Delhi District Court
State vs Udip Pradhan on 27 February, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SHRI ARUL VARMA, ASJ-04 AND
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS) SOUTH-EAST: SAKET COURTS:
NEW DELHI
DLSE010053662022
SC No369/2022
FIR No. 217/2022
P.S. Greater Kailash
State
Vs.
Udip Pradhan
S/o Sh Vira Pradhan
R/o H. No 237 Lower Ground Floor,
Sant Nagar, East of Kailash, New Delhi
........ Accused
Date of Institution : 28.12.2021
Date of reserving the Judgment : 27.02.2024
Date of Judgment : 27.02.2024
JUDGMENT
FACTS IN BRIEF / CASE SET UP BY THEPROSECUTION
1. The facts as alleged by the prosecution, are hereby succinctly recapitulated. It was alleged that on 07.07.2021, at about 08:00 PM in the area of near Raman Manjul Park, GK-I, New Delhi, PS Greater Kailash, accused Udip Pradhan was found in possession of 1360 grams of 'charas' in small pieces which he was carrying in a white colour polythene by putting the same in a red colour pitthu bag on his back. Thereafter, the accused was arrested, and investigation was conducted whereafter the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 1/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:16:57 -0300
present chargesheet came to be filed.
CHARGES FRAMED QUA THE ACCUSED
2. Charges under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) NDPS Act was framed qua the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
EVIDENCE LED BY PROSECUTION
3. In the trial, the prosecution in support of its case, examined 13 witnesses, the succinct testimonies whereof are as follows:
4. PW-1 ACP Sh Bijender Singh deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted as ACP (operations), South District. On that day at about 06:20 PM, Insp. Satvir Singh, in-charge, Narcotics Squad, South District apprised him on telephone about the secret information of a person, who was carrying 'charas'. He directed the Insp. to take the necessary actions in accordance with the secret information. In pursuance of the said information at about 08:35 PM, he got a telephonic call from IO/SI Ajeet as they had apprehended one Udip Pradhan with 'charas' and he requested him to reach at the spot for the purpose of search in compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act. Accordingly, he reached at the spot at about 09:10 PM and there the IO with staff and the accused Udip Pradhan were found present as the IO introduced the accused to him. He FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 2/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:17:06 -0300
apprised the accused about his legal right and offered him the search of police party. Thereafter, he directed the IO to conduct the bodily search of accused in writing on copy of the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act. The same was proved as Ex. PW1/A, which bore his signature at point A and his direction at point B. Accordingly, the IO conducted the bodily search of accused but nothing was found. On the search of pitthu bag of accused, it was found containing one plastic polythene, which was found containing dark blackish/brown colour substance, which was soft and in rectangle shape, bearing size about 7/8 inch in length and 1.5 inch width. The thickness of the same was about 1 cm. The total pieces were 14 in numbers. The IO tested the said substance after taking a small quantity on the field testing kit and it was revealed to be 'charas'. The IO weighed the said substance and it was found to be 1360 grams with polythene.
After directing the IO to conduct the further proceedings, he left the spot. On the same day, he also received a report u/s 42 NDPS Act regarding the secret information recorded by SI Ajeet and forwarded by Insp. Satvir Singh. The said report was put up before him by his reader and the copy of the same was Mark PW1/A, which bore his signature at point A and his seal at point B. On 08.07.2021, two reports u/s 57 NDPS Act were FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 3/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:17:15 -0300 received in his office, which were prepared by SI Ajeet and SI Sikandar Gautam and both were forwarded by Insp. Satvir Singh. The reports were regarding the recovery of 'charas' and the arrest of accused. The said reports were put up before him by his reader and the copies of the same were proved as Mark PW1/B and Mark PW1/C respectively, which bore his signature at points A and his seals at point B. On 11.07.2021, IO recorded his statement in this case.
5. PW-2 HC Naveen deposed that he has been working as Reader to ACP (operation), South for the last one year. He deposed that he had brought the summon record i.e. DD No. 6 dated 07.07.2021 recorded at Ante-Narcotics Squad, South District. As per record, the said DD was received in the ACP office on 07.07.2021 alongwith special report, prepared by SI Ajeet and forwarded by the Inspector In-charge, Narcotics Squad. He put up both the documents before the ACP, who had seen the same and signed upon the special report at point A. The DD No. 6 was placed on record and it was proved as Ex. PW2/A and the special report was proved as Ex. PW2/B, which bore the signature of ACP Sh. Bijender Singh at point A. The said DD with the special report was received in the office vide entry no. 195 in the diary register. The copy of the relevant entry was FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 4/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:17:28 -0300 placed on record and the same was proved as Ex. PW2/C. On 08.07.2021, one report u/s 57 NDPS Act, prepared by SI Ajeet, Ante-Narcotics Squad and forwarded by the Inspector In-
charge, Narcotics Squad. He put up the said report before the ACP, who had seen the same and signed upon the same at point A. The original report was placed on record and the same was proved as Ex. PW2/D. The receiving of the said report was mentioned at entry Serial No. 196 of diary register. The copy of the relevant entry was proved as Ex. PW2/E. On 08.07.2021, one more report u/s 57 NDPS Act, prepared by SI Sikander Gautam, Ante-Narcotics Squad, forwarded by Insp. Narcotics Squad was also received in the office of ACP on 08.07.2021. He put up the same before the ACP, who had seen and signed the same. The original report was placed on record and the same was proved as Ex. PW2/F. The same bore the signature of ACP Sh. Bijender Singh at Point A. The receiving of the said report was mentioned at entry Serial No. 197 of diary register. The copy of the relevant entry was proved as Ex. PW2/G.
6. PW-3 ASI Pramod Kumar deposed that on 07.07.2021 he was posted as MHC(M) at PS G. K.-I, Delhi. On that day, Insp. Ajeet Kumar, the SHO PS G. K.-I, had deposited in the malkhana one sealed plastic container wrapped with doctor FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 5/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:17:38 -0300
tape and sealed with the seals of IO and the SHO, but he did not know the impressions of seals, along with one carbon copy of seizure memo of 'charas' weighing 1360 grams after putting the FIR number on the seizure memo. He made an entry in this regard, vide no. 1169 in the register no. 19. The photocopy of which was proved as Ex. PW3/A (OSR). At the same time, one pitthu bag was also deposited. On 08.07.2021, SI Sikander Gautam had deposited the personal belongings of accused with one mobile phone make Nokia in the malkhana. He made an entry in this regard, vide no. 1170 in the register no. 19. The photocopy of which was proved as Ex. PW3/B (OSR). On 14.07.2021, the aforesaid case property i.e. parcel Ex. PW3/A was sent to the Magistrate for sampling through Ct.
Dharmendra. He recorded a note in this regard at point A against the entry Ex. PW3/A. On the same day, the aforesaid case property alongwith two samples Serial No. 1 and 2 was brought and deposited in the malkhana. The parcel was sealed by the Magistrate. He recorded a note in this regard at point B against the entry Ex. PW3/A. On 22.07.2021, he handed over the sample Serial No. 1 to Ct. Amit for depositing the same with FSL, Rohini through RC no. 64/21. he also recorded a note in this regard at point C against the entry Ex. PW3/A. The FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 6/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:17:47 -0300
copy of RC was proved as Ex. PW3/C. Ct. Amit after depositing the exhibit with the FSL brought the acknowledgement of the same which was proved as Ex. PW3/D. Later on, he received the result of FSL alongwith the remnant of the sample in sealed condition through Ct. Chotu Singh. He handed over the result to the IO. He also recorded a note in this regard at point D on against entry Ex. PW3/A.
