Delhi District Court
State vs Amit Singh on 12 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. PRAGATI, ADITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS,
DELHI.
FIR No. 247/2022
PS - Anand Vihar
U/s 27/61/85 NDPS Act
STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH
JUDGMENT
A. SL. NO. OF THE CASE : 8316/2022
B. DATE OF INSTITUTION : 29.11.2022
C. DATE OF OFFENCE : 08.05.2022
D. NAME OF THE : HC Chhoti Lal Meena
COMPLAINANT
E. NAME OF THE ACCUSED : Amit Singh, S/o
Satender Singh
F. OFFENCE : U/s 27/61/85 NDPS Act
COMPLAINED OF
G. PLEA OF ACCUSED : Pleaded not guilty
H. FINAL ORDER : Acquittal.
I. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 12.09.2025.
J. STATE REPRESENTED BY : Ld. APP.
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. Amit Singh, the accused herein, has been charged for committing offence punishable under Section 27 NDPS Act,1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Act").
FIR No. 247/2022 PS - Anand Vihar STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH Page 1 of 8Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.12 17:12:28 +0530
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.05.2022 at about 05:05pm a.m., at Saini Enclave market, near Bus stand, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS Anand Vihar, accused was seen consuming Psychotropic substance namely diacetylmorphine (smack) with the help of a pipe and silver foil. The incident was seen by police official HC Chhoti Lal. On the basis of his statement, present FIR was registered. After investigation final report was filed and the accused was chargesheeted for an offence punishable under Section 27 NDPS Act.
3. After perusing the record, cognizance was taken by the Court and summons were issued to the accused. Accused appeared in the Court. Compliance of Section 207, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.) was done. After hearing the parties, notice for the offence punishable under Section 27 NDPS Act was framed against the accused. It was read over to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Thereafter, prosecution was asked to lead its evidence wherein it got examined 03 witnesses to prove its case against the accused.
5. PW-1 HC Chhoti Lal deposed that on 08.05.2022, he was posted at PS Anand Vihar as Head Constable and was on patrolling duty with HC Satish and at about 05:00PM, they reached at Saini Enclave Market, near Bus stand and saw that one boy was having smack in silver paper behind the bus stand. Upon seeing them, the said boy threw the said paper and pipe and tried to flee away from the spot. That he with the help of HC Satish apprehended the said boy and upon interrogation, he revealed his name as Amit Singh. That he handed over to that boy a notice under Section 50 NDPS Act (Ex. PW1/A) and informed him that he was carrying smack and that he has a right to get his search conducted before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. However, the accused informed that he is in the habit of consuming smack and he allowed them to conduct his personal search. That thereafter, he conducted personal search of accused Amit Singh however, no FIR No. 247/2022 PS - Anand Vihar STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH Page 2 of 8 Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date: PRAGATI 2025.09.12 17:12:33 +0530 smack was recovered from his possession. Thereafter, he collected from the ground and seized silver color paper and pipe and about 8-10 burnt matchsticks vide memo Ex. PW1/B and sealed the same with the seal of 'CL'. Further, the seal after use was handed over by him to HC Satish Nagar. Thereafter, he prepared rukka Ex. PW1/C and handed over the same to HC Satish Nagar for registration of FIR who got the FIR registered. Thereafter, he arrested accused vide memo Ex. PW1/D and conducted his personal search vide memo Ex. PW1/E. That he further prepared the site plan Ex. PW1/F of the spot and recorded disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW1/G. That he also recorded statement of HC Satish Nagar and deposited the case property in malkhana and then after completion of investigation, filed the chargesheet before the court. He also identified the accused present before the court as well as the case property Ex. PW1/H produced before the court, i.e., one matchbox containing 8 burnt matchsticks and a silver coloured foil.
6. PW-2 : HC Satish Nagar has reiterated the averments so made by PW-1 during the course of his testimony and the same is not being reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.
7. PW-3 : HC Gaurav Kumar deposed that on 15.09.2022, he was posted as HC at PS Anand Vihar and on that day he received the pullanda containing the case property in respect of the present case alongwith the road certificate and he got the said pullanda deposited in FSL Rohini and thereafter received the case acceptance receipt Ex. PW3/A from there.
