Delhi District Court
State vs . Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita on 10 November, 2022
IN THE COURT OF MS. ALKA SINGH
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE-08
(SOUTH-WEST), DWARKA COURTS, DELHI
DLSW020113262019
IN THE MATTER OF:
State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita
FIR No.119/2007
PS: Narcotics Branch
U/s 21 NDPS Act
Date of Institution : 28.01.2008
Date of Judgment : 10.11.2022
JUDGMENT
1. Serial No. of the case : 7557/2019
2. Name of the Complainant : SI Sunil Jain
PS Narcotics Branch Delhi
3. Date of commission of offence : 30.11.2007
4. Name of accused person : Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @
Babita W/o Sh. Raj Kumar,
R/o M-39, Raghubir Nagar,
Delhi
5. Offence charged : U/s 21 NDPS Act
State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita
FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch
Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19
6. Plea of accused : Not guilty
7. Final Order : ACQUITTAL
BRIEF REASONS FOR ORDER:
1. The accused were charge-sheeted for committing offences punishable under Section 21 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as "NDPS Act") and firstly the chargesheet was submitted before the court of ASJ, Special Judge, NDPS, Rohini. However, on 30.05.2009 an order was passed by the said court wherein it was held that since, the percentage of diacetylmorphine in the narcotic substance recovered from the accused was only 6.1%, hence, the same is triable by MM Court. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to this court for further trial.
2. It has been alleged by the prosecution that on 30.11.2007, at about 11.30am, under Ramesh Nagar Metro Station, Shivaji Marg, Delhi within the jurisdiction of PS Narcotic Branch, accused was found in unlawful possession 40 grams of Heroin containing 6.1% of Diacetylmorphine in contravention of provision of NDPS Act.
3. The charge against the accused was already framed by the Ld. ASJ Court on 11.02.2008, U/s 21 of the NDPS Act wherein the accused had pleaded not guilty.
4. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for prosecution evidence.
State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19
5. Ten witnesses were examined by the Prosecution to prove its case.
6. As PW1, HC Om Prakash was examined who deposed that on 30.11.2007, he was posted at PS Narcotics Branch and on that day, he received a rukka at around 3.30pm on the basis of which the present FIR was registered. The copy of the FIR was Ex. PW1/A (OSR) and his endorsement on the rukka was Ex. PW1/B. The witness also produced the DD register containing the DD entry no.6A, 7A, 8A, 16A, 17A, 19A and 26A. The copies of which were Ex. PW1/C to PW1/H (OSR) respectively. In his cross-examination, it was stated that the departure entry of SI Satish Rana was recorded in DD no.16A. All the adverse suggestions of the Defence Counsel were denied by the witness.
7. As PW2, Insp. Kharak Singh was examined who stated that on the fateful day he was posted as SHO Narcotics Branch Delhi and at about 9.15am SI Sunil Jain produced one secret informer who told them about a lady Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto who was already earlier arrested in NDPS Act and was involved in supplying of Heroin, its wholesale and retail. It was also informed that she will come under Metro Station Ramesh Nagar, Shivaji Marg, leading to Ring Road, Delhi for supplying Heroin to someone between 11.00am to 11.30am and a raid is conducted she can be apprehended along with the buyer. It was further deposed that he further informed ACP Mahinder Singh, who directed him to carry out further proceedings and he in turn directed SI Sunil Jain to conduct the raid. It was also stated by him that the secret State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 information was reduced into writing by SI Sunil Jain by DD no.7A the carbon copy of which is already Ex. PW1/C and same was handed over to him in compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act which was also forwarded to the senior officers. Thereafter, the raiding party was prepared which comprised of SI Sunil Jain, HC Rani Ready, HC Rajender, HC Ramesh, Ct. Sohan Pal and Ct. Omprakash as driver and the informer, who all left the PS with a bag containing an electric weighing scale, field testing kit etc. It was further elaborated that at 03:30 PM, HC Rajender came to office and produced 3 sealed parcels mark A, B and C alon gwith FSL form and carbon copy of the seizure memo. Thereafter, the seal of the police station was affixed on those parcels and details of the FIR were written thereon. He also deposed that he called MHC(M) Ishwar Singh with register no.19 and an entry was also made in the said register. It was further testified that at about 08:55 PM, SI Satish Rana produced the accused Kuldeep @ Potto before the court (identity not disputed) and his statement was recorded by the IO, thereafter, on the next date two special reports u/s 57 of NDPS Act regarding seizure and arrest of accused were submitted by SI Sunil Jain and SI Satish Rana respectively, the carbon copies of the said documents were Ex. PW2/A and Ex.PW2/B respectively. It was also stated that on 07.12.2007, on receipt of priority letter sample Mark A and the FSL form were sent to FSL Rohini vide RC no.134/21. The said witness was not cross examined despite opportunity.