7. PW-4 SI Dalip Singh deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted as ASI in the Narcotics Squad, South District at Madangir Police Post. On that day, he was present in the office, then SI Ajeet apprised him, HC Rajiv and Ct. Dharmender that he received a secret information regarding one person residing in the area of East of Kailash and used to supply narcotics drugs in Delhi. He further told them that the said person would come in the area of Raman Munjal, DDA Park, Greater Kailash opposite Sri Fort Traffic Light to supply 'charas' and he could be apprehended, if raid conducted. Thereafter, the information was shared with Inspector, In-charge, Narcotics Squad and the ACP, and in pursuance of the said direction, he alongwith SI Ajeet, HC Rajiv and Ct. Dharmender proceeded from the office to the disclosed place by a private car. IO took his IO kit, Narcotics field testing kit, electronic weighing machine, FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 7/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:17:55 -0300 personal laptop and with portable printer. DD entry regarding their departure was made at about 06:45 PM. On the way, SI Ajeet asked some passersby to join the raiding party, but they refused to join and went away after disclosing the reasonable excuses. Due to the paucity of time, no written notice could be served upon those passersby. They reached the spot and he alongwith HC Rajiv deployed on the road which leads from G. K. side to Sri Fort red light. SI Ajeet with Ct. Dharmender took their positions on the road towards G. K. from them. The secret informer was also present with SI Ajeet. At about 08:00 PM, one person came on foot from Greater Kailash side. He was holding a pitthu bag on his back and he stopped and stood on the footpath and was waiting for someone. SI Ajeet with the help of them apprehended the said person. SI Ajeet introduced the raiding party members to the said person. On inquiry, the name of the said person was revealed as Udip Pradhan, SI Ajeet apprised the accused that he had secret information that he would come there to supply 'charas'. SI Ajeet apprised the accused about his legal right that his search was to be taken for the purpose of recovery of contraband substance and his search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so desire. A notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was also FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 8/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:18:03 -0300
served upon accused, in this regard. The accused refused for having 'charas' and he did not give any clear reply regarding conducting his search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He also refused to take search of the raiding party when the same was offered to him. SI Ajeet called ACP (operations) Sh. Bijender Singh at the spot. In pursuance of the request of SI Ajeet, the ACP had reached at the spot at about 09:10 PM. SI Ajeet produced the accused before ACP and apprised him the proceedings conducted by him. The ACP had directed in writing on the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to conduct the search of accused. SI Ajeet then conducted the search of accused and took over the pitthu bag of the accused after conducting his bodily search in which nothing was found. SI Ajeet checked the pitthu bag of accused. The said bag was found containing one polythene which was found containing 14 strips (patti) in rectangular shape which were soft. The IO took out a very small quantity of substance from the said strips and tested on the field testing kit. The same was found to be 'charas'. The length of strips were 7-8 inch, width about 1.5 inch and the thickness of the strips were about 1 cm. For the testing of the substance on the field testing kit, the IO took the small quantity only from four strips. All the strips were weighed and were FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 9/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:18:12 -0300
found 1360 grams with the polythene. Thereafter, the ACP left the spot. The said polythene containing 'charas' was kept in a plastic container and wrapped with doctor tape and then it was converted into parcel and sealed it with the seal of 'DS'. SI Ajeet seized the said parcel. SI Ajeet also seized the red colour pitthu bag of the accused through the seizure memo after sealed the same in a katta with the seal of 'DS'.SI Ajeet prepared rukka and given to him alongwith the sealed parcel. He was directed to hand over the parcel to the SHO, PS Greater Kailash and the rukka was given to the duty officer of PS Greater Kailash. He took the said items and reached the PS G. K., he handed the rukka to the duty officer for the registration of FIR. The parcel was handed over to the ATO Insp. Jai Prakash Nagar as the SHO was not present in the police station at that time. The ATO affixed his counter seal 'JPN' on the parcel and mentioned the FIR number after taking the same from duty officer. The ATO called the MHC(M) and gave the parcel to the MHC(M) to deposit in the malkhana. The MHC(M) made an entry in the register no. 19, in this regard. He collected the copy of FIR and the original rukka from the duty officer and reached the police station. SI Sikandar Gautam, the IO, as the investigation was assigned to him after registration of the FIR, found at the spot. FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 10/58
Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:18:20 -0300 He handed over the copy of FIR alongwith original rukka to the IO. The IO arrested the accused. IO recorded his statement in this case.
8. PW-5 Inspector Satyabir Singh deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted as Inspector, In-charge, Narcotics Squad, South East District. On that day at about 06:20 PM, SI Ajeet alongwith a secret informer came to his office and he produced the informer who informed that one person would come after about 1.5-2.0 hours to supply 'charas' in the area of DDA Park opposite Sri Fort, Greater Kailash. After having satisfaction with the information, he conveyed the said information to his senior officer, ACP (operations). The ACP (operations) had directed to take legal action in accordance with the secret information. SI Sikandar Gautam brought the accused to the office and he produced him before him. He also made inquiry from the accused and found his arrest to be justified. Therefore, he directed SI Ajeet to constitute raiding party and conduct the raid as per the information. The information of this case was registered at PS Greater Kailash. DD was recorded in compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act by SI Ajeet and he forwarded the same to the ACP which was proved as Ex. PW5/A, bearing his forwarding signature at point B. He also FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 11/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:18:29 -0300
forwarded the report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding the seizure of 'charas' to the ACP which was prepared by SI Ajeet and the same was proved as Ex. PW5/B, bearing his forwarding signature at point B. On 08.07.2021, he also forwarded the report u/s 57 NDPS Act to the ACP which was prepared by SI Sikandar Gautam regarding the arrest of accused and the same was proved as Ex. PW5/C, bearing his forwarding signature at point B.
9. PW-6 Inspector Jai Prakash Nagar deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted as ATO at PS G. K.-I. On that day, he was looking after the work of SHO. During his duty hours at about 11:00 PM, ASI Dilip Singh came to him and he handed over the pullinda i.e. in a sealed plastic container with the seal of 'DS' alongwith the copy of the seizure memo. He affixed his seal 'JPN' on the parcel and put the FIR number on the same and on the copy of seizure memo after taking the same from duty officer. He had deposited the said parcel with the document in the malkhana. The MHC(M) had made relevant entry in the register no. 19 in this regard. In the same night, the IO also brought the accused in the police station and he made inquiry from the accused. The IO recorded his statement in this regard. He had recorded DD No. 71A in this regard. The true FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 12/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:18:41 -0300
copy of which was proved as Ex. PW6/A.
10.PW-7 Smt. Mithilesh Gupta deposed that she was the owner of H. No. 38, CSP flat, East of Kailash, New Delhi. She knew accused Udip Pradhan as he stayed in his house as tenant with his family for two or two and a half years. Even at the time of this case, he was her tenant. One person used to visit Udip Pradhan at her house. She further deposed that he did not remember the name of the said person, but on her asking to Udip Pradhan told her that he was his brother. Police made inquiry from her and she narrated the above said facts to police.
11.PW-8 Ct. Amit Kumar deposed that on 22.07.2021, he was posted at Narcotics Squad, South District, New Delhi. On that day, he collected one sample parcel with FSL form, both bearing seal of 'RS' from the malkhana of PS Greater Kailash.
He took the said items to FSL, Rohini through RC No. 64/21/21 which was proved as Ex. PW3/C, which bore his signature at point A. He had deposited the said items in sealed condition with the FSL and obtained the acknowledgment of the same which was already proved as Ex. PW3/D, bore his signature at point A. So long as the parcels remained in his custody, the same were not tampered with in any manner by anybody. He further deposed that he handed over the copy of FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 13/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:18:50 -0300
the acknowledgment to the MHC(M). IO recorded his statement in this regard.
12. PW-9 ASI Gautam Sah deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted at PS Greater Kailash and working as Duty Officer from 04:00 PM to 12:00 mid night. During his duty hours, at about 11:00 PM, ASI Dilip brought a rukka Mark PW9/A sent by SI Ajeet Kumar and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that he recorded the FIR No. 217/2021 on the basis of the said rukka by getting the same typed on computer through the operator. The computerized copy of FIR was proved as Ex.
PW 9/A, which bore his signature at point A (OSR). He also gave a certificate u/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of the genuineness of this FIR. The certificate was proved as Ex. PW9/B, which bore his signature at Point A. He made his endorsement Ex. PW9/C on the rukka, which bore his signature at Point A.