8. The aforesaid witnesses were cross-examined by Ld. Defence Counsel. Further, the accused has admitted genuineness of certain documents under Section 294 Cr.P.C., i.e., FIR and certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.A-1colly.), MLC No. 3288 prepared by Dr. Ankit and Dr. Shikha (Ex. A2) and FSL report (Ex. A3).
FIR No. 247/2022 PS - Anand Vihar STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH Page 3 of 8Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.12 17:12:36 +0530
9. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. r/w Section 281 Cr. P.C. wherein he denied the incriminating evidence and stated that he was falsely implicated in the present case and is a student. That he was having tea at the spot and suddenly police came and people started running. He got scared and was apprehended by the police.
10. The accused did not lead any defence evidence. Therefore, matter was fixed for final arguments.
11. Ld. APP for the State argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. It has been proved that the accused was consuming narcotics substance which is an offence. The identity of the accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the prosecution witnesses have proved all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 27 NDPS Act. Hence, it is prayed, the accused may be convicted.
12. Ld. Defence counsel, on the other hand, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts. There are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution. The accused has been falsely implicated by as he was apprehend at the spot while he was having tea. All the proceedings had been prepared by the police officials while sitting in the police station. The Narcotics substance has been planted upon the accused. The alleged place of incident was a thickly populated area. Despite that no public person was joined in the proceedings. No blood sample of the accused was ever obtained. There is nothing on Court record to prove that any efforts were made to join any public person in the proceedings which creates doubt on the statements of the police officials. Hence, it is prayed, the benefit of doubts may be given to the accused and he may be acquitted.
13. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record.
FIR No. 247/2022 PS - Anand Vihar STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH Page 4 of 8Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.12 17:12:40 +0530
14. It is settled proposition of criminal law that burden lies upon prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable, cogent and convincing evidence. In order to prove its case, prosecution is supposed to stand on its own legs and it cannot derive any benefit from the weaknesses, if any, in the defence of the accused. Further, it is a settled proposition of criminal law that burden of proof of the version of prosecution in a criminal trial, throughout the trial is on the prosecution and it never shifts to the accused.
15. In the present case, accused has been charged for an offence punishable under Section 27 of NDPS Act. The section provides punishment for consuming narcotics drugs of psychotropic substance.
16. Perusal of the record reveals that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials. No independent public witness had joined the investigation, despite public persons being present at the spot at the time of incident in question. Admittedly, the place of incident is a public place, i.e., a bus stop and the time of apprehension of accused is 05:05pm. Thus, the place and time is such that it is a very busy spot and the members of general public would be easily available. Despite the same, no efforts were made by the police to join any independent public person. This raises serious doubts upon the story of the prosecution.
17. Further, perusal of record reveals that no blood sample of the accused was obtained and sent to the FSL to detect whether he had consumed any nartcotics drug or psychotropic substance. Thus, it cannot be said that the accused had consumed any drugs or psychotropic substance as provided under Section 27 of NDPS Act. The alleged match stick and sliver foil were also stated to be found on the ground. As per the story of prosecution itself nothing was recovered from the possession of accused. Thus, there is nothing on Court record to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged psychotropic substance was recovered from the possession of the accused or that he had consumed the same.
FIR No. 247/2022 PS - Anand Vihar STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH Page 5 of 8Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.12 17:12:44
18. Further, the present case rests on the apprehension of the accused by the police officials when they were on patrolling in the area. Police officials are under a statutory duty to mark their departure and arrival in the register kept in the police station for the purpose as per the Punjab Police Rules. It is relevant here to reproduce Chapter 22 Rule 49 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which reads as under:
"22.49 Matters to be entered in Register No. II "- The following matters shall, amongst others, be entered "(c) The hour of arrival and departure on duty at or from a police station of all enrolled police officers of whatever rank, whether posted at the police station or elsewhere, with a statement of the nature of their duty. This entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personally by signature or seal.
"Note: The term Police Station will include all places such as Police Lines and Police Posts where Register No. II is maintained."
19. However, in the present case, no DD entry record of the patrolling of PW-1 and PW-2 in the area has been brought on record. Hence, the fact of the presence of the police official at the spot itself has come under the clouds of doubt.
20. Further, as per the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses after the silver foil and match sticks were collected by HC Chhoti Lal they were kept in a pullanda which was sealed with the seal of CL. PW-1 has stated that he had handed over the seal to PW-2 HC Satish Nagar. However, no handing over memo of the seal has been brought on record. In these circumstances, misuse of the seal by the police official can not be ruled out.
