Delhi District Court
State vs Anoop Nandi And Ors on 21 May, 2026
DLSH010043922020 Page 1 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS. FIR No. 315/2020 (Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS. FIR No. 315/2020 (Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act In the matter of :- State ........(through Ld. Addl. PP) Vs. (1) Khalid, S/o Sh. Abdul Rahim, R/o E-47/16, New Seemapuri, Shahdara, Delhi. ........accused (represented by Sh. Rajeev Pratap Singh, Legal Aid Counsel) (2) Rahul, S/o Sh. Jagpal, R/o H.No. 109, Pappu Colony, Shahibabad, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. DLSH010043922020 Page 2 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS. FIR No. 315/2020 (Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act (3) Anup Nandi, S/o Sh. Rang Lal, R/o C-48, Shalimar Garden, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. ........accused persons no.2 & 3. (represented by Mohd. Aalim, Advocate) Date of institution : 27.08.2020 Date when Judgment reserved : 04.05.2026 Date of Judgment : 21.05.2026 Final Decision : Acquitted JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Brief facts of the present case are that on 28.06.2020 Ct. Prince alongwith HC Sunil and Ct. Kuldeep were on patrolling duty in the area of Old Seemapuri, Delhi. They set up a picket in front of main road Samudai Bhawan, Old Seemapuri, Delhi and were checking vehicles. At about 9:55 pm a silver car make Mahendra XUV 500 bearing registration no. DL 7CM 0499 reached there. The car was stopped 20-25 meters prior to the picket. All the three occupants of the car including driver alighted the car started running away, two of the said three persons were carrying kattas in their hands. All of them were apprehended by the police personnel. Accused Rahul was driver of the car. Accused persons namely Khalid and Anup Nandi who were carrying kattas in their hands were the passengers of that car. On checking the kattas ganja was found in the same. On that members of patrolling party informed the Police Station. Accused Anup Nandi was found in possession of ganja weighing about 7 Kgs 600 grams and DLSH010043922020 Page 3 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act accused Khalid was found in possession of ganja weighing about 7 Kgs and 400 grams. Nothing was recovered from the possession of accused Rahul. The contraband was seized, samples were made, FSL form was filled; rukka was prepared and the present FIR was got registered U/s 20 NDPS Act. The samples were sent to FSL and on obtaining the result, same was filed in the Court, which confirmed the presence of ganja (cannabis).
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet U/s 20 NDPS Act was filed against accused persons namely Khalid, Rahul and Anup Nandi.
CHARGE
3. Vide order on charge dated 27.01.2024, charges for commission of offence punishable U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act were framed against accused persons namely Khalid and Anup Nandi and charge for commission of offence punishable U/s 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act was framed against all three accused persons namely Anup Nandi, Khalid and Rahul, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. It is to be noted that vide order dated 17.02.2025 name of PW Inspector Harish Kumar was deleted from the list of witnesses as he has expired on 24.10.2023. His death certificate is also on record.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. To substantiate the aforementioned charges, the prosecution DLSH010043922020 Page 4 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act presented 10 witnesses. The details of these witnesses, alongwith the documents they presented during their testimonies, are listed below in tabular form:
PW number Brief role of Documents Description and name of witness exhibited witness PW-1 HC Member of Ex. PW-1/A His statement. Prince police party Ex. PW-1/B & Carbon copy of notice U/s 50 NDPS Act which was on
Ex. PW-1/C served to accused Khalid and his reply. patrolling duty and one of the Ex. PW-1/D & Carbon copy of notice U/s 50 NDPS Act recovery Ex. PW-1/E served to accused Anup Nandi and his witness. reply.
Ex. PW-1/F & Seizure memos qua recovered contraband.
Ex. PW-1/G
Ex. PW-1/H Seizure memo qua recovered vehicle.
Ex. PW-1/I Site plan.
Ex. PW-1/J, Arrest memos of accused persons.
Ex. PW-1/L
and Ex. PW-
1/N
Ex. PW-1/K, Personal search memos of accused persons. Ex. PW-1/M and Ex. PW-
1/O Ex. PW-1/P, Disclosure statements of accused persons. Ex. PW-1/Q and Ex. PW-
1/R Ex. PW-1/S & Original notices U/s 50 NDPS Act Ex. PW-1/T addressed to accused persons namely Khalid and Anup Nandi.