13.PW-10 SI Sikandar Gautam deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted at Narcotics Squad, South-District. On that day at around 08:30 PM, he was informed by Inspector Satyavir Singh regarding a raid conducted by SI Ajit, who had seized some contraband substance i.e. 'charas' from the accused namely Udip Pradhan and after registration of the FIR, the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 14/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:18:59 -0300 investigation was assigned to him. Accordingly, he reached at the spot after obtaining the copy of the FIR with original rukka from ASI Dilip Singh. Upon reaching the spot, SI Ajeet, Ct. Dharmender, HC Rajiv and ASI Dilip Singh met alongwith the accused. SI Ajeet apprised him about the proceedings of seizure of 'charas' from the accused and he handed over the documents prepared by him along with the accused. He prepared the site- plan at the instance of SI Ajit as Ex. PW10/A, which bore his signature at point X. He made inquiry from the accused and arrested in this case vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/B, which bore his signature at point X. He also conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered one voter ID card, Aadhar Card, one purse containing Rs. 270/-, one samsung mobile phone and one ATM card of Central Bank of India. He prepared the personal search memo vide Ex. PW10/C, which bore his signature at point X. He interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW10/D, which bore his signature at point X. Thereafter, he produced the accused before the Court and obtained two days police custody. Then, in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused, he led them to his house at H. No. 38, III rd Floor, Dhobi Colony, East of Kailash. From his house, he had got recovered one Nokia FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 15/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:19:07 -0300
mobile which was stated to have given to him by one Raju Limbu. He seized the said mobile phone through seizure memo Ex. PW10/E, which bore his signature at point X. He also got recovered from his house the photograph of the documents pertaining to Raju Limbu and he seized the same through seizure memo Ex. PW10/F, which bore his signature at point X. The photographs of Raju Limbu was proved as Ex. PA and the owner certificate of Raju Limbu recovered from the house of accused was proved as Ex. PB. Thereafter, accused again produced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. He prepared the report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding the arrest of accused. The same was proved as Ex. PW5/C, which bore his signature at point X. He had served a notice u/s 52 NDPS Act upon the accused regarding the seizure and his arrest. The notice was proved as Ex. PW10/G, which bore his signature at point X. On 13.07.2021, he moved an application for sampling before Ld. Magistrate. The copy of the same was proved as Ex. PW10/H1. On 14.07.2021, the proceedings of sampling were conducted before the Ld. Magistrate and 28 samples were drawn from the entire case property. He had obtained the copy of the proceedings of the sampling conducted by the Ld. Magistrate. The same was proved as Ex.
FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 16/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date: 2024.02.28 17:19:15 - 0300
PW10/H2. After the sampling, he had seized the entire samples and the case property in front of the Ld. Magistrate and the said seizure memo was proved as Ex. PW10/H3, which bore his signature at point X and the signature of Ld. Magistrate at point Y. The same were put before him. He had recorded the statement of witnesses in this case. He may state that he made the search of Raju Limbu and even got issued the NBWs against him, but he could not be found. After completion of the investigation, he prepared the chargesheet and put the same in the Court. On 22.07.2021, 14 samples were sent to FSL through Ct. Amit. After obtaining the result of FSL prepared by Dr. Adesh Kumar on 28.07.2022, the same was proved as Ex. PW10/H4. He submitted the said report along with the supplementary chargesheet before the Court.
14.PW-11 SI Ajeet Kumar Yadav deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted as SI in the Narcotics Squad, South District at Madangir Police Post. On that day, he was present in the office, at about 06:20 PM one secret informer came to him and he told that one boy residing in the area of East of Kailash and on that day after about 1.5-2.0 hours, the said boy would come near Naman Munjal Park, Greater Kailash to supply 'charas' and he could be apprehended, if raid conducted. He shared this FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 17/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:19:26 -0300
information with the In-charge, Narcotics Squad, Insp. Satyavir and produced the secret informer before him. The Inspector further conveyed the information to the ACP (operations), South District. The ACP directed to conduct the raid, in accordance with the secret information. He had recorded the said secret information vide DD No. 6 in compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act. The true copy of the said DD No. 6 was proved as Ex. PW11/A. The copy of the said information was put up before Inspector In-charge, narcotics Squad. Thereafter, he constituted a raiding party consisting he, ASI Dalip, HC Rajiv and Ct. Dharmender. He apprised the members of the raiding party the secret information. He had collected his IO kit, Narcotics field testing kit, electronic weighing machine, personal laptop and with portable printer. He had made DD No. 7 regarding their departure at about 06:45 PM. The copy of the same was proved as Ex. PW11/B. He further deposed that they proceeded by a private car from the office to the disclosed place. The car was being driven by Ct. Dharmender. On the way, he had asked some passersby near Siri Fort traffic night near to Raman Munjal Park to join the raiding party, but they refused to join and went away after disclosing the reasonable excuses. Due to the paucity of time, no written notice could be FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 18/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:19:35 -0300
served upon those passersby. They reached the spot at around 07:00 PM. They took their positions on the road towards G. K. The secret informer was also present with him. At about 08:00 PM, one person came on foot from Greater Kailash side. He was holding a pitthu bag on his back and he stopped and stood on the footpath and was waiting for someone. The secret informer pointed out the said person was the same about whom he gave the secret information. After disclosing the secret information, the secret informer went away. He with the help of staff apprehended the said person. He introduced the raiding party members to the said person. On inquiry, the name of the said person was revealed as Udip Pradhan. He apprised the accused that they had secret information that he would come there to supply 'charas'. He also apprised the accused about his legal right that his search was to be taken for the purpose of recovery of contraband substance and his search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so desire. A notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was also served upon accused in this regard in original. The carbon copy of the notice was proved as Ex. PW1/A, which bore his signature at point X. The accused refused for having 'charas' and he did not give any clear reply regarding conducting his FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 19/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:19:43 -0300
search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He also refused to take search of the raiding party when the same was offered to him. The accused had given his reply below the carbon copy of notice which was proved as Ex. PW11/C, which bore the signature of accused at point A. He called ACP (operations) Sh. Bijender Singh at the spot. In pursuance of his request, the ACP had reached at the spot at about 09:10 PM. He produced the accused before ACP and apprised him the proceedings conducted by him. The ACP had directed in writing at point B on the carbon notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to conduct the search of accused. Thereafter, he took the bodily search of accused, but no contraband substance was recovered from his bodily search. Then, he took over the pitthu bag of the accused and checked the pitthu bag of accused. The said bag was found containing one polythene which was found containing 14 strips (patti) in rectangular shape which were soft. He took out a very small quantity of substance from the said strips and tested on the field testing kit. The same was found to be 'charas'. The length of strips were ranging from 7 to 8 inch and width about 1.5 inch and the thickness of the strips were about 1 cm. The colour of the substance was dark brownish colour. All the strips were weighed and were found 1360 grams with the polythene. FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 20/58
Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:19:51 -0300
Thereafter, the ACP left the spot. The said polythene containing 'charas' was kept in a plastic container and wrapped with doctor tape and then it was converted into parcel and sealed it with the seal of 'DS'. He had seized the said parcel. He had also seized the red colour pitthu bag of the accused through the seizure memo after sealed the same in a katta with the seal of 'DS'. The seizure memo of the substance and the katta was proved as Ex. PW11/D, which bore his signature at point X. The seal was given to Ct. Dharmender after use. He had then prepared rukka Ex. PW11/E, bearing his signature at point X, and given to ASI Dalip alongwith one parcel containing the substance. He directed ASI Dalip to hand over the parcel to the SHO, PS Greater Kailash and to give the rukka to the duty officer of PS Greater Kailash. Accordingly, ASI Dalip took the said items to police station G. K. He had apprised the Inspector In-charge, Narcotics Squad and the ACP about the seizure of substance and sending the rukka for the registration of the FIR. Thereafter, the investigation was assigned to SI Sikandar Gautam after registration of the FIR. SI Sikandar Gautam reached the spot and he apprised him about the proceedings conducted by him and handed over the accused to him. He pointed out the place of recovery to the IO and the IO prepared FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 21/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:20:01 -0300
the site-plan of the said place at his instance, which was Ex. PW10/A, which bore his signature at point A. Thereafter, he left the spot. Alongwith DD No. 6, a special report u/s 42 NDPS Act was also sent to the ACP which was proved as Ex. PW5/A, which bore his signature at point X. After the recovery, he prepared the report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding the seizure of contraband substance i.e. 'charas' from the accused and sent to ACP through Inspector In-charge. The report was already Ex. PW5/B, which bore his signature at point X.
