Delhi District Court
State vs . Vaibhav Passi on 28 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDDHARTHA MALIK,
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURT,DELHI
STATE VS. VAIBHAV PASSI
FIR NO. 14/2019
PS: CRIME BRANCH
U/S: 20/23 NDPSACT
JUDGMENT
New Case No. : 10745/2021
CNR No. : DLCT02-018687-2021
Date of commission of offence : January, 2019
Date of institution of the case : 18.09.2021
Name of the complainant : SI Vikrant Singh
Name of accused and address : VAIBHAV PASSI
S/o Sh. Rajat Passi
R/o H. No.D-203, Antriksh
Greens, Sector50, Noida,
UP.
Offence complained of or proved : U/s 23 NDPS Act
Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final order : Acquitted
Date on which reserved for judgment: 28.01.2023
Date of judgment : 28.01.2023
BRIEF STATEMENT OF THE REASON FOR DECISION
1. This is the prosecution of accused pursuant to charge sheet filed by P.S. Crime Branch U/s 20/23 of NDPS Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is that in January, 2019 on FIR No. 14/2019 PS: Crime Branch State Vs. Vaibhav Passi Page 1/7 unknown date, time and place at Foreign Post Office, Kotla Road, ITO, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of P.S. Crime Branch, the accused in contravention of the provisions of NDPS Act imported 60 gram ganja vide parcel no. CM289245206US (24752) without license or permit of appropriate authority and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 23 NDPS Act 1985 and the present FIR was registered. After investigation final report was filed and the accused was chargesheeted for the offence alleged.
3. Thereafter, the accused appeared before the Court and notice for the offence U/s 23 of NDPS Act was served upon him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN BRIEF:
4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses.
5. PW-1 SI Vikrant Singh deposed that during the period of January, 2019, he was posted at stars-II, Crime Branch, Delhi and on 01.01.2019, they received one secret information regarding certain parcels being kept in foreign post office with illegal contraband in the same, waiting to be disbursed to several consignees. PW-1 further deposed that on 16.01.2019, ACP Crime Branch received information from foreign post office regarding 38 illegal parcels being kept in foreign post office waiting to be disbursed and the said letter was marked to him for further investigation. A raiding party was prepared consisting of himself, HC Sanjeev Kumar, HC Narender and Ct. Nitin Malik. Together, they proceeded toward the foreign post office. Upon reaching the foreign post office, the foreign post officials produced the 38 parcels. Each of the said parcel were checked and approximate quantity of 8 kg FIR No. 14/2019 PS: Crime Branch State Vs. Vaibhav Passi Page 2/7 230 gram of ganja was found in the said 38 parcels. Sample was taken out from each of the said parcels and the said recovered contraband was kept back in the plastic sacks and the pulinda was prepared and the same was sealed with the seal of ASTARS-II, Crime. Seal after use was handing over to Ajay Kumar, postal assistant. A seizure memo was prepared and same is Ex. PW1/A The case property, seizure memo and other documents were given to HC Sanjeev Kumar to forwarded the same to SHO, Crime Branch to conduct proceedings under section 55 NDPS Act. Thereafter, they returned back to office of crime branch. PW-1 further deposed that after registration of FIR he recorded statement of witnesses. He handed over the report of seizure of the present case FIR to Inspector Shiv Darshan for compliance under section 57 of NDPS Act. On 18.01.19, the case property sample were sent to FSL for examination through Ct. Nitin Malik. On 31.01.2019, on the basis of factum of the consignee of one of the alleged parcels, a person namely Vaibhav Passi was issued notice to appear at the office of Crime Branch. The said Vaibhav Passi was arrested after interrogation and released on bail as the offence was bailable. Accused present in the court was correctly identified by the witness. The MHC(M) produced the case property which was also identified by the witness.
6. During cross examination, the witness stated that the secret information received on 01.01.2019 was not written anywhere in general dairy. He did not remember if he had made any DD entry of visiting foreign post office PW-1 admitted that the only basis of arresting the accused was the name and address as the recipient of the parcel. PW-1 admitted that the address of the accused on the arrest memo and as available on the parcel are different. PW-1 admitted that there is no trail regarding transfer of money for the said FIR No. 14/2019 PS: Crime Branch State Vs. Vaibhav Passi Page 3/7 consignment with the accused. He did not remember if the mobile number mentioned on the parcel was found to be possessed/ owned by the accused. PW-1 admitted that except the name of the accused on the parcel there was no other evidence to link the accused with the recovery. PW-1 admitted that at the time of recovery the team was carrying mobile phones with cameras and no photography / videography of the recovery proceedings was made. No independent public persons was made to join the investigation.
