Delhi District Court
State vs Deepender Kumar @ Chhotu on 8 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. BRIJESH KUMAR GARG:
SPECIAL JUDGE(NDPS)/ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE (NORTHEAST) :
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
SC No. 07/10
FIR No. 10/10
PS Narcotics Branch
Under Section 21 NDPS
Case ID 02402R0100702010
State Versus Deepender Kumar @ Chhotu
S/o Narshi Ram
R/o Village Mahawa, PS Neem Ka Thana,
Distt. Sikar, Rajasthan.
Date of Institution 09.04.2010
Date of hearing Arguments 24.1.2012
Date of Judgment 08.02.2012
J U D G M E N T
1. In the present case, the accused is facing trial for the offence punishable U/s 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on the allegations that on 04.02.2010 at about 5:05 P.M. near bus stop at Metro Station Seelam Pur, Delhi, within the Jurisdiction of PSCrime Branch, he was found in possession of 500 gms ''Heroin'', containing 0.73% FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 1/20 diacetylmorphine, a contraband, without any license or permit.
2. In the chargesheet, it has been stated that on 04.02.2010 at about 4.00 P.M., a secret informer came to P.S. and informed the IO SI Bhagwan Singh that the accused shall come to metro station Seelam Pur, Delhi bus stand between 5:00 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. to supply 'Smack'. On that information, IO made inquiries from the secret informer and produced him before Sh. M.L. Sharma, Inspector, Narcotics Cell and relevant entries were made on record. A raiding party was prepared on his directions and as per the secret information, the accused was apprehended with the contraband. The relevant provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, were followed by the police officials and the mandatory notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act was duly served upon the accused and the accused was also informed about his legal rights of personal search, in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, to which, the accused had refused. Thereafter, his personal search was conducted and contraband i.e. 500 gms of ''Heroin'' was recovered from his possession. The samples were taken out and all the articles were duly sealed and after completing various formalities, in compliance of the various provisions of the NDPS Act, the chargesheet was filed in the Court.
3. Vide order dated 08.07.2010, the charge for the offence punishable U/s FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 2/20 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, was framed against the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the following witnesses:
(i) PW 1, HC Chand Ram, who was posted at PSCrime Branch, New Delhi as MHC(M). This witness has proved various relevant entries of Register No. 19 as Ex.PW1/A to Ex.PW1/F.
(ii) PW 2, HC Om Prakash, the reader to ACP, Narcotics Cell, who received DD No. 23 dated 04.02.2010 and produced the same before ACP, S.I. Yadav. He also received the two reports U/s 57 of the NDPS Act, forwarded by Inspector Narcotics Cell. This witness has proved the various DD entries as Ex.PW2/A to Ex.PW2/D and has also produced the original reports U/s 57 of the NDPS Act and has proved the same as Ex.PW2/E and PW2/F.
(iii) PW 3, Constable Sat Pal, witness of the alleged recovery from the possession of accused on 04.02.2010. He was a member of the raiding party, constituted by SI Bhagwan Singh on 04.02.2010. This witness has proved the copy of notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act as Ex.PW3/A and has also proved the refusal of the accused as Ex.PW3/B. This witness has also FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 3/20 proved the seizure memo (regarding seizure of the contraband from the accused and preparation of samples by the IO) as Ex.PW3/C. This witness has taken the Rukka, parcels containing alleged recovery, the FSL form and the seizure memo to the police station. This witness has proved the alleged sample & the remaining contraband recovered from the accused as Ex.P1 and Ex.P3 respectively. The cloth pieces in which the samples were sealed have been proved as Ex.P2 and Ex.P4. The second sample of the alleged contraband has been proved on record as Ex.P5.
(iv) PW 4, HC Mahesh, the second member of the raiding party. This witness has proved the arrest memo of the accused as Ex.PW4/A and has also proved his personal search memo as Ex.PW4/B. The carbon copy of the notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act, which was recovered from the possession of the accused, is proved as Ex.PW4/C.