8. As PW3, Prosecution examined ASI Ishwar Singh, who deposed State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 that on 03.11.2007, the case property i.e., three pullandas Mark A, B and C and one FSL form sealed with the seal of '5CPSNB' and 'SHONBRDelhi' was handed over to him by Inspector Kharak Singh, SHO NBR which was deposited in the malkhana vide entry no.775/2007. The copy of which was Ex.PW3/A. It was also stated by him that jamatalashi articles of accused was also deposited by SI Satish Rana. He further stated that on 07.12.2007 he handed over one pullanda and the FSL form to Inspector Kharak Singh vide RC no.134/21 for depositing the same at FSL Rohini who in turn handed over the receipt regarding the depositing of sample.
In his cross-examination, he was examined regarding the time at which the case property was handed over to him and when it was deposited in malkhana and also when it was given to HC Mahender for depositing in the FSL. It was also stated by him that register no.19 does not bear the signatures of HC Mahnder Singh, when the parcel was so handed over to him.
9. As PW4, Prosecution examined Ct. Dalbir Singh, who deposed that on 07.12.2007, he recorded the DD entry no.12B at about 10:00 AM regarding departure of HC Mahender Singh for depositing the case property in the FSL. The copy of the said entry was Ex. PW4/A (OSR). The information qua deposition of the case property in the FSL was recorded in DD no.26B which was Ex. PW4/B (OSR).
In his cross-examination, it was certified that on DD no.12B and DD no.26B there are no signatures of HC Mahender Singh which was State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 prepared at the instructions of HC Mahender Singh and the duty officer.
10. As PW5, Prosecution examined HC Mahender Singh, who stated that on 07.12.2007, he obtained the case property and the FSL form, from the malkhana vide RC no.134/21. Copy of which was Ex. PW5/A and deposited it in the FSL Rohini qua which a receipt was also deposited in the malkhana. Copy of which was Ex. PW5/B. In his cross-examination, he was generally questioned about the time as to when he received the case property and from whom and witness could not tell the exact time or the official from whom he received the case property. It was also affirmed by him that the FSL form is not mentioned in the receipt Ex. PW5/B and also the fact that he did not sign the register no.19 in the malkhana. All the adverse suggestion of the defence counsel were denied by the witness.
11. As PW6, Prosecution examined Inspector Satish Rana, who deposed that on 30.11.2007, he was assigned with the task of investigating the present case and he alongwith HC Omprakash who was the driver of the govt. vehicle went to the place of occurrence where they met SI Sunil Jain and other staff and accused Kuldeep @ Potto (present in the court today and correctly identified by the witness). It was further deposed by him that SI Sunil Jain handed over to him the original seizure memo and notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act, thereafter, site plan Ex. PW6/A was prepared at the instance of SI Sunil Jain and statement of the witnesses were recorded. The witness State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 also elaborated the procedure of investigation which included the arrest of the accused vide memo Ex. PW6/B and her personal search vide memo Ex. PW6/C. The disclosure statement was Ex. PW6/D. Thereafter, the accused was produced before SHO PS Narcotic Branch and the report u/s 57 NDPS Act already Ex. PW2/B was also sent to Senior Officers and on the next day accused was sent to judicial custody.
In his cross-examination, he stated that the departure entry was recorded in DD no.16A before leaving the police station and arrival entry was made in DD no.26A. On being asked regarding the log book with respect to the govt. vehicle it was stated by the witness that he did sign the log book on the completion of the investigation but the same has not been filed with the charge sheet. It was also stated that none of the public witnesses who were present at the time of incident, agreed to join the investigation, however, no notice was served upon them. It was also averred by the witness that he was in civil uniform and the information regarding the arrest of the accused was given to her relative via telephone. Thereafter, all the suggestions implying adverse inferences were denied by the witness.
12. As PW7, Prosecution examined ASI Hari Om, who brought the summoned record that special report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of 40 grams of heroin and arrest of accused, which was received in the DCP Crime Narcotics Office on 01.12.2007 vide diary no.1844/SHO/NBR/01.12.2007 and vide diary no. 1846/SHO/NBR/ State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 01.12.2007 respectively forwarded by ACP vide diary no.1563/ACP/ NNCP and vide diary no.1566/ACP/NNCP both dated 01.12.2007 already Ex. PW2/A (now OSR) and it was received vide diary no.3487 and 3488 both 01.12.2007, the copy of which were Ex. PW7/A and PW7/B respectively. In his cross-examination, nothing relevant came on record.