15.PW-12 HC Dharmender deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted as constable in the Narcotics Squad, South District at Madangir Police Post. On that day, he was present in the office, then SI Ajeet apprised him, HC Rajiv, ASI Dalip that he received a secret information regarding one person residing in the area of East of Kailash and used to supply narcotics drugs in Delhi. He further told that the said person would come in the area of Raman Munjal, DDA Park, Greater Kailash opposite Sri Fort Traffic Light to supply 'charas' and he could be apprehended, if raid conducted. Thereafter, the information was shared with Inspector, In-charge, Narcotics Squad and the ACP, and in pursuance of the said direction, he alongwith SI Ajeet, HC Rajiv and ASI Dalip proceeded from the office to the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 22/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:20:10 -0300
disclosed place by a private car make I 20. IO took his IO kit, Narcotics field testing kit, electronic weighing machine, personal laptop and with portable printer. DD entry regarding our departure was made at about 06:45 PM. After reaching at the spot, SI Ajeet asked some passersby to join the raiding party, but they refused to join and went away after disclosing the reasonable excuses. Due to the paucity of time, no written notice could be served upon those passersby. At the spot, he alongwith SI Ajeet and the secret informer deployed towards traffic light. At about 08:00 PM, one person came on foot from Greater Kailash side. He was holding a pitthu bag on his back and he stopped and stood on the footpath and he was waiting for someone. After 5-7 minutes, the said person started going back. On the pointing of secret informer, SI Ajeet with the help of them apprehended the said person. SI Ajeet introduced the raiding party members to the said person. On inquiry, the name of the said person was revealed as Udip Pradhan. SI Ajeet apprised the accused that he had secret information that the accused would come there to supply 'charas'. SI Ajeet apprised the accused about his legal right that his search was to be taken for the purpose of recovery of contraband substance and his search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 23/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:20:19 -0300
or a Magistrate, if he so desire. A notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, vide Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point C, was also served upon accused, in this regard. The accused refused for having 'charas' and he did not give any clear reply regarding conducting his search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He also refused to take search of the raiding party when the same was offered to him. SI Ajeet called ACP (operations) Sh. Bijender Singh at the spot. In pursuance of the request of SI Ajeet, the ACP had reached at the spot at about 09:10 PM. SI Ajeet produced the accused before ACP and apprised him the proceedings conducted by him. The ACP had directed in writing on the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to conduct the search of accused. SI Ajeet then conducted the bodily search of accused, but no contraband substance was found. SI Ajeet then took over the pitthu bag of the accused. SI Ajeet checked the pitthu bag of accused. The said bag was found containing one polythene which was found containing 14 strips (patti) in rectangular shape which were soft. The IO took out a very small quantity of substance from the said strips and tested on the field testing kit. The same was found to be 'charas'. The length of strips were 7- 8 inch, width about 1.5 inch and the thickness of the strips were about 1 cm. For the testing of the substance on the field testing FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 24/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:20:27 -0300
kit, the IO took the small quantity only from three-four strips. All the strips were weighed and were found 1360 grams with the polythene. Thereafter, the ACP left the spot. The said polythene containing 'charas' was kept in a plastic container and wrapped with doctor tape and then it was converted into parcel and sealed it with the seal of 'DS'. SI Ajeet seized the said parcel through seizure memo Ex. PW11/D, which bore his signature at point A. SI Ajeet also seized the red colour pitthu bag of the accused through the seizure memo Ex. PW12/A, which bore his signature at point A. The seal was handed over to PW-12 after use. SI Ajeet prepared rukka and given to ASI Dalip alongwith the sealed parcel. He was directed to hand over the parcel to the SHO, PS Greater Kailash and the rukka was to be given to the duty officer of PS Greater Kailash. Accordingly, ASI Dalip took the said items and reached the PS G. K. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to SI Sikandar Gautam, who also reached the spot. SI Ajeet handed over the documents and the accused to the IO and apprised him about the proceedings conducted by him. The IO made inquiry from the accused and arrested him in this case vide Ex. PW10/B, which bore his signature at point A. The IO also conducted the personal search of accused and recovered FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 25/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:20:39 -0300
one purse containing some money, one notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, one mobile phone and one voter ID card. The memo was prepared thereof vide Ex. PW10/C, which bore his signature at point A. IO interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide Ex. PW10/D, which bore his signature at point A. The accused was got medically examined. IO recorded his statement in this regard. On 09.07.2021, he again joined the investigation of this case alongwith the IO. On that day, in pursuance of the disclosure statement of the accused, theytook the accused at his house on the 3 rd floor, Sant Nagar, East of Kailash. The accused got recovered one samsung mobile phone buttonwala, which was stated to have given to him by Raju @ Limbu. PW-12 did not remember the contact number and the IMEI number of the said mobile phone. The same is mentioned in the seizure memo as the same was seized through a memo Ex. PW 10/E, which bore the signature of PW-12 at point A. The accused also got recovered from his house, one coloured photograph and one certificate of Raju @ Limbu. The same was also seized through seizure memo Ex. PW10/F, which bore his signature at point A. The photograph of Raju available on the Court file was proved as Ex. PA and the certificate of Raju @ Limbu was proved as Ex. PB, the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 26/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:20:48 -0300
same is also available on the Court file. The IO also recorded his statement in this regard. On 14.07.2021, he alongwith the IO/SI Sikandar Gautam took the case property from the malkhana vide RC No. 57/21/21 in sealed condition with the seal of 'JPN' and 'DS' and produced before the Ld. Magistrate for sampling. The Ld. Magistrate had conducted the proceedings of sampling u/s 52-A of NDPS Act. After the sampling, the case property and the samples were sealed with the seal of 'RS'. Thereafter, the IO seized the sealed parcels through seizure memo Ex. PW10/H3, which bore his signature at point B. The case property was again deposited in the malkhana by him.
16.PW-13 HC Rajeev deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was posted as HC in the Narcotics Squad, South District at Madangir Police Post. On that day, SI Ajeet apprised him, Ct. Dharmender, ASI Dalip that he received a secret information regarding one person residing in the area of East of Kailash and used to supply narcotics drugs in Delhi. He further told them that the said person would come in the area of Raman Munjal, DDA Park, Greater Kailash opposite Sri Fort Traffic Light to supply 'charas' and he could be apprehended, if raid conducted. Thereafter, the information was shared with Inspector, In- FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 27/58
Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:20:55 -0300
charge, Narcotics Squad and the ACP, and in pursuance of the said direction, he alongwith SI Ajeet, ASI Dalip and Ct. Dharmender proceeded from the office to the disclosed place by a private car make i20. IO took his IO kit, Narcotics field testing kit, electronic weighing machine, personal laptop and with portable printer. DD entry regarding their departure was made at about 06:45 PM. After reaching at the spot, SI Ajeet asked some passersby to join the raiding party, but they refused to join and went away after disclosing the reasonable excuses. Due to the paucity of time, no written notice could be served upon those passersby. At the spot, he alongwith SI Ajeet and the secret informer deployed towards traffic light. At about 08:00 PM, one person came on foot from Greater Kailash side. He was holding a pitthu bag on his back and he stopped and stood on the footpath and he was waiting for someone. After 8- 10 minutes, the said person started going back. On the pointing of secret informer, SI Ajeet with the help of them apprehended the said person. SI Ajeet introduced the raiding party members to the said person. On inquiry, the name of the said person was revealed as Udip Pradhan. SI Ajeet apprised the accused that he had secret information that he would come there to supply 'charas'. SI Ajeet apprised the accused about his legal right that FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 28/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:21:03 -0300
his search was to be taken for the purpose of recovery of contraband substance and his search could be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, if he so desire. A notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, vide Ex. PW1/A, bearing his signature at point X, was also served upon accused, in this regard. The accused refused for having 'charas' and he did not give any clear reply regarding conducting his search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer. He also refused to take search of the raiding party when the same was offered to him. SI Ajeet called ACP (operations) Sh. Bijender Singh at the spot. However, the ACP had reached at the spot at about 09:10 PM. SI Ajeet produced the accused before ACP and apprised him the proceedings conducted by him. The ACP had directed in writing on the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to conduct the search of accused. SI Ajeet then conducted the bodily search of accused, but no contraband substance was found. SI Ajeet then took over the pitthu bag of the accused. SI Ajeet checked the pitthu bag of accused. The said bag was found containing one polythene which was found containing 14 strips (patti). The IO took out a very small quantity of substance from the said strips and tested on the field testing kit. The same was found to be 'charas'. The length of strips were 7-8 inch, width about 1.5 inch and the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 29/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:21:11 -0300
thickness of the strips were about 1 cm. For the testing of the substance on the field testing kit, the IO took randomly the small quantity only from four strips. On field testing kit, the substance was revealed to be 'charas'. All the strips were weighed and were found 1360 grams with the polythene. Thereafter, the ACP left the spot. The said polythene containing 'charas' was kept in a plastic container and wrapped with doctor tape and then it was converted into parcel and sealed it with the seal of 'DS'. SI Ajeet seized the said parcel through seizure memo already Ex. PW11/D, which bore his signature at point X. SI Ajeet also seized the red colour pitthu bag of the accused through the seizure memo already Ex. PW12/A, which bore his signature at point X. The seal was handed over to Ct. Dharmender after use. SI Ajeet prepared rukka and given to ASI Dalip alongwith the sealed parcel. ASI Dalip was directed to hand over the parcel to the SHO, PS Greater Kailash and the rukka was to be given to the duty officer of PS Greater Kailash. Accordingly, ASI Dalip took the said items to the PS. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to SI Sikandar Gautam, who also reached the spot. SI Ajeet handed over the documents and the accused to the IO and apprised him about the proceedings conducted by him. SI Sikandar had FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 30/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:21:19 -0300
prepared the site-plan at the instance of SI Ajeet. The IO made inquiry from the accused and arrested him in this case vide arrest memo already Ex. PW10/B, which bore his signature at point S. The IO also conducted the personal search of accused and recovered one voter ID card, one samsung mobile phone, one notice u/s 50 NDPS Act and one purse. The memo was prepared thereof vide already Ex. PW10/C, which bore his signature at point S. IO interrogated the accused and recorded his disclosure statement vide already Ex. PW10/D, which bore his signature at point S. Thereafter, they took the accused to police station and then to their office. Thereafter, the accused was taken to hospital for his medical examination by Ct. Dharmender and Ct. Satish. IO recorded his statement in this regard.