(v) PW 5, Constable Sohan Pal, who took the Pulanda MarkA and FSL form from MHC(M) on 19.02.2010, and deposited the same with FSL Rohini for expert opinion.
(vi) PW 6, HC Rajiv, the Duty Officer, who recorded the Kayami DD No. 9 and recorded the FIR No.10/2010, on receipt of the Rukka. He has proved the DD No. 9 as Ex.PW6/A. Copy of FIR has been proved as Ex.PW6/D. This witness has also made endorsement on the Rukka FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 4/20 Ex.PW6/B. This witness has also proved the DD No. 11 regarding the closure of the FIR as Ex.PW6/C.
(vii) PW 7, SI Satyawan, the Second IO of the present case, who went to the spot on 04.02.2010 for further investigations of the case. This witness has proved the site plan as Ex.PW7/A and has deposed about the various investigations done by him and has also proved DD No. 4 regarding the arrest of the accused and his arrival to the police station as Ex.PW7/B.
(viii) PW 8, SI Bhagwan Singh, the First Investigating Officer of the present case, who received the secret information about the accused and the contraband.
(ix) PW 9, Inspector Kuldeep Singh, who was posted as SHO, PSCrime Branch, PSNehru Place, New Delhi on 04.02.2010. He has received the parcels containing alleged contraband and the samples with FSL form and copy of seizure memo from Constable Sat Pal. He has deposited the case property with MHC(M) after putting his seal of "KSY" and signatures & FIR number on the parcels and the documents. He also lodged DD No. 10 in this regard and has proved the same as Ex.PW9/A.
(x) PW 10, Inspector M.L. Sharma, who was posted as Incharge at PS Narcotics Cell, Shakarpur on 04.02.2010, who made enquiries from the secret informer and directed the IO SI Bhgwan Singh to prepare the raiding FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 5/20 party and to conduct the raid. This witness has also forwarded the copy of secret information i.e. DD No. 23 to the office of ACP concerned. He has also forwarded the reports U/s 57 of the NDPS Act to the office of the concerned ACP.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused, U/s 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded by the Ld. Predecessor of this court on 19.12.2011, wherein, the accused haS denied all the incriminating evidence against him and has deposed that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has further stated that nothing was recovered from him and the alleged contraband has been implanted upon him. He has further stated that on the date of his arrest he was going to meet his Aunty (Bua) at Muzzafar Nagar, when he was apprehended by the police officials. The accused has preferred not to lead any defence evidence.
6. After completion of trial, final arguments were addressed by Sh. S.K. Dash, Ld. Additional PP for the State and Sh. Mahesh Kumar, Advocate for the accused. The Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that there are several material contradictions in the deposition of the official witnesses, which makes their testimonies doubtful. He has pointed out that there are contradictions in deposition of PW 6 HC Rajiv regarding the time of recording of DD No. 9 and DD No. 11 which makes the entire prosecution FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 6/20 case doubtful. He has also argued that the provisions of section 42 of The NDPS Act were not complied as IO PW 8 SI Bhagwan Singh has not reduced the secret information, in writing, immediately on its receipt. He has also argued that the FSL report Ex.PW7/C has not been proved on record as the prosecution as failed to examine any govt. chemical examiner.
7. On the other hand, the Ld. Addl. PP for the state has argued that the prosecution witnesses have proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt and it is impossible to plant 500 gms. of 'Heroin' by the police officials, as the market value of 500 gms of 'Heroin' is more than Rupees 50 lacs. He has also argued that the provisions of section 42 were duly complied by SI Bhagwan Singh as the secret information was received at about 3.45 p.m. and DD no. 23 was recorded in this regard at about 4.15 p.m. He has also argued that the contradictions pointed out by the Ld. Defence Counsel are minor and are not fatal to the prosecution case and the examination of the Chemical Examiner is not necessary as the FSL report, Ex.PW7/C, is admissible in evidence, by virtue of the provisions of Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He has also argued that the entire prosecution case stands proved beyond a shadow of doubt and therefore the accused should be convicted for the offence punishable U/s 21 (c) of the NDPS Act.