13. As PW8, Prosecution examined Inspector Sunil Jain, who deposed the similar facts as that of PW2 Inspector Kharak Singh. It was also stated that he asked 7 public persons near Hanuman Mandir Connaught Place and also requested five passersby to join the investigation but none of them agreed. The witness also described the entire incident i.e., after parking the govt. vehicle near metro station they started waiting for the accused and at about 11:25 AM, a lady wearing dark blue colour salwar suit and yellow colour shawl, holding a black polythene in her right hand was seen coming from Moti Nagar towards Ramesh Nagar Metro Station and was identified as Kuldeep Kaur by the secret informer. He stated that the secret informer left the spot and the lady went under the metro station and started waiting for someone but after waiting for 3-4 minutes she started going back, by that time she was apprehended with the help of W/HC Rani Reddy and upon inquiry she disclosed her name Kuldeep @ Potto @ Babita W/o Sh. Rajkumar. It was also avowed by the witness that he disclosed his identity and also introduced the members of raiding teal to the accused and informed her about her legal right and also the fact that she is also entitled to get herself searched in presence of a Gazetted officer or a State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 Magistrate. It was further deposed that he prepared the notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act Ex. PW8/A upon which the thumb impression was taken and the carbon copy was given to her. Since, the accused was illiterate, the same was read over to her but she also refused to avail her legal right after understanding them. The refusal of the accused was also reduced in writing which was Ex. PW8/B. The witness stated that the accused was thereafter searched by W/HC Rani Reddy, maintaining her dignity and she was made to sit in the police gypsy during her search and thereafter, the black polythene was handed over to him by W/HC Rani Reddy which was found to contain one transparent polythene tied with the rubber band, filled with soil colour powder. It was further stated that upon opening the said transparent polythene the soil colour powder which was tested on field testing kit was found positive for heroin weighing 40 grams as per the electric weighing scale. He stated that two samples of 5 grams each were prepared and were kept in two separate transparent polythene and were given Mark- A and Mark-B and the remaining 30 grams heroin were again put in same transparent polythene and was converted into cloth pullanda Mark-C, sealed with the seal of 5C PS NB DELHI and FSL form was also prepared sealed with the same seal. The seal was thereafter handed over to W/HC Rani Reddy and all the three pullandas Mark A, B and C and FSL form were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW8/A.
14. As PW9 Prosecution examined ASI Rani Reddy who also deposed the similar facts as that of PW8 Sunil Jain and PW2 Insp. Kharak State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 Singh and therefore the same is not being reproduced here. She also averred that she conducted the search of the accused while maintaining her dignity and accused was made to sit in the Police Gypsy during her search and the black colour polythene was recovered from her right hand. She was also cross examined on the similar pattern as of the aforesaid two witnesses and it was stated by her that she had made her departure entry in the rojnamcha register in the PS. She also stated that the accused was only verbally offered to conduct the search of the police gypsy but no written notice was served. It was further stated that SI Sunil Jain did not make any arrival entry at the police station after coming back. All the adverse suggestions were thereafter denied.
15. As PW10 SI Hassan Raja from State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission ITO was examined, who produced the original DD no.7A, original report U/s 57 NDPS along with the copy of Diary of correspondence in which they are mentioned at sr. no.1563 and 1566 and at sr. no.1556 the entry regarding DD no.7A has been made. The said DD number was Ex. M1, the special report U/s 57 NDPS given by Satish Rana was Ex. M2 and Special Report given by Sunil Jain was Ex. M3 and the copy of the diary of correspondence was Ex.M4 (colly) (OSR). In his cross-examination nothing relevant come to the fore.
16. Thereafter a separate statement of the accused was recorded u/s 294 Cr.P.C. consequent to which the FSL report was admitted by the State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 accused and the same was Ex.X-1 and its formal proof was accordingly dispensed with.
17. Since, no other witness was examined by Prosecution, hence, the PE was closed and statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to allow her to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidences against her wherein it was claimed by the accused that she is innocent and she has been falsely implicated and that nothing was recovered from her possession rather she was picked up by the police officials from her house and later on the said recovery was implanted on her.
18. Since the accused chose not to lead any evidence in his defence, therefore, DE was closed and the matter was adjourned for final arguments.
19. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of state as well as the accused.