17.The relevancy of the witnesses examined are succinctly delineated in the following tabular form:
PW NAME RELEVANCE
1 ACP Sh Bijender Singh He was posted as ACP Operation
South East District and proved
receipt of reports u/s 57 of NDPS
Act.
2 HC Naveen He was the Reader to ACP and
proved DD No. 6 dated
FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 31/58
Digitally
signed by
ARUL ARUL
Date:
VARMA
VARMA 2024.02.28
17:21:31 -
0300
07.07.2021, regarding receipt of
and recording of secret
information under Section 42 of
the NDPS. He also proved entries
regarding receipt of reports u/s
57 NDPS pertaining to recovery
of contraband
3 ASI Pramod Kumar He was the MHC(M) PS GK-I
and proved entries in Register
No. 19 regarding depositing, and
issuance of case property.
4 SI Dalip Singh He was part of the raiding team
which apprehended the accused
and effected recoveries of
contraband item from him.
5 Inspector Satyabir Singh He was Inspector Incharge
Narcotic Squad. He was the
recipient of secret information.
He also proved the compliance of
Section 42 of NDPS Act.
6 Inspector Jay Prakash He was looking after the work of
Nagar SHO on 07.07.2021. He, after
receiving the pullanda from ASI
Dilip Singh, affixed his seal of
FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 32/58
Digitally
signed by
ARUL ARUL
Date:
VARMA
VARMA 2024.02.28
17:21:59 -
0300
JPN on the parcel and put the
FIR number on the same. He also
deposited the said parcel with the
document in Malkhana.
7 Smt Mitilesh Gupta She was the owner of the house
where accused used to reside as a
tenant.
8 Ct Amit Kumar He took the contraband items
alongwith FSL form and
deposited the case property in
FSL and obtained
acknowledgment receipt.
9 ASI Gautam Shah He was the duty officer who
registered the FIR on the basis of
rukka brought by ASI Dilip. The
said FIR was proved as Ex.
PW9/A.
10 SI Sikandar Gautam He was the second IO to whom
investigation was assigned after
registration of the FIR. After
completing investigation, he filed the chargesheet.
11 SI Ajeet Kumar He is the first IO of the case who
received secret information,
FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 33/58
Digitally
signed by
ARUL ARUL
Date:
VARMA
VARMA 2024.02.28
17:22:07 -
0300
conducted investigation leading
to arrest of the accused, and
effected recoveries from him.
12 HC Dharmender He was part of the raiding team
which apprehended the accused
and effected recoveries of
contraband item from him.
13 HC Rajeev He was part of the raiding team
which apprehended the accused
and effected recoveries of
contraband item from him.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
18.Accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.PC. In his defence, he averred that he do not know anything about this case and has been falsely implicated in this case. He further deposed he is innocent and that it is a false case. He further deposed that he was not present at the raiding spot on 07.07.2021 and in fact the police officers namely SI Ajeet, Ct. Dharmender and officer Praveen Tokas took him from his house in the afternoon at around 04:00 PM on 07.07.2021 in a white swift car and falsely planted a false and fabricated case upon him. Accused also deposed that the Police officers forcibly took his signatures on FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 34/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:22:16 -0300
various blank, semi-written and written documents and they never read over the said documents to him. It was also deposed by accused that no Section 50 NDPS notice was ever served upon him by anyone and that he was never apprised about his legal rights by any police officers/officials. He further deposed that nothing incriminating contraband was ever recovered from him and that police officers only recovered his one red colour pitthu bag from his possession, but no contraband was found in the said bag. Further, accused lead evidence in his defence. EVIDENCE LED BY ACCUSED IN HIS DEFENCE
19. DW-1 Ms. Poonam Pradhan, w/o Udip Pradhan, deposed that she was in Raipur on 07.07.2021. On that day, she tried to call the accused at around 03:30 PM, however, his phone was switched off. She further deposed that she repeatedly tried calling him. Thereafter, she called the employer of the accused, who informed her that he had attended the office before lunch, but he did not return to office after lunch. Thereafter, she received a text message from the telecom operator intimating that his mobile number was switched on. Thereafter, at around 12:01 AM, she received a call from his number and one police officer made her speak to accused whereby accused informed her that he has been arrested in some case and asked her to visit FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 35/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:22:25 -0300
the police station. She further deposed that she had reached Delhi from Raipur at around 12:00 AM. Prior to leaving for Raipur, she was living with the accused at their residence i.e. Sant Nagar near Durga Mandir, CSP flat.
20.DW-2 Rahul Jethani, s/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Jethani deposed that he knew the accused through his wife namely Poonam Pradhan. He further deposed that on 07.07.2021, he was with the wife of accused Ms. Poonam Pradhan since 05:00 PM at Raipur and she was continuously trying to call the accused. He also tried to call the accused from his phone. He further deposed that he came to Delhi on 09.07.2021. After 2-3 days, he requested one Mr. Harshit Gupta (the son of Smt. Mithlesh Gupta, the landlady) to provide help in procuring the CCTV footages of the neighbouring areas. Mr. Harshit Gupta then requested Mr. Honey Trehan, who provided the CCTV footages in a pendrive which was provided by him. He further deposed that he thereafter copied the CCTV videos in his laptop and sent the same to the counsel of the accused through whatsapp.
ARGUMENTS OF LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR THE STATE AND LD. DEFENCE COUNSEL
21. Sh. Ashesh Kumar, Ld. Public Prosecutor for the State FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 36/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:22:34 -0300
submitted that all the relevant material prosecution witnesses have been examined and cumulatively they have proved the case of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It was also submitted by Ld. Addl PP for State that after the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused has been recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC. In his statement, the accused nowhere explained any circumstance proved against him and put to him during his examination.
22. Ld. Addl PP for State also contended that there is no reason to discard the testimony of witnesses examined in this case. Furthermore, there is no defence taken by the accused, which can be considered at par with the prosecution evidence, rather, in light of Section 35 and 54 of NDPS Act, apart from the evidence led by prosecution, there is presumption of having the contraband substance in the possession of accused person unless and until the same is proved contrary to the satisfaction of this Court. It was thus submitted that the all the prosecution witnesses have deposed in similar vein and there is no such discrepancy in the testimony of any of the prosecution witness which could shake the substratum of the case. Although there are some minor discrepancies/omission which are bound to occur in the testimony of natural witnesses that too recorded FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 37/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:22:42 -0300 after a considerable time.