8. I have carefully gone through the case file & I have given my considered FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 7/20 thoughts to the arguments addressed by the Ld. Defence Counsel and the Ld. Addl. PP for the State. Perusal of the record shows that PW8 Investigating Officer Bhagwan Singh has deposed that on 04.02.2010, he was posted at Narcotics Cell and at about 3.45 P.M., a secret informer came to him and informed him about the accused and disclosed that the accused shall come near bus stand Metro Station, Seelampur at about 5.00 P.M. to 5.30 P.M. to supply 'Smack'. The information was recorded in DD register by the IO as DD No. 23 at 4.30 P.M. and the same has been proved on record as Ex.PW8/A. This witness has further deposed that after receiving information from the secret informer, he produced the secret informer before PW10, Inspector M.L. Sharma, who was Incharge, Narcotics Cell on that day and PW10, Inspector M.L. Sharma after satisfying himself about the secret information, directed him to prepare a raiding party and to conduct the raid.
9. PW8 SI Bhagwan Singh has further deposed that, as per the directions of Inspector M.L. Sharma (PW10), he constituted the raiding party, consisting of himself, HC Mahesh Kumar (PW4) and Constable Sat Pal (PW3). He has further stated that after taking his IO bag, field testing kit and electronic weighing scale, they left for the spot alongwith the secret informer in an official vehicle bearing registration No. DL 1CJ 3481, being driven by HC FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 8/20 Om Prakash and he made the dairy entry in this regard at about 4.30 P.M. vide DD No. 24 and the same is proved on record as Ex.PW8/B. He has further deposed that several public persons were asked to join the investigations but nobody obliged and after reaching the spot he again briefed the members of the raiding party and the members of the raiding party took their respective positions and at about 5 P.M. the accused came from the side of bus stand GT Road on foot and the secret informer pointed at the accused from a distance of about 15 meters and thereafter left the spot.
10. This witness has further deposed that the accused started waiting for somebody at a distance of about 23 meters away from them and after waiting for about 24 minutes, he tried to return back, on which, he was apprehended by him, with the help of his staff. Thereafter, the introduction of the staff members of the raiding party was given to the accused and the accused was apprised of the secret information and was also apprised about his legal rights and it was also disclosed to him that, in case, he wants to get his personal search conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate then the said arrangement can be made. It was also disclosed to him that the accused was allowed to take the search of the official vehicle or the members of the raiding party, prior to his search. But, the accused FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 9/20 refused both the offers. Thereafter, the mandatory notice U/s 50 of The NDPS Act was served upon the accused. The original notice U/s 50 of The NDPS Act has been proved on record as Ex.PW3/A, which runs as under: " DD No. 24 Dated 04.02.2010 Narcotics CellDelhi NOTICE U/S 50 NDPS ACT Deepender Kumar @ Chotu S/o Sh. Narsi Ram R/o Vill.
Mahwa Thana Nimka Thana Zila Seekar (Rajasthan) ba umar26 saal aapko iss notice ke dawara suchit kiya jata hai ki hamare paas Ittala hai ki aap Delhi main Smack supply karne aaye ho. Iss samay aapse smack baramad hone ki sambhawna hai. Atah aapki talashi li jani hai. Lekin Talashi se pahle aapka yah kanooni adhikar hai ki agar aap chahe to aapki talashi kisi rajpatrit adhikari ya magistrate ke samne li ja sakti hai jiska prabandh kiya ja sakta hai. Aap chahe to apni talashi se pahle police party ki wa sarkari gaadi ki bhi talashi le sakte hai.
sd/ Gawah sd/ (1) HC Mahesh Kumar No. 488/Crime Narcotics CellDelhi.