20. It was contended by defence counsel that firstly the matter was pending before the Sessions Court and the same was later on transferred to the MM Court as the narcotics substance was below the prescribed percentage so as to be tried by the Sessions Court, however, the charge was framed by the Sessions Court U/s 21 of the NDPS Act and no de-novo trial was conducted by framing of fresh charge U/s 21A of the NDPS Act, after the matter was received by it. Further, the other arguments which the counsel put forth was that neither the accused was arrested from the jurisdiction of PS Uttam Nagar nor the State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 substance was recovered from her possession within the jurisdiction of PS Uttam Nagar and even the PS Narcotics Branch itself does not fall within the jurisdiction of PS Uttam Nagar and on 10.12.2019, the application of Ld. APP for state for referring the matter to Sessions Court was dismissed. Thus, it was the contention of the Ld. counsel for accused that this court never had the jurisdiction to try the present case. The Ld. Counsel then advanced his arguments on the merits and it was argued that some members of the raiding party were not even made the witnesses in the present case and their statements U/s 161 CrPC are also not on record thus, there are missing links. It was further argued that as per DD no.7A there is no such information on record and the IO had admitted that they were all in the civil uniform but the same is not mentioned in the DD no.8A, which was qua their departure. Further, it was argued that there are various omissions / lapses which have been committed by the police officials which make the entire Prosecution case dubious, such as there was no sign in the register number 19 when the sample was given to HC Mahender for depositing it to FSL, the DD entry no.12 was not written by the DD writer rather on his oral dictation by the duty officer. Similarly, only the photocopy of RC no.134/21 Ex. PW5/A was produced and not the original, hence the same cannot be said to be proved and even the FSL form is not mentioned in the receipt Ex. PW5/B regarding the deposition of property in the FSL from which it can be deduced that the right sample was never deposited in the FSL. The log books were also not produced which could establish that police officials visited the State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 spot. The Ld. counsel, also argued that there are no public witness and the police had not filed any details of the any of the public persons who were stopped and were asked to join the investigation and they were even not served with any notice in this regard. It was also contended by the counsel that as per the statement of the police witnesses itself, in their cross examinations, they did not search themselves before conducting the search of the accused which shows that accused was falsely implicated and thus, none of the police officials was searched as is the mandate of the law.
21. Per contra, it was the submission of Ld. APP for the State that 40 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of the accused and all the procedures were duly followed by the police officials and the accused was arrested at the instance of the secret informer. Accused has also been correctly identified by all the witnesses and the FSL result is there on record. Thus, Prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused.
22. I have heard the submissions of the State and I have also perused the case file meticulously.
23. Now this court shall examine the evidences of the witnesses one by one in order to ascertain whether the Prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused.
24. Before deciding the case on its merits the court shall first proceed to decide the issues raised by the defence counsel during the course of final arguments, wherein two objections were taken by the counsel for State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 accused, firstly that this court did not have the jurisdiction to try the present case as neither the narcotic substance which was allegedly recovered from the possession of the accused, was recovered within the jurisdiction of PS Uttam Nagar rather the same was recovered near Ramesh Nagar, Metro Station, New Delhi. Further, even though when the case was tried by this court after the same was transferred from the Sessions Court no fresh charge was framed against the accused i.e., de-novo trial was not conducted i.e., the trial which has commenced on the basis of charge framed U/s 21 NDPS Act was triable exclusively by the Sessions Court and a fresh charge U/s 21(a) was required to be framed by this court.
25. The arguments taken by the counsel are not tenable keeping in view the provision of Section 461 clause (l) CrPC which provides that if any Magistrate "tries an offender" who is not so empowered by Law, then it shall vitiate the proceedings. However, in the present case the case file was transferred to this court by a proper order of Competent Court and thus, it is not the case that this court was not empowered to try the offender. Further, as per the provisions of 462 CrPC no finding, sentence or order can be set aside only on the ground that the trial took place in some other jurisdiction unless it is shown that it has resulted into a failure of justice which is not the case here, as nowhere has it been shown that the interest of the accused was jeopardized in any way while the case was tried by this court.
26. The other arguments taken by the defence counsel regarding no State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 new charge having been framed U/s 21 (a) NDPS Act is also not relevant because the original charge was framed U/s 21 and clause (a) is also the part of the said section only and there was no need to specifically mentioned the charge is framed under what sub-clause of the main section, as the purpose of charge is only to give the accused sufficient notice of the offence for which he or she would be facing trial for and at no point of time has this contention been raised by the accused or her counsel that she was not aware or had the knowledge of the offence for which she was being tried for.