PW-2 Ct. Member of Ex. P-1 Plastic katta containing contraband
(now HC) police party recovered from possession of accused Anup
Kuldeep which was on Nandi.
patrolling duty Ex. P-2 Plastic katta containing contraband
DLSH010043922020 Page 5 of 46
SC No. 143/2020
STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020
(Seemapuri)
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act and one of the recovered from possession of accused recovery Khalid.
witness. Ex. P-7 Jar contained the sample drawn from the contraband recovered from accused Afsar.
Ex. P-3 & Ex. Jars contained the samples drawn from the P-4 contraband recovered from accused Anup Nandi.
Ex. P-5 & Ex. Jars contained the samples drawn from the P-6 contraband recovered from accused Khalid.
PW-3 SI Duty Officer Ex. PW-3/A Copy of DD No. 70A.
Okesh Pal Ex. PW-3/B Copy of FIR.
(OSR)
Ex. PW-3/C Endorsement on the rukka.
PW-4 Reader to ACP Ex. PW-4/A & Special report U/s 57 NDPS Act sent by SI
Retired SI Ex. PW-4/B Vinit Pratap Singh and corresponding entry
Narender (OSR). regarding the same in dak register at serial
Singh no. 2426.
PW-5 Dr. Expert witness Ex. PW-5/A Duplicate copy of his detailed report dated
Adesh from FSL (running into 25.08.2020.
Kumar, two pages of
Senior same sheet)
Scientific
Officer,
Chemistry.
PW-6 Ct. Deposited case Ex. PW-6/A Copy of RC No. 88/21/20.
(now HC) property i.e. (OSR)
Gaurav four sealed Ex. PW-6/B Receipt of FSL.
parcels, sample (OSR)
seal and FSL
form at FSL,
Rohini.
PW-7 HC Member of
Sunil police party
which was on
patrolling duty
and one of the
recovery
DLSH010043922020 Page 6 of 46
SC No. 143/2020
STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020
(Seemapuri)
U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act witness.
PW-8 HC MHC(M), P.S. Ex. PW-8/A Entry in register no.19 at serial no. Amarpal Seemapuri. (OSR) 833/3458 qua handing over of case property alongwith FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo by SHO.
PW-9 SI IO Ex. PW-9/A Rukka. Vinit Pratap Singh PW-10 ACP, Sub- Retired ACP Division Mukesh Seemapuri. Tyagi
After examining the depositions of the witnesses mentioned in the table above, it is found that they gave evidence about the undermentioned facts for the prosecution:-
6. PW-1 HC Prince deposed that on 28.06.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Kuldeep and HC Sunil departed Police Station for patrolling duty vide DD No. 53A. At about 9:45 pm, they reached at Main Road, Community Bhawan, Old Seemapuri during their patrolling duty. They were checking vehicles. At about 9:55 pm, one Mahindra vehicle bearing no. DL7CM0499 was seen coming from the side of Old Seemapuri Golchakkar and going towards Apsara Border. The said vehicle stopped at about 20-25 meters from out patrolling place and three occupants alighted from the said vehicle and trying to run away from there. They police officials were in police uniform. On suspicion, they followed the said three persons. Two persons were having plastic bags on their hand. Ct. Kuldeep apprehended driver of the said vehicle who was not having any bag in his hand.
DLSH010043922020 Page 7 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act The said person disclosed his name Rahul later on. This witness apprehended Khalid who was having plastic bag in his hand. HC Sunil apprehended Anup Nandi who was also having a plastic bag in his hand. On inquiry, they (police officials) came to know their (said persons') names. They asked the said persons about the reason of their running, but they did not disclose any satisfactory answer. They also did not disclose about the contents of the bags. This witness checked the bag recovered from the possession of accused Khalid and this witness found smell of ganja coming from the contents of the said plastic bag and after seeing the said contents, this witness also found that the same was ganja. It is stated by him that HC Sunil also checked the bag recovered from the possession of Anup Nandi and by the smell and seeing the contents, it was found ganja. This witness correctly identified accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid in the Court.