sd/ (2) CT. Sat Pal No. 169/DRP Narcotics Cell Delhi sd (BHAGWAN SINGH) SI, Narcotics Cell, Delhi Delhi04.02.2010"
11. PW8 SI Bhagwan Singh has further deposed that the accused has FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 10/20 refused to take the search of members of the raiding party or the vehicle and his refusal was recorded in this regard. The refusal of the accused has been proved on record as Ex.PW3/B, which runs as under: " Shriman Ji aapke dawara di gayi notice ki copy prapt ki notice majboon maine achhi tarah padhkar samajh liya hai tatha apne kanooni adhikaro ke bare main achhi tarah samajh liya hai. Aapne mujhe rajpatrit adhikari wa magistrate ka matlab bhi samjhaya jo maine achhi tarah samajh liya hai. Main apni talashi kisi rajpatrit adhikari wa magistrate ke samne nahi karwana chahta. Main police party tatha sarkari gaadi ki bhi talashi nahi lena chahta. Aap hi meri talashi le sakte hai.
sd/ Gawah sd/ (1) HC Mahesh Kumar No. 488/Crime Narcotics CellDelhi.
sd/ (2) CT. Sat Pal No. 169/DRP Narcotics Cell Delhi sd/ (BHAGWAN SINGH) SI, Narcotics Cell, Delhi Delhi04.02.10"
12. Perusal of the above documents indicates that the provisions of Section 50 of The NDPS Act, have been duly complied by the police officials.
13. PW 8 SI Bhagwan Singh has further deposed that before taking the personal search of the accused, 810 persons, who gathered at the spot, FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 11/20 during these proceedings, were also asked by him to join the proceedings, but, nobody obliged and left the place without disclosing their names and address. Thereafter, he took the formal search of the accused, in which, the alleged recovery was effected from the right side pocket of the wearing pant of the accused. The contraband recovered from the accused was checked and was tested with field testing kit and on checking it was found to be 'Heroin'. This witness has further deposed that the recovered 'Heroin' was weighted with the help of an electronic weighting scale and it was found to be 500 gms. Thereafter, he took out two samples of 5 gms each and converted into two cloth parcels, which were marked as 'Mark A' and 'Mark B' and the remaining 490 gms. 'Heroin' was converted into a third cloth parcel 'Mark C' and thereafter he filled the FSL form and all the three parcels and FSL form were affixed with his seal of "BS". This witness has further stated that the seal was handed over to HC Mahesh Kumar after use and all the three parcels were seized by him vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. This witness has further deposed that he prepared the Rukka and handed over the same to Constable Sat Pal with the three parcels and FSL Form and the carbon copy of the seizure memo, with the directions to produce the Rukka before the Duty Officer and to produce the remaining articles before the SHO Crime Branch. This witness has proved his Rukka as Ex.PW8/C. FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 12/20 PW3 Constable Sat Pal, who remained with the IO as a member of the raiding party has deposed in a similar manner and has supported the deposition of PW 8 on all these material points. PW3 Constable Sat Pal has further deposed that he handed over the Rukka to the Duty Officer at PS Crime Branch, Nehru Place, New Delhi and the remaining articles were produced by him before the SHO. This witness has further deposed that the SHO PW9 Inspector Kuldeep Singh, had affixed his seal of "KSY" on all the three parcels, FSL Form and put FIR No. and his signatures on all these three parcels and FSL form. Thereafter, he called the MHCM, HC Chand Ram to his office with Register No. 19 and deposited all these articles with MHCM, who made relevant entries in register No. 19. The testimony of PW3 Constable Sat Pal finds corroboration with the testimony of PW1 HC Chand Ram, who has also deposed that on 04.02.2010, Inspector Kuldeep Singh, SHO, Crime Branch, deposited three parcels marked A, B and C, form FSL, all duly sealed with the seal of "BS" and "KSY" alongwith the carbon copy of the seizure memo with him and he made relevant entry in register No. 19 at serial no. 26. He has proved their entry on record as Ex.PW1/A.