27. Furthermore, before the stage of final arguments the accused never took such pleas that she has been prejudiced in any manner if the case was being tried by this court nor the defence counsel took any pain in filing any appeal before the appropriate forum challenging the order regarding the transfer of the present case to this court. In fact, such an application was earlier moved by the ld. APP for the state which was dismissed and this should put an end to all such arguments and contentions.
28. In a criminal trial, the onus remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and benefit of doubt, if any, must necessarily go in favour of the accused. It is for the prosecution to travel the entire distance from may have to must have. If the prosecution appears to be improbable or lacks credibility the benefit of doubt necessarily has to go to the accused.
29. As per the case of the prosecution, the seal after use was given to State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 W/HC Rani Reddy who was part of the police party and was not given to any independent public person which creates a doubt on the case property as whether the same were intact and not tampered with. In the judgment of Ramji Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2007 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 452, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court held in Para 7 as :
"The very purpose of giving seal to an independent person is to avoid tampering of the case property. It is well settled that till the case property is not dispatched to the forensic science laboratory, the seal should not be available to the prosecuting agency and in the absence of such a safeguard the possibility of seal, contraband and the samples being tampered with cannot be ruled out".
30. Further it was held in Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi Vs. State of Goa (2005) 9 SCC 773, in para 15 of the judgment in this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"15 .......................... In these circumstances there is justification in the argument that since the seal as well as the packets remained in the custody of the same person, there was every possibility of the seized substance being tempered with, and that is the only hypothesis on which the discrepancy in weight can be explained. The least that can be said in the facts of the case is that there is serious doubt State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 about the truthfulness of the prosecution case".
31. Chapter 22 Rule 49 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, provides that 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 shall be entered vide a separate entry and this entry shall be made immediately on arrival or prior to the departure of the officer concerned and shall be attested by the latter personality by signature or seal. In the present case, no departure or the arrival entry has been proved on the record by the prosecution. In absence of the departure and arrival entry of the police officials their presence at the spot cannot be believed. Reference can be made to on Rattan Lal Vs. State 1987 (2) Crimes 29.
32. Furthermore, the alleged incident pertains to have occurred on 30.11.2007 under Ramesh Nagar Metro Station, Shivaji Marg, Delhi. The said spot is surrounded by parks, shops as well as at the time of incident the place was occupied by local/ independent witnesses as shown in site plan Ex.PW6/A. The Prosecution has failed to examine any public witness from spot; therefore, the version of the Prosecution has remained uncorroborated by an independent material witness. The witnesses that are examined by the Prosecution in the present case are police witnesses, who are interested in the success of the Prosecution case and therefore, the probability of them being guided by the extraneous factors, other than truth, cannot be ruled out. The police State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 witnesses cannot be straightaway termed as unreliable witnesses, however, when there is a possibility of joining any public witness in the investigation and still no genuine and sincere efforts are made to join the independent person as witness, then the testimony of the police witness does not lend sufficient credence/reliability. In view of above discussion, it is duly established that genuine efforts were not made by the IO of the case to join the public witness(es). The non- joining of the public witness creates doubt in the story of the Prosecution as held in Pawan Kumar Vs. Delhi Administration; 1987 CC 585 Delhi High Court.
33. Keeping in view the fact that the version of Prosecution witness has remained uncorroborated by any other independent witness regarding the alleged recovery of illicit liquor, it will be highly unsafe to rely upon their version to pass the order of conviction against the accused. It has been held in 1975 CAR 309 (SC) that-
"Prosecution case resting solely on the testimony of head constable and no independent witness examined-Prosecution story appearing improbable and unnatural. Held that the Prosecution case cannot be said to be free from reasonable doubt and the accused is liable to be acquitted".
34. The Prosecution also failed to produce any evidence to support their claim of having adhered to the mandate of law as per which they State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19 had to offer their search to the accused as there is no document on record to substantiate the same rather only oral evidences were tendered. Hence, only oral claims have been made by the officials involved in the process of apprehending and arrest of the accused but no records were produced to show that they offered their search or they were in fact searched.
35. Hence, in view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, it can conclusively, be held that Prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts and therefore, the accused Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita W/o Sh. Raj Kumar is acquitted of charge for the offence u/s 21 NDPS Act.
36. Ordered Accordingly.
Pronounced in open Court, on this Day of 10th November, 2022. This judgment consists of 19 signed pages.
(ALKA SINGH) Metropolitan Magistrate-08/South-West Dwarka Courts: New Delhi State Vs. Kuldeep Kaur @ Potto @ Babita FIR No.119/2007, PS Narcotics Branch Judgment dated 10.11.2022 Page No. 1 of 19