23.Ld. Addl PP for State lastly submitted that the accused is liable to be held guilty for the offence he is charged with. It was thus submitted by Ld. Addl PP for State that the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus accused ought to be convicted.
24. Per contra, Sh Malak Bhatt alongwith Ms Ananya Kanoria, Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that there has been non compliance of mandate of Section 50 of NDPS Act. It was submitted that prosecution has not been able to demonstrate or prove that a written notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act was, in fact, served to the accused. It was brought to the fore that ordinarily when Section 50 NDPS Act notice is served upon the accused, recovery of original notice is effected from the accused whilst arresting him, and this fact is ordinarily reflected in the personal search memo of the accused. Ld. Counsel invited the Court's attention to personal search memo Ex. PW10/C to contend that the factum of recovery of Section 50 NDPS Act notice is conspicuously absent in the search memo. Further, in order to substantiate his contention, Ld. Counsel invited the Court's attention to the testimony of IO/SI Sikander Gautam, who was examined as PW-10, who categorical affirmed the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 38/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:22:50 -0300
factum of recovery of Voter ID, Aadhar Card, a Purse containing Rs 270/- one Samsung Mobile Phone and ATM of SBI Bank but did not mention the notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act at all in his examination in chief dated 06.12.2023.
25. It was also pointed out by Ld. Counsel that despite categoric question put to the witness as to where he found any other document apart from already mentioned by him, witness sought some time to answer the question and examination in chief was deferred. Ld. Counsel submitted that it is only on the next date when witness arrived at the witness box he became wiser and he mentioned about the notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act.
26. Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that the factum of handing over of notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act is explicit from cross-examination of PW-11 SI Ajeet Kumar on 02.01.2024 wherein he avowed that he had given notice to the accused u/s 50 of NDPS Act and one copy was kept for his record whilst other one was handed over to accused. Further, Ld. Counsel invited the Court's attention to notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act ie Ex.PW1/A and Ex. PW11/C to contend that refusal of accused has not been taken down in writing by accused. It was further submitted that this fact is also averred by PW-11 in his cross- examination wherein PW-11 conceded that 'it is correct that his FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 39/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:22:58 -0300
refusal is not noted in writing.' To buttress his arguments, Ld. Counsel for accused placed reliance Ld. Counsel for accused placed reliance on Paro Vs State of Delhi (2009) SCC OnLine Del 4188 to fortify his contention.
27.Ld. Counsel emphasized the fact that whilst recording his statement u/s 313 Cr.PC, the accused categorically denied the factum of service of notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act upon him. It was further contended that whilst explaining the circumstances appearing in evidence against him u/s 313 Cr.PC, accused averred that police took signatures on various blank, semi written and written documents and that also police never read over the said documents to him.
28.In rebuttal, Ld. Addl PP for State submitted that there has been compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act inasmuch as all the police witness have categorically affirmed the factum of reading out the rights available u/s 50 of NDPS Act to him. Ld. Addl PP for State contended that it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused had refused to be search in the presence of Gazetted Officer of a Magistrate, rather the stance of accused was unclear that notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act was served upon him.
29.Ld. Addl PP for State contended that the search of the accused FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 40/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:23:06 -0300
was taken in the presence of ACP, who is a Gazetted Officer. In order to substantiate his contention, Ld. Addl PP for State placed reliance on testimony of PW-1 ACP Sh Bijender Singh, who averred that he had informed the accused about his legal rights and had directed the IO to conduct the bodily search of accused in writing on the copy of notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act Ex. PW1/A. Thus, it was contended that since search was actually conducted in front of the ACP, there was no requirement of taking down the refusal of accused in writing. As far as the contention of original notice u/s 50 NDPS Act not being found in the personal search memo is concerned, it was submitted by Ld. Addl PP for State that PW-10 Sikander Gautam did make endeavors to explain that notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act was found in the purse recovered from accused.
30.Further, Ld. Addl PP for State invited the Court's attention to the fact that in the testimony of PW-10 dated 09.12.2023 the MHC(M) had produced inter alia notice under Section 50 NDPS Act in original, and the same was marked as Ex.
PW10/I.
31. Next, Ld. Counsel for accused further submitted that the recovery of contraband item is doubtful inasmuch as there is a major discrepancy in the version of prosecution witnesses qua FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 41/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:23:14 -0300 the factum of testing of sample on the Field Testing at the spot. It was contended that PW-1 ACP Sh Bijender Singh and PW-4 SI Dalip Singh deposed before the Court that PW-11 IO/SI Ajeet Kumar tested the substance found from the accused after taking the small quantity on the Field Testing Kit which was revealed to be Charas. However, testimony of PW-11 SI Ajeet Kumar belies the above versions inasmuch as PW-11 Ajeet Kumar deposed that he did not take any samples at the spot and he did not weigh any samples at the spot for the purposes of testing the recovered substance on the Field Testing Kit.
32.However, Ld. Addl PP for State submitted that this is not a contradiction at all inasmuch as in his examination in chief, PW-11 corroborated the version of PW-1 ACP Sh Bijender Singh and PW-4 SI Dalip Singh as PW-11 IO/SI Ajeet Kumar averred that he had taken out a small quantity of contraband from the said stripes and tested on Field Testing Kit.
33. With respect to inconsistency qua handing over of seized material in the Malkhan and compliance of Section 55 NDPS Act, Ld. Counsel for accused submitted that in the statement of PW-4 SI Dalip Singh, it has come on record that he had handed over the seized parcels to ATO, Inspector Jay Prakash Nagar as the SHO was not present in the police station at the relevant FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 42/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:23:23 -0300
time. However, during his cross-examination he avowed that he had handed over the seized material to the SHO. Ld. Counsel for accused contended that there is discrepancy on record as to how the seized contraband was deposited in the Malkhana. It was brought to the fore that a perusal of Ex. PW3/A ie relevant entry of deposit of contraband in Malkhana register, shows the name of both Inspector Jay Prakash Nagar ATO/Acting SHO and of SI Ajeet Kumar. It was submitted that this fact was corroborated in the cross-examination of MHC(M) ASI Pramod Kumar wherein he averred that it is correct that in the column no 3 meant for date of deposit and name of depositor, the name of depositor is written as SI Ajeet and Inspector Jay Prakash Nagar. Ld. Counsel contended that this is a false assertion made by prosecution inasmuch as SI Ajeet was not present at the time when property was deposited in the Malkhana.
34.To buttress his contention, Ld. Counsel invited the Court's attention to the testimony of PW-4 SI Dalip Singh, who, in his cross-examination, deposed that he, after handing over the seized article to SHO, left from PS GK-I alongwith FIR at about 11:50 to 11:55 PM and reached at the spot at about 12:00-12:05 AM. He categorically deposed that IO was already present at the spot when he reached there. Now, this statement, FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 43/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:23:32 -0300
according to Ld. Counsel is contrary to the averment made by PW-6 Inspector Jay Prakash Nagar, the Acting SHO/ATO, who averred in his Cross examination dated 09.11.2023, it was at around 11:30 PM when he handed over the case property to MHC(M) to deposit the same in Malkhana.
35. It was further contended by Ld. Counsel that the name of SI Ajeet Kumar is conspicuously absent in the testimony of PW-4 SI Dalip and PW-6 Jay Prakash Nagar, at the time of deposit of seized contraband in Malkhana. It was further contended that PW-11 SI Ajeet Kumar himself never made statement that he accompanied SHO while depositing the seized contraband to Malkhana.
36. Ld. Counsel for accused contended that a perusal of FSL report Ex. PW10/H although was admitted in evidence u/s 293 Cr.PC, however, the said report did not disclose the tests or experiments performed by the Chemical Examiner to arrive at the conclusion that the seized particle was charas (cannabis). To substantiate his contention, Ld. Counsel for accused placed reliance on Mohd Hanif Sheikh Ibrahim Vs State of Gujarat (1994) SCC OnLine Guj 293.
37. Per contra, Ld. Addl PP for State submitted that the said present is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 44/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:23:46 -0300
case inasmuch as directions contained in the para 6 of the abovementioned judgment viz. Reference number, date of forwarding letter by investigating agency, name of accused etc have all been complied with in the present case. It was further contended that Dr Adesh Yadav had specifically mentioned that opinion/ result was arrived at after physical, microscopic, chemical and TLC examination. It was further submitted by Ld. Addl PP for State that there is no requirement of law that FSL should mention elaborately all the tests conducted in order to give an opinion and above words should suffice to indicate that examination was indeed carried out of the seized contraband to arrived at the conclusion as given.