14. PW6 HC Rajiv, the Duty Officer, has also deposed that on 04.02.2010, Constable Sat Pal reached the police station at about 9.15 P.M. and handed FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 13/20 over a Rukka to him, sent by SI Bhagwan Singh, on the basis of which, he made DD No. 9 in the Rojnamcha register and thereafter, registered case FIR No. 10/2010. This witness has proved DD No. 9 as Ex.PW6/A. Copy of FIR has been proved on record as Ex.PW6/D. This witness has further deposed that after registration of FIR he made an endorsement on the Rukka as Ex.PW6/B. He has also deposed that he had recorded DD No. 11 regarding the closure of the FIR and the same has been proved on record as Ex.PW6/C.
15. PW8 SI Bhagwan Singh has further deposed that at about 10.20 P.M., SI Satywan reached the spot in the same Govt. vehicle and he handed over all the documents to him as further investigations of the present case has been assigned to SI Satywan. He has further stated that SI Satyawan, prepared the site plan Ex.PW7/A on his pointing out and recorded the statements of HC Mahesh Kumar through Constable Sohan Pal. SI Satyawan also arrested the accused at about 11.45 P.M. vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/A. This witness has further deposed that the personal search of the accused was also conducted by SI Satyawan vide memo Ex.PW4/B and in personal search of the accused a carbon copy of the notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act and cash amount of Rs.250/ was recovered. The carbon copy of the notice U/s 50 of NDPS Act has been proved on record as Ex.PW4/C. This witness has FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 14/20 further deposed that the disclosure statement of the accused, Ex.PW4/D, was also recorded and after completion of the proceedings at the spot, all the officials alongwith the accused, left the spot at about 12.20 A.M. on 05.02.2010 and reached the PSCrime Branch at about 1.20 A.M.
16. He has further deposed that the accused was produced before Inspector M.L. Sharma by SI Satyawan, who satisfied himself with the arrest of the accused and recovery of the contraband. He has further stated that articles of the personal search of the accused were deposited with the MHC(M) and statements of officials were also recorded by him. He has further stated that on 05.02.2010, he prepared the reports U/s 57 of NDPS Act and the same were forwarded to the senior officers through Inspector Narcotics Cell. A copy of the said report has been proved on record as Ex.PW2/E. PW2 HC Om Prakash, the Reader to the ACP, Narcotics Cell has reiterated these facts about the receiving of reports U/s 57 of NDPS Act. He has deposed in the Court that on 04.02.2010 DD No. 23 dated 04.02.2010 was received in the office of concerned ACP vide dairy No. 216, copy of which has proved on record as Ex.PW2/A. He has further deposed that DD No. 23 was produced before ACP SI Yadav alongwith report U/s 57 of NDPS Act. Copy of DD No. 23 and the relevant entries have been proved on record as Ex.PW2/B to Ex.PW2/D. The original reports U/s 57 of NDPS Act have FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 15/20 been proved on record as Ex.PW2/E and Ex.PW2/F.
17. PW7 SI Satyawan, the second IO of the present case has further deposed that on 19.02.2010, as per the directions of SHO PSCrime Branch, the sample parcels and form FSL were sent to FSL, Rohini through Constable Sohan Pal (PW5) vide RC46/21. The photocopy of the same has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/D. PW5 Constable Sohan Pal has also deposed that on 19.02.2010, MHC(M) HC Chand Ram (PW1) handed over Pulanda 'MarkA' and FSL form duly sealed with the seal of "BS" and "KSY" for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini vide RC46/21. He has further stated that after deposition of articles at FSL, Rohini, he has obtained the original acknowledgment receipt. The original acknowledgment receipt has been proved on record as Ex.PW1/E. He has categorically stated that the case property and the samples were not tempered with, till the time, the same remained in his possession. PW1 HC Chand Ram has corroborated the testimony of PW5 Constable Sohan Pal in this regard.
