Delhi High Court
Ncb vs Mahesh Kumar on 17 August, 2012
Author: A.K. Pathak
Bench: A.K. Pathak
$~14
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL. L.P. 319/2010
% Decided on: 17th August, 2012
NCB ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Adv.
versus
MAHESH KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Sunit Mehta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
A.K. PATHAK, J. (Oral)
1. Respondent has been acquitted by the Trial Court of the charges under Section 25A read with Section 28 and 29 of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), by extending benefit of doubt. By this petition under Section 378(IV) of the Code of Criminal Code, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C."), petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 31st May, 2010 passed by the Trial Court thereby acquitting the respondent.
2. In brief, case of petitioner before the Trial Court, was that one Karan Singh, Officer of Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), received a secret information that on 14th March, 2000 one Pawan CRL. L.P. 319/2010 Page 1 of 6 along with another person would bring few bottles of Acetic Anhydride from Ghaziabad in a blue colour Ceilo car bearing registration no. DL-1CE-4960 for manufacturing of heroin and they might pass through Wazirabad bridge between 11:30 hours to 14:00 hrs. This information was placed before the Superintendent, NCB who authorized Sh. Jyotimon for conducting the search by forming a team. The team so formed took position near Wazirabad bridge when they spotted the car at about 12:15 pm; upon signal given to stop the car it sped away. Subsequently car was found lying abandoned near Wazirabad bridge at about 12.30 pm. Two persons, namely, Satish and Mam Raj were joined as punch witnesses. Local people informed that the two occupants had fled away after leaving the car. The door of the said car was lying open. Some loose papers/documents were found in the dash board of the car; whereas four plastic bottles of 2.5 liters capacity each and filled with transparent liquid with pungent smell were found in a polythene cloth bag from the dickey of the car. On testing, the liquid gave positive result for Acetic Anhydride, a controlled substance. Loose papers/documents comprised of photocopy of invoice cum delivery challan in the name of M/s Evergreen Exports, insurance cover in respect of the car was in the name of Mahesh Kumar, cash receipt of `1,40,000/- issued by Rakesh Kumar in CRL. L.P. 319/2010 Page 2 of 6 favour of Mahesh Kumar, form of certificate of registration of the car in the name of M/s Evergreen Exports.
3. Address of the respondent, that is, E-6/141. Sultan Puri as appearing on the insurance papers, was raided but nothing incriminating was found there. Manjit Singh partner of M/s Evergreen Exports informed that the car was sold on 2 nd March, 2000 to Rakesh Kumar, partner of M/s Fair-Deal Motors, for `1,70,000/-. On enquiry from Rakesh Kumar, it was revealed that he had sold the car to respondent on 7th March, 2000 for `1,94,000/- through one Praveen of M/s Sagar Motors. Statement of Praveen was also recorded who stated that two persons had come to his office out of which one person disclosed his name as Ravi Kumar Gupta and the other as Mahesh Kumar (Respondent). He further stated that initially Ravi Kumar Gupta had come alone and finalized the deal but later on Mahesh Kumar also came there and Ravi Kumar Gupta asked him to get the vehicle registered in the name of Mahesh Kumar, who had brought a ration card with him. On 8th March, 2000 he got the vehicle insured in the name of Mahesh Kumar through an agent Raju Sethi.
4. During the Trial, punch witnesses did not support the prosecution version. PW10 Mam Raj denied of having seen the CRL. L.P. 319/2010 Page 3 of 6 bottles in the car and stated that nothing had happened in his presence. He also denied that his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. PW14 Satish, another punch witness, also did not support the prosecution case. He stated that nothing happened in his presence. He also denied recovery of bottles from the car in his presence. As per the petitioner, car was sold by M/s Evergreen Exports to Rakesh Kumar who, in turn, sold it to the respondent through Praveen of M/s Sagar Motors. Respondent has denied the ownership of car. PW17 Rakesh Kumar deposed that he had purchased the car from M/s Evergreen Exports and further sold it to Mahesh Kumar through PW2 Praveen Kumar. PW2 Praveen Kumar has deposed that on 3rd March, 2000 Ravi Kumar Gupta had come to purchase a car and was shown the car bearing registration no. DL-1CE-4960, which was in the name of M/s Evergreen Exports. Deal was finalized with Ravi Kumar Gupta. After some time, on the same day, Ravi Kumar Gupta came with a person and gave full payment and asked him to get the vehicle registered in the name of Mahesh Kumar. PW2 Praveen Kumar could not identify the respondent as the same person who was accompanying Ravi Kumar Gupta and had disclosed his name as Mahesh Kumar. As regards, PW17 Rakesh Kumar, he has deposed that he did not participate in the sale transaction done by PW2. He also deposed CRL. L.P. 319/2010 Page 4 of 6 that he had sold the car through PW2 and obtained its delivery receipt. He further stated that none of the documents relating to purchase/sale of the car were executed in his presence. He also stated that he was not aware as to what kind of documents were submitted for registration. Only photocopy of ration card appears to have been used for transfer purposes. Neither original ration card was produced nor it was proved that the same belonged to respondent. In view of the above, Trial Court has concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that respondent was involved in manufacturing of heroin or he had procured acetic anhydride for manufacturing the heroin as no incriminating article was recovered from his house search connecting him with the alleged recovery of acetic anhydride from the car, inasmuch as, prosecution has failed to prove that the car was owned by Mahesh Kumar.
5. In my view, from the evidence adduced by the petitioner during the trial and as discussed above, the view taken by the Trial Court appears to be possible and same cannot be said to be perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. In my opinion, Trial Court has rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the respondent beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. CRL. L.P. 319/2010 Page 5 of 6
6. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any justifiable reason to grant leave to appeal to the petitioner.
7. Petition is dismissed.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
AUGUST 17, 2012 ga CRL. L.P. 319/2010 Page 6 of 6