6. PW-2 Inspector Robin Tyagi deposed that on 24.12.2020, he was posted at PS Crime Branch as SI and on that day, further investigation of the present case was marked to him. He collected the case file from Reader to ACP, PS Crime Branch and went through the same. He issued notice under section 67 NDPS act to some persons to join the investigation. However, in pursuance to same, no evidence could be collected. He collected the FSL result, which is Ex. PW2/A. Upon conclusion of investigation, he prepared the charge-sheet and filed the same. During cross examination, PW- 2 admitted that he had not conducted the investigation qua the mobile number of the accused. PW-2 denied that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case.
7. During trial, the accused admitted the copy of FIR Ex. A- 1, endorsement on rukka Ex. A-2, Certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex. A-3 and special report under section 57 NDPS Act . PE was closed as the remaining witnesses had similar role as the witnesses already examined as PW-1 & PW-2.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
8. Statement of the accused U/s 281 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
FIR No. 14/2019 PS: Crime Branch State Vs. Vaibhav Passi Page 4/7The accused denied the prosecution case and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted by the accused that he had never ordered such parcel and the address on which the parcel was intended to be sent does not belong to him. Further, it is submitted by the accused that the mobile number mentioned on the parcel also does not belong to him. He claimed that he had not committed any offence. Accused did not lead any evidence in defence.
THE ARGUMENTS
9. Ld. Substitute APP for the State argued that the investigation carried out by the Crime Branch and testimonies of the witnesses shows that the offence was committed by the accused and accordingly, the accused by convicted of the offences charged.
10. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts as there are various contradictions in the testimonies of the witnesses of the prosecution.
11. The arguments of both the parties have been carefully considered alongwith the material available on record.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
12. In a criminal case the burden is on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the accused has been charged for an offence punishable under Section 23 of NDPS Act on the basis of alleged recovery of narcotics from parcels reported suspicious by the foreign post office.
FIR No. 14/2019 PS: Crime Branch State Vs. Vaibhav Passi Page 5/713. Perusal of the testimony of PW-1/complainant shows that he is the complainant as well as the IO of the present matter. PW-1 has admitted during his examination that he apprehended the accused only on the basis of a name appearing as the recipient of one of the parcels recovered at the foreign post office and arrested the accused after he joined investigation pursuant to a notice issued by the IO/PW-1.
14. PW-1 has admitted that the address appearing on the parcel in question is not the same as the address of the accused recorded by the IO in the arrest memo. PW-1 has further admitted that he could not remember if the mobile number mentioned on the parcel belonged to the accused. PW-2/ IO has also admitted that he did not verify if the mobile number mentioned on the parcel belonged to the accused. PW-1 has admitted that there was no money trail linking the parcel with the accused. PW-1 further admitted that the only evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence was the presence of name 'Vaibhav Passi' on the parcel.
15. Thus, there is no evidence on record that the accused is the same person whose address and mobile number was mentioned on the parcel. The PWs have not deposed there is only one person by the name 'Vaibhav Passi' and it is the very accused who was apprehended by the IO. When even the address and mobile number mentioned on the parcel have not been linked with the accused, there is no reason to believe that the accused is the same person who was the recipient of the parcel.
16. The mere fact that the accused has the name 'Vaibhav Passi' does not automatically prove that he is the person responsible for committing the alleged offence. It was the duty of the IO to FIR No. 14/2019 PS: Crime Branch State Vs. Vaibhav Passi Page 6/7 establish irrefutable link between the parcel and the present accused. However, the IO has himself admitted that the only link to connect the accused with the alleged offence is the name of the accused being 'Vaibhav Passi'. Even if the testimonies of all other witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet are considered correct, there is still no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged offence, except the name of the accused being 'Vaibhav Passi'.
19. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the evidence on record does not prove the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, accused Vaibhav Passi s/o Rajat Passi is hereby acquitted of the offence u/s 23 NDPS Act. Requirement of Section 437-A Cr.P.C have been complied with. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance. Digitally signed by SIDDHARTHA SIDDHARTHA MALIK MALIK Date: 2023.01.28 16:20:28 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN (SIDDHARTHA MALIK) COURT ON 28.01.2023 CMM (CENTRAL)/DELHI Digitally Containing 07 pages all signed by the presiding officer.
signed by
SIDDHARTHA
SIDDHARTHA MALIK
MALIK Date:
2023.01.28
16:20:35
+0530
(SIDDHARTHA MALIK)
CMM (CENTRAL)/DELHI
FIR No. 14/2019 PS: Crime Branch State Vs. Vaibhav Passi Page 7/7