18. PW9 Inspector Kuldeep Singh has also deposed that on 04.02.2010, he was posted as SHO, PSCrime Branch, Nehru Place and at about 9.15 P.M., Constable Sohan Pal came to his office and produced pulandas 'MarkA', 'MarkB' and 'MarkC' alongwith form FSL and the carbon copy of the FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 16/20 seizure memo of 'Heroin'. He has further deposed that all three parcels and documents were bearing the seal of "BS" and he put his own seal of "KSY" and mentioned the FIR No. on the parcels and the documents and put his signature and at about 9.30 P.M., he called the MHC(M), HC Chand Ram (PW1) with register no. 19 in his office and deposited all these documents with him and HC Chand Ram made entries in this regard in register no. 19. He has further stated that he lodged DD No. 10 in this regard at about 9.45 P.M. He has proved the DD no. 10 on record as Ex.PW9/A. He has further deposed that on 19.02.2010, the sample parcels alongwith FSL form were sent to FSL Rohini through Constable Sohan Pal, as per his directions.
19. Perusal of the record further shows that the members of the raiding party and the recovery witnesses i.e. PW3 HC Sat Pal, PW4 HC Mahesh Kumar, PW8 SI Bhagwan Singh, the First Investigating Officer, PW7 SI Satyawan, the second Investigating Officer, PW9 Inspector Kuldeep Singh, SHO, PS Crime Branch and PW10 M.L. Sharma, retired Inspector at Narcotics Cell Shahdara, have all corroborated the testimonies of each other on all the material points. Perusal of the testimonies of all the aforesaid witnesses indicates that the various relevant provisions of the NDPS Act, 1985, have been duly complied by the Investigating Officers. All these witnesses have been crossexamined by the Ld. Defence Counsels at length, but, no FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 17/20 material discrepancy has come on record to make their testimonies or the prosecution case doubtful.
20. The remaining witnesses have also supported the prosecution case on all the material points and their crossexaminations have failed to disclose any questionable discrepancy to make the prosecution case doubtful. Even otherwise, some minor discrepancies may creep in the testimonies of the witnesses, during their crossexamination, when the witnesses depose in the Court in a natural way, after a lapse of sometime.
21. The sample 'MarkA', which was sent to FSL for Chemical analysis was duly chemically analysed and Doctor Madhulika Sharma, Assistant Director (Chemistry), Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini, Delhi has submitted her report bearing No. FSL..2010/C0721 dated 18.05.2010 and the same has been proved on record as Ex.PW7/C. This report is admissible in evidence by virtue of section 293 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The result of examination of the samples has been given as under: RESULT OF EXAMINATION
(i) The sample(s) 'A' was examined by chemical tests, chromatography and instrumental methods.
(ii) On the basis of above examinations, the sample(s) 'A' was found to contain Caffeine, Acetylcodeine, Monoacetylmorphine and Diacetylmorphine.
(iii) However, the percentage of Diacetylmorphine was found to be 0.73% in exhibit 'A'.
FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 18/20
22. The main contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel has remained that the provisions of section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied by SI Bhagwan Singh, the First Investigating Officer of the present case, as the secret information was not reduced in writing immediately. But I do not find any merit in such submissions. It has come on record, as per the testimony of SI Bhagwan Singh that the secret information was received about the accused at about 3.45 P.M. and DD No. 23 was recorded at the Police Station at about 4.15 P.M. and the same amounts to due compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
23. The next contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel has remained that there are several contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses about the recording of time of various DD entries. But, in the concerned opinion of this Court, the same are not fatal to the case of the prosecution as some minor discrepancies are bound to creep in the testimonies of the witnesses when the witnesses depose before the Court in a natural manner and after a lapse of sometime.
24. The third contention of the Ld. Defence Counsel has remained that the prosecution has failed to examine any chemical examiner to prove the FSL report Ex.PW7/C. But, I do not find any merit in this submission also, as the report Ex.PW7/C is admissible in evidence by virtue of Section 293 of FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 19/20 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
25. In these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 21 (c) of the NDPS Act, beyond a shadow of doubt and accordingly, the accused is hereby held guilty for the said offence and is convicted, accordingly. Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence, on the next date of hearing on 15.02.2012. It is ordered accordingly. Announced in the open court on this 8th day of February, 2012 Brijesh Kumar Garg Special Judge NDPS (NorthEast) Addl. Sessions Judge:KKD Courts, Delhi FIR 10/10 PSNarcotics Branch Page 20/20