38.Ld. Counsel for accused also invited the Court's attention to time of arrest of accused. It was submitted that as per the testimony of PW-5, it has come on record that SI Sikander Gautam had brought the accused to the office of Inspector Satyabir Singh Narcotic Squad, South-East and PW-5 Satyabir Singh had made inquiry from accused and found his arrest to be justified. It was further submitted that thereafter only that report u/s 57 of NDPS Act regarding seizure of contraband was prepared. It was submitted by Ld. Counsel for accused that a perusal of his cross-examination would reveal that the accused FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 45/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:23:54 -0300
was brought to the office at about 11:00 PM by the IO. Thus, it was submitted that the accused, as per the testimony of PW/Inspector Satyabir Singh, was arrested before 11 PM. However, this is contrary to the arrest memo Ex. PW10/B which shows that the date and time of arrest of accused as 08.07.2021 at 12:15 AM ie 01:15 hours later.
39.In rebuttal, Ld. Addl PP for State submitted that this statement of Inspector Satyabir Singh cannot be taken in isolation inasmuch as other prosecution witnesses have corroborated to the time of arrest as 12:15 AM on 08.07.2021. Ld Addl PP for State also submitted that the MLC is also corroborating the version of prosecution inasmuch as the time on MLC is at 12:55 AM ie after arrest.
STATEMENT OF REASONS FOR THE DECISION A. NON COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 50 OF NDPS ACT
40. To adjudicate this issue, it would be profitable to refer to Section 50 of the Act, which reads as thus:
"Section 50: Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted:
(1)When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about 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 42 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 FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 46/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:24:02 -0300
(1)"
41.The safeguards mentioned in Section 50 are intended to serve a dual purpose- to protect a person against false accusation and frivolous charges as also to lend credibility to the search and seizure conducted by an empowered officer.
42.In the present case, it was rightly contended that the prosecution was unable to prove the factum of service of Section 50 NDPS Act upon the accused by the police officials concerned. It was contended that the original Section 50 NDPS Act notice was not recovered from the possession of the accused in his personal search memo.
43. The factum of firstly, service of Section 50 NDPS Act notice i.e by physically handing over the notice to the accused cannot be denied by the prosecution. In this context, it would be germane to refer to certain extracts of the testimony of the main prosecution witness i.e the 1st IO/SI Ajeet Kumar Yadav.
44. PW-11 SI Ajeet Kumar Yadav, who was the 1 st IO, in his examination in chief averred as thus:
" The original notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was served upon the accused, available on the court file, was given by me to the accused."
45.In his cross-examination too, SI Ajeet Kumar avowed as thus:
"I gave the accused a notice u/s 50 NDPS Act. One copy was kept for my record, and one was FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 47/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:24:10 -0300
handed over the accused."
46. Thus, the factum of physically handing over Section 50 NDPS Act notice to accused has been proved by the prosecution. If that be so the case, then the recovery of the said notice is ordinarily effected at the time of his arrest, and the same ought to be reflected in the personal search memo, which is not so in the present case as is apparent from a perusal of the following testimonies.
47. In his examination in chief, PW-10 SI Sikander Gautam, the 2nd IO, who arrested the accused and conducted his personal search, deposed as thus:
" I also conducted the personal search of the accused and recovered one Voter ID card, Aadhar card, one purse containing Rs 270/-, one Samsung mobile phone and one ATM card of Central Bank of India. I prepared the personal search memo vide Ex. PW10/C, which bears my signature at point X."
48. The above statement of the 2nd IO is conspicuously silent about the recovery of Section 50 NDPS Act notice from the accused. In fact, the State sought to elicit a response qua the above and posed the following question to the witness:
"Q. during the personal search of accused, did you find any other document except articles mentioned in the personal search memo? (At this stage, the witness seeks time to answer this question properly) Further examination in chief is deferred at the request of witness."
FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 48/58
Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:24:23 -0300
49.The above testimony reflects that the witness took time to answer the question properly and ultimately, his examination in chief was deferred at his request. It is thereafter, on the next date of hearing i.e on 09.12.2023, that the witness, as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused, grew wiser or was tutored, and deposed as thus:
"During the personal search of accused, one purse was recovered from his possession and the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was found kept in the said purse and I left the same in the purse and that is why I did not mention the notice separately in the list of articles recovered in the personal search of accused."
50. The prosecution had sought to contend that the HC Rajeev, who was examined as PW-13 voluntarily affirmed that notice was recovered in the personal search of accused.
51. The testimony of above witness ie PW-10 SI Sikander Gautam does not inspire confidence on account of his dithering to aver that the Section 50 NDPS Act notice was recovered from the personal search memo. Significantly, the factum of recovery of Section 50 Notice from the personal search of the accused would be firmly established only from the personal search memo itself. In this context, a perusal of the personal search memo Ex PW10/C would reveal that the said notice has not been mentioned in the list of articles recovered from the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 49/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:24:31 -0300
possession of accused. Non recovery of such a vital piece of documentary evidence would certainly be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even though the prosecution witnesses have averred that the Section 50 NDPS Act notice was recovered from the personal search memo, however, their statements would be mere ipse dixit if not corroborated by documentary evidence. In this context, when oral testimony is pitted against documentary evidence, it was held in Satinder Singh Vs State NCT of Delhi 69 (1997) Dlt 577 as thus:
"I have been taken through the discrepancies in the story of the prosecution. According to one witness, CFSL form was deposited by Inspector Gurcharan Dass, SHO whereas column No.(B) of Register 19, Exhibit PW 6/13 shows the name of depositor as SI Ramcsh Kumar and not Inspector, Gurcharan Dass. Another thing, which has to be noticed is that in Malkhana Register, Exhibit PW 6/A, signatures of the person receiving the case property for carrying it to CFSL are also not shown there. Yet another discrepancy which cannot be considered insignificant is that the road receipt, Exhibit PW 3/DA makes no mention of CFSL form. Therefore, it cannot be said whether CFSL form was sent alongwith the case property. For this reason also, I tend In agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution cannot be taken to have proved that CFSL form was actually deposited with the Moharrer Malkhana in the first place or that it was actually sent thereafter to CFSL. In the absence of documentary evidence. I am not inclined to place any reliance on the oral testimony of the police witness without cogent explanation for absence of entries in the documentary evidence of this nature. The existence of documents, i.e., the registers- Malkhana is already proved. Oral testimony which is contrary to the documentary evidence i.e., the register Malkhana and the road FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 50/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:24:39 -0300
certificate, cannot be preferred unless evidence is led proving reasons for omission in the documents. No grounds for alleged omissions have been pointed out from the evidence. For that reason, I have to presume that what is not mentioned in the register of Malkhana was not there. A reference be made to the case of Phool Kumar v. State, 1977 JCC 476"
52. Moreover, the factum of non recovery of notice u/s 50 NDPS Act from the personal search memo of the accused was affirmed by PW-12 HC Dharmender and PW-13 HC Rajeev who both avowed that "it is correct that the recovered notice u/s 50 NDPS Act is not mentioned in the personal search memo Ex PW 10/C."
53. Even the ATO PW-6 Inspector Jay Prakash Nagar , who was looking after the work of SHO and the MHC(M) PW-3 ASI Pramod Kumar were silent about the deposit of Section 50 of NDPS Act notice vide personal search memo of accused. The Malkhana Register also does not reflect the factum of deposit of the said notice u/s 50 NDPS Act as an article of the personal search memo.
54. At this juncture, it would be apt to reproduce the following extracts of Paro (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Court observed as thus:
"11. The case set up by the prosecution is that on 16.09.1996 on receiving secret information a police team was formed under the supervision of ACP B.C. Kalra (PW14). The team convened at the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 51/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL VARMA VARMA Date:
2024.02.28 17:24:48 -0300
designated spot, that is, the 'T' junction of the D- block, railway crossing in Nand Nagri. At 3 p.m., the appellant alongwith her two associates Aslam and Irfan reached the site. They were confronted with the information that they were suspected of carrying contraband, and to ascertain its veracity they were required to be searched. Upto this stage, there is perhaps no occasion to find fault with the prosecution case. However, it is at this point that the prosecution's case becomes suspect. It is the prosecution's case hereafter that ACP B.C. Kalra (PW14) informed the appellant and her two associates about the right of search before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. It is the prosecution's case that a written notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was served on the appellant, and since the appellant refused to exercise her option which is evidenced, according to the prosecution, by the thumb impression on the said notice where refusal is recorded; it would establish the correctness of the prosecution version.
