25 Articles recovered during personal search og accused Amrik Singh except mobile phone
95. Ex. MO-26 Articles recovered during personal search og accused Ram Kumar except mobile phone FIR No. 158/2016 State Vs. Amrik Singh Page no. 56