It is stated by him that he informed the Duty Officer of P.S. Seemapuri immediately about the above-said facts and also requested him to send IO for the investigation. After some time, SI Vinit Pratap came at the spot. They produced the above-said three accused persons, the above-said two bags containing ganja and also produced the above-said vehicle before SI Vinit Pratap. SI Vinit recorded statement of this witness and the same is Ex. PW-1/A bearing signature of this witness at Point-A. It is stated by him that SI Vinit asked 4-5 public persons to join the police proceedings after disclosing the above-said facts, but they did not join the investigation and left the place without informing their names and addresses on one or other genuine ground. SI Vinit informed the SHO of P.S. Seemapuri DLSH010043922020 Page 8 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act regarding the above-said facts. Meanwhile, ACP, Seemapuri also reached the spot. Thereafter, SI Vinit informed the above-said accused persons about their legal rights to be searched before any Magistrate or Gazetted officer or that they could be called at the spot. SI Vinit prepared notices U/s 50 NDPS Act against accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid with two copies and served the said notices to the accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid, separately. Notice U/s 50 NDPS Act against accused Khalid is Ex. PW-1/B bearing signature of this witness at Point-A. Accused Khalid stated that he was not highly qualified and he did not want to be searched before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and he refused to be searched before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and his version as his reply was written by SI Vinit and the same is Ex. PW-1/C. Accused Khalid put his signature at Point-B on notice U/s 50 NDPS Act Ex. PW1/B and he also put his signature at Point-A on his reply which is Ex. PW-1/C. Accused Khalid kept the original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act with him.
It is stated by him that SI Vinit also prepared notice U/s 50 NDPS Act against accused Anup Nandi and the same is Ex. PW-1/D bearing signature of this witness at Point-A and accused Anup Nandi put his signature at Point-B and he kept the original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act with him. In the reply, accused Anup Nandi gave his reply by his own writing on the above-said notice and also refused to be searched before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. His reply is Ex. PW-1/E and he put his signature at Point-A in presence of this witness.
It is stated by him that ACP Seemapuri was present during the above-said proceedings and after giving directions to SI Vinit Pratap, he left the DLSH010043922020 Page 9 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act spot.
It is stated by him that SI Vinit measured the plastic bag with ganja contents recovered from accused Anup Nandi on electronic weighing machine and it was found 7 Kgs & 600 grams. SI Vinit took two samples from the said ganja contents of 250 grams each and kept the same in two different plastic containers and sealed the same with the seal of SK with the help of doctors' tape and the same were marked as A-1 & A-2. The remaining contents with plastic bag was sealed by SI Vinit in a cloth pullanda and sealed with the seal of SK and the same was marked as A. Thereafter, IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh taken into possession and seized all the pullandas i.e. Mark A, A1 and A2 vide memo Ex. PW-1/F which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. Thereafter, IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh carried out the proceedings in respect of recovery of contraband from the possession of accused Khalid. IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh measured (weighed) the plastic bag with ganja contents recovered from accused Khalid on electric weighing machine and it was found containing 7 Kgs 400 grams. IO SI Vinit Pratap took two samples from the aforesaid ganja contents of 250 grams each and kept the same in two different transparent plastic containers and it was sealed with the seal of SK with the help of doctor tape and same were given marked as B-1 and B-2. The mouth of the plastic bag containing remaining contraband was sealed by the IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh with the aforesaid seal and it was given Mark-B. Thereafter, IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh taken into possession and seized all the pullandas i.e. Mark B, B1 and B2 vide memo Ex. PW-1/G which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. Thereafter, IO also filled FSL form at the spot with regard to the above-mentioned DLSH010043922020 Page 10 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act pullandas and put the same seal impression.
It is stated by him that the seal was handed over to Ct. Kuldeep after use. A handing over memo was prepared by the IO in this regard.
It is stated by him that IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh also seized the vehicle bearing no. DL7CM0499 vide seizure memo Ex. PW-1/H which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. Thereafter, IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh prepared the rukka on statement of this witness which is already Ex. PW-1/A and handed over the original rukka to Ct. Kuldeep. IO also handed over the carbon copy of seizure memo, FSL form and the aforesaid case property to Ct. Kuldeep with the direction to hand over the rukka to the DO and the remaining things to SHO.
Thereafter at about 12:45 am Ct. Kuldeep returned back at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SI Vinit Pratap Singh. Thereafter, SI Vinit Pratap Singh inspected the spot and prepared the site plan at instance of this witness at the spot which is Ex. PW-1/I. Thereafter, SI Vinit Pratap Singh interrogated the accused Rahul and arrested him vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW-1/J which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. This witness correctly identified accused Rahul in the Court. SI Vinit Pratap Singh conducted personal search of accused, personal search memo was prepared and the same is Ex. PW-1/K which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. In the personal search of accused, one mobile, his DL and one brown colour purse containing some documents and cash were recovered.
Thereafter, SI Vinit Pratap Singh interrogated the accused Khalid DLSH010043922020 Page 11 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act and arrested him vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW-1/L which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. SI Vinit Pratap Singh conducted personal search of accused, personal search memo was prepared and the same is Ex. PW-1/M which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. In the personal search of accused Khalid, one original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act, one mobile and one green colour polythene containing some cash etc. were recovered.