21. Further, PW-1 has stated that he had seized the pullanda vide memo Ex.PW1/B. Thereafter, he prepared the rukka Ex. PW1/C and sent HC Satish Nagar for registration of FIR. It is, therefore, clear that the seizure memo of the case property was prepared before the rukka was handed over to the police FIR No. 247/2022 PS - Anand Vihar STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH Page 6 of 8 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.12 17:12:48 +0530 official for registration of the FIR. The FIR was, therefore, admittedly registered after the preparation of the seizure memo Ex. PW1/B. Thus, ordinarily, the FIR number should not find mention in the seizure memo which came into existence before registration of the FIR. However, interestingly, the seizure memo Ex. PW-1/B bears the FIR number and case details. None of the witness has mentioned in the evidence that they had mentioned the FIR number later on. The same indicates that FIR number was mentioned on the said document while preparing the same. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Pawan Kumar v. The Delhi Administration, 1989 Cri. L.J. 127, has observed in paragraph 5 as under:
"... Learned counsel for the State concedes that immediately after the arrest of the accused, his personal search was effected and the memo Ex. PW11/D was prepared. Thereafter, the sketch plan of the knife was prepared in the presence of the witnesses. After that, the ruqa EX. PW11/F was sent to the Police Station for the registration of the case on the basis of which the FIR, PW11/G was recorded. The F.I.R. is numbered as 36, a copy of which was sent to the I.O. after its registration. It comes to that the number of F.I.R. 36 came to the knowledge of the I.O. after a copy of it was delivered to him at the spot by a constable. In the normal circumstances, the F.I.R. No. should not find mention in the recovery memo or the sketch plan which had come into existence before the registration of the case. However, from the perusal of the recovery memo, I find that the FIR is mentioned whereas the sketch plan does not show the number of the FIR. It is not explained as to how and under what circumstances the recovery memo came to bear the F.I.R. No. which had already come into existence before the registration of the case. These are few of the circumstances which create a doubt, in my mind, about the genuineness of the weapon of offence alleged to have been recovered from the accused."
22. In Mohd. Hashim v. State, 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 569, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has observed:
"... Surprisingly, the secret information (Ex. PW7/A) received by the Sub-Inspector Narender Kumar Tyagi (PW-7), the notice under Section 50 of the Act (Ex. PW5/A) alleged to have been served on the appellant, the seizure memo (Ex. PW1/A) and the report submitted under State v. Om Prakash Section 57 of the Act (Ex. PW7/D) bear the number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B). The number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) given on the top of the aforesaid documents is in the same ink and in the same handwriting, which clearly indicates that these documents were prepared at the same time. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to under what circumstance number of the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) had appeared on the top of the aforesaid documents, which were allegedly prepared on the spot. This gives rise to two inferences that either the FIR (Ex. PW4/B) was recorded prior to the alleged recovery of the contraband or FIR No. 247/2022 PS - Anand Vihar STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH Page 7 of 8 Digitally signed by PRAGATI PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.12 17:12:51 number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration. In both the situations, it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a good deal of doubt about recovery of the contraband in the manner alleged by the prosecution."
23. In the present case also, no explanation is available on record as to how the FIR number and case details had appeared on the seizure memo. The same leads to only one conclusion that either the said document was prepared later on or that the FIR had been registered earlier in point of time. In both the aforesaid cases a reasonable doubt has been raised on the case of the prosecution.
24. Thus, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond the shadow of all the reasonable doubts. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the accused is hereby acquitted of the charge under Section 27 NDPS Act. Digitally signed by PRAGATI Date:
PRAGATI 2025.09.12
17:12:56
+0530
Announced in the Open Court (PRAGATI)
on dated 12th September, 2025 ACJM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/
KARKARDOOMA COURTS/
DELHI/12.09.2025
Present judgment consists of 08 and each page bears my signatures.
Digitally signed
by PRAGATI
PRAGATI Date:
2025.09.12
17:12:59
+0530
(PRAGATI)
ACJM/SHAHDARA DISTRICT/
KARKARDOOMA COURTS/
DELHI/12.09.2025
FIR No. 247/2022 PS - Anand Vihar STATE Vs. AMIT SINGH Page 8 of 8