In my view the position is to the contrary. If the events had occurred in the normal and ordinary course, on being confronted and, being issued a written notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, a copy would have been found on the appellant's person and therefore, so included in the seizure memo drawn up. The prosecution does not deny that both the seizure memo (Ex PW8/B) and recovery memo (Ex. PW8/C) do not make a mention of the copy of the notice evidently issued under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. This is sought to be explained by the learned APP by taking a stand that it would be of no consequence -- since there is no mandatory requirement in law that the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act should be in writing. This submission is untenable. Once the prosecution sets up a case that a written notice was issued, it cannot, in order to explain away the absence of a copy of the notice on the person of the appellant, resort to a submission which is not in consonance with its own case.
12. It is no longer res integra that the compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act is mandatory. The non-compliance with the provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act would vitiate the trial. The reason for that is not far to see. To rely upon the recoveries made during a search, it is important for the court to have an FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 52/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:24:55 -0300
assurance based on the evidence on record, that the statutory procedure set out for search is untainted. It is well-settled that no presumption can be drawn that a person was informed of his right under Section 50 of the NDPS Act to be searched in the presence of a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate. Non-compliance of a mandatory provision will result in the conviction of the accused being set aside. (See Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiyad v. State of Gujarat (1995) 3 SCC 610, C. Ali v. State of Kerala, (1999) 7 SCC 88, State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 & Beckodan Abdul Rahinan v. State of Kerala, 2002) 4 SCC 229)"
55. The above verdict directly brings home the point that non service of notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, which is reflected by non recovery of the said notice from the personal search memo of the accused, would vitiate the trial.
56.Thus, on account of non compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, the case of the prosecution does not inspire confidence that is free from taint and therefore the benefit of doubt will have to be given to accused.
B. NON COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 55 OF THE NDPS ACT BY THE SHO
57. De hors non compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act, there also seems to be some merit in the asseveration of Ld. Counsel for accused that there is non compliance of Section 55 of NDPS Act.
58.At this juncture, it would be apt to refer to Section 55 of the FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 53/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:25:04 -0300
NDPS Act:
"SECTION 55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered.- An officer-in
-charge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officer-in-charge of the police station."
59.In the present case, Ld. Counsel for accused had contended that there is discrepancy on record as to how the seized contraband was deposited in the Malkhana. It was contended that PW-11 SI Ajeet Kumar Yadav was at the crime scene when the contraband items were deposited in the Malkhana, yet the Malkhana register mentions his name as one of the depositors of contraband item in the Malkhana.
60. In this context, it would be pertinent to peruse the following testimony of PW-4 SI Dalip Singh:
" SI Ajeet prepared rukka and given to me alongwith the sealed parcel. I was directed to hand over the parcel to the SHO, PS Greater Kailash and the rukka was given to the duty officer of PS Greater Kailash. I took the said items and reached the PS G. K., I handed the rukka to the duty officer for the registration of FIR. The parcel was handed over to the ATO Insp. Jai Prakash Nagar as the SHO was not present in the police station at that time. The ATO affixed his counter seal 'JPN' on the parcel and mentioned the FIR number after taking the same from duty officer. The ATO FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 54/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:25:12 -0300
called the MHC(M) and gave the parcel to the MHC(M) to deposit in the malkhana. The MHC(M) made an entry in the register no. 19, in this regard. I collected the copy of FIR and the original rukka from the duty officer and reached the police station. SI Sikandar Gautam, the IO, as the investigation was assigned to him after registration of the FIR, found at the spot. I handed over the copy of FIR alongwith original rukka to the IO. The IO arrested the accused. IO recorded my statement in this case. "
61. Thereafter he deposed in his cross-examination on 20.12.2023 as thus:
" I left the raiding spot at about 10:40 PM and went to PS G. K.-1. I carried seized sealed parcel with rukka from the spot and handed over the rukka to duty officer for the registration of the FIR, but I do not remember the name of the said duty officer. I handed over the seized sealed parcel to the SHO. I left from PS G. K.-1 alongwith the FIR at about 11:50-11:55 PM and reached at the spot at about 12:05-12:10 AM. The IO was already present at the spot when I reached there."
62. Further, PW-6 Inspector Jay Prakash Nagar also averred, regarding compliance of Section 55 of NDPS Act, in his examination in chief as thus:
" On 07.07.2021, I was posted as ATO at PS GK- I. On that day, I was looking after the work of SHO. During my duty hours at about 11:00 PM, ASI Dalip Singh came to me and he handed over the pullanda i.e in a sealed plastic container with the seal of DS alongwith the copy of seizure memo. I affixed my seal JPN on the parcel and put the FIR no on the same and on the copy of seizure memo from duty officer. I had deposited the said parcel with the document in the Malkhana. The MHC(M) had made relevant entry in the Register no 19 in this regard."
63. The name of PW-11 SI Ajeet Kumar is conspicuously absent FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 55/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:25:20 -0300
in the above testimonies of PW-4 SI Dalip Singh and PW-6 Jay Prakash Nagar, at the time of deposit of seized contraband in Malkhana. However, curiously, a perusal of the Malkhana register viz Ex. PW3/A would reveal that the name of depositor, apart from the SHO, is SI Ajeet Kumar. This fact is also corroborated in the testimony of PW-3 ASI Pramod Kumar, who was the MHC(M), and who deposed in his cross- examination as thus:
"It is correct that in the column no 3 meant for date of deposition and name of depositor, the name of depositor is written as SI Ajeet Kumar and Inspector J.P Nagar."
64.Further as pointed out during the course of arguments, despite the ATO/Acting SHO PW-6 Inspector Jay Prakash Nagar, averring that he had affixed his seal of JPN, as counter seal, on the seized pullanda while depositing the same in the Malkhana, the Malkhana register does not reflect any seal of JPN, rather shows the seal of only of DS.
65. Thus, as is evident from the above deposition the prosecution evidence does not cogently establish that the sealed articles were produced before Officer In-charge of the police station or that he had put his seal over those articles and there were sent for safe custody. Thus, there is non compliance of Section 55 of NDPS Act.
FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 56/58
Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:25:29 -0300
66. Apart from the above non compliance of mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, Ld. Counsel for accused had also sought to cast doubts on the version of the prosecution qua time of producing the accused before PW-5 Inspector Satyabir Singh in compliance of Section 57 of NDPS Act as during his cross- examination PW-5 deposed that the accused was brought to the office at about 11PM by the IO, whereas the case of prosecution is that the accused remained present at the spot with the 2nd IO/SI Sikander Gautam at least till 12:15 AM as is reflected from his arrest memo Ex PW10/B dated 08.07.2021. The other recovery witness namely PW-4 SI Dalip Singh, also corroborated this fact, who averred in his cross-examination that after registration of the FIR he reached at the spot at about 12:05-12:10 AM. Therefore, no cogent explanation regarding this material contradiction was given as to how the accused was produced before PW-5 Satyabir Singh prior to his arrest i.e 1.15 hrs prior to his arrest in compliance of Section 57 NDPS Act, regarding his arrest.
CONCLUSION
67.Ergo, in view of the reasons hereinabove discussed in extenso, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution is riddled with infirmities, and has been unable to prove its case FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 57/58 Digitally signed by ARUL ARUL Date:
VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 17:25:39 -0300
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Udip Pradhan was found in possession of of 1360 grams of charas on 07.07.2021 at about 08:00 PM in the area of near Raman Manjul Park, GK- I New Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Greater Kailash, and the accused is therefore acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) NDPS Act Digitally signed ARUL by ARUL Announced in the open court VARMA VARMA 2024.02.28 Date:
on 27.02.2024 17:25:48 -0300
(ARUL VARMA)
ASJ-04 & Spl. Judge (NDPS)
South-East District Saket Courts, New Delhi FIR No 217/2021 State Vs. Udip pradhan Page No. 58/58