Thereafter, SI Vinit Pratap Singh interrogated the accused Anup Nandi and arrested him vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW-1/N which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. SI Vinit Pratap Singh conducted personal search of accused, personal search memo was prepared and the same is Ex. PW- 1/O which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. In the personal search of accused Anup Nandi, one original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act, one mobile and one purse containing some cash and documents were recovered.
It is stated by him that SI Vinit Pratap Singh also recorded disclosure statements of accused persons separately in presence of this witness. The disclosure statement of accused Khalid is Ex. PW-1/P which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. The disclosure statement of accused Anup Nandi is Ex. PW-1/Q which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. The disclosure statement of accused Rahul is Ex. PW-1/R which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. Thereafter, all the three accused persons were taken to GTB Hospital for their medical examination and after getting their medical examination, they brought all the accused persons to the Police Station Seemapuri and they were lodged in the police lock-up.
DLSH010043922020 Page 12 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act It is stated by him that his statement was also recorded by the IO in the Police Station.
MHC(M) produced two original notices U/s 50 NDPS Act issued in the names of Khalid and Anup Nandi. Same were taken on record. The original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act issued in the name of Khalid is Ex. PW-1/S which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. The original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act issued in the name of Anup Nandi is Ex. PW-1/T which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. It was observed that the case properties have already been exhibited during the testimony of PW-2 Ct. (now HC) Kuldeep. Hence, the production of the case property was dispensed with.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is stated by him that they left the Police Station for patrolling at about 6:50 pm. It is stated by him that SI Vinit Pratap Singh reached the spot between 10:40- 10:50 pm. It is admitted by him that he had not signed the site plan. He could not tell the time when ACP, Seemapuri reached the spot. It is stated by him that SI Vinit Pratap Singh handed over the rukka to Ct. Kuldeep at about 11:40 pm. It is admitted by him that the seizure proceedings were neither photographed or videographed.
7. PW-2 Ct. (now HC) Kuldeep deposed that on 28.06.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as Constable.
He deposed almost on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 HC Prince, on all other aspects.
DLSH010043922020 Page 13 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act It is stated by him that they were checking vehicles by putting barricades. It is stated by him that they signaled Mahindra vehicle bearing no. DL 7 CM- 0499 to stop.
This witness correctly identified accused persons in the Court. It is stated by him that cursory search of the accused persons namely Khalid and Anup Nandi was taken, but no contraband was recovered.
It is stated by him that the opening of plastic katta containing the remaining contraband recovered from accused Anup Nandi, was tied with a cloth and was sealed with the seal of SK by SI Vinit Pratap Singh.
It is stated by him that the mouth of the plastic katta containing remaining contraband recovered from accused Khalid, was tied with a white cloth and sealed by the IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh with the aforesaid seal and it was given Mark-B. It is stated by him that the seal was handed over to him after use. Thereafter IO SI Vinit Pratap Singh prepared the rukka and handed over the original rukka to this witness. IO also handed over the carbon copy of seizure memo, FSL form and the aforesaid case property to this witness with the direction to hand over the rukka to the DO and the remaining things to SHO.
It is stated by him that he went to Police Station, handed over the rukka to the DO and handed over the sealed parcels, FSL form and copy of seizure memo to SHO. After registration of FIR, this witness came back at the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI Vinit Pratap Singh. Thereafter SI Vinit Pratap Singh inspected the spot and prepared the site plan.
MHC(M) produced one plastic katta, mouth of which was tied with DLSH010043922020 Page 14 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act a white cloth and sealed with the seals of SK and HK, upon which the FIR No. 315/2020, signatures of SHO PS Seemapuri dt. 29.06.2020, DD No. 70A dt. 28.06.2020 U/s 20 NDPS Act PS Seemapuri Delhi, signatures of SI Vineet dt. 28.09.2020 and 'A' was written. The seals were duly intact. Same was opened with the permission of the Court and the said plastic katta contains the recovered contraband in the form of leaves and branches i.e. ganja. On seeing the same, witness correctly identified the same and stated that it was the same contraband which was recovered from the possession of accused Anup Nandi. The case property i.e. ganja alongwith plastic katta is Ex. P-1.
MHC(M) produced one plastic katta, mouth of which was tied with a white cloth and sealed with the seals of SK and HK, upon which the FIR No. 315/2020, signatures of SHO PS Seemapuri dt. 29.06.2020, DD No. 70A dt. 28.06.2020 U/s 20 NDPS Act PS Seemapuri Delhi, signatures of SI Vineet dt. 28.09.2020 and 'B' was written. The seals were duly intact. Same was opened with the permission of the Court and the said plastic katta contains the recovered contraband in the form of leaves and branches i.e. ganja. On seeing the same, witness correctly identified the same and stated that it was the same contraband which was recovered from the possession of accused Khalid. The case property i.e. ganja alongwith plastic katta is Ex. P-2.
MHC(M) produced one big yellow envelope having Mark A1 and details of the present case having the seal of FSL AY DELHI. The seal was duly intact. Mark A1 parcel was opened and one transparent jar having red colour lid with Mark A1 and same was tied with the doctor tape and details of the present case. The jar was already opened as the same has sent to FSL. On seeing the jar DLSH010043922020 Page 15 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act found containing greenish leaf and branches substance like ganja, witness correctly identified the same and stated that the jar contained the sample drawn by him from the contraband recovered from accused Afsar. The sample is Ex. P-7.
MHC(M) produced one big yellow envelope having Mark A1 and details of the present case having the seal of FSL AY DELHI. The seal was duly intact. Mark A1 parcel was opened and one transparent jar having blue colour lid with Mark A1 and same was tied with the doctor tape and details of the present case were written. The jar was already opened as the same has been sent to FSL. On seeing the jar found containing greenish/ brownish leaves and branches substance like ganja, witness correctly identified the same and stated that the jar contained the sample drawn by him from the contraband recovered from accused Anup Nandi. The sample is Ex. P-3.
MHC(M) produced one big yellow envelope having Mark A2 and details of the present case having the seal of FSL AY DELHI. The seal was duly intact. Mark A2 parcel was opened and one transparent jar having blue colour lid with Mark A2 and same was tied with the doctor tape and details of the present case were written. The jar was already opened as the same has been sent to FSL. On seeing the jar found containing greenish/ brownish leaves and branches substance like ganja, witness correctly identified the same and stated that the jar contained the sample drawn by him from the contraband recovered from accused Anup Nandi. The sample is Ex. P-4.
MHC(M) produced one big yellow envelope having Mark B1 and details of the present case having the seal of FSL AY DELHI. The seal was duly DLSH010043922020 Page 16 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act intact. Mark B1 parcel was opened and one transparent jar having blue colour lid with Mark B1 and same was tied with the doctor tape and details of the present case were written. The jar was already opened as the same has been sent to FSL. On seeing the jar found containing greenish/ brownish leaves and branches substance like ganja, witness correctly identified the same and stated that the jar contained the sample drawn by him from the contraband recovered from accused Khalid. The sample is Ex. P-5.
MHC(M) produced one big yellow envelope having Mark B2 and details of the present case having the seal of FSL AY DELHI. The seal was duly intact. Mark B2 parcel was opened and one transparent jar having blue colour lid with Mark B2 and same was tied with the doctor tape and details of the present case were written. The jar was already opened as the same has been sent to FSL. On seeing the jar found containing greenish/ brownish leaves and branches substance like ganja, witness correctly identified the same and stated that the jar contained the sample drawn by him from the contraband recovered from accused Khalid. The sample is Ex. P-6.
8. PW-3 SI Okesh Pal deposed that on 28.06.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as ASI and was working as Duty Officer from 4:00 pm to 12:00 midnight. At about 10:45 pm Ct. Prince telephonically informed this witness regarding apprehension of three persons with suspicious articles smelling ganja. This witness lodged DD No. 70A in this regard, copy of which is Ex. PW-3/A which bears his signature at Point-A. The DD was marked to SI Vinit Pratap for necessary action.
DLSH010043922020 Page 17 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act At about 11:40 pm, Ct. Kuldeep brought the rukka sent by SI Vinit Pratap Singh, contents of which were dictated by this witness to the Computer Operator and the FIR was registered vide FIR No. 315/2020 and computerized copy of FIR was obtained. This witness had handed over the copy of FIR and the original rukka to Ct. Kuldeep to hand over the same to SI Vinit Pratap Singh. The copy of FIR is Ex. PW-3/B (OSR) bearing signature of this witness at Point-A. This witness had made endorsement on the rukka and the same is Ex. PW-3/C bearing his signature at Point-A.
9. PW-4 Retired SI Narender Singh deposed that on 29.06.2020, he was posted as Reader to ACP Sub-Division Seemapuri, Sh. Mukesh Tyagi. On that day, one report U/s 57 NDPS Act was received in their office dated 29.06.2020 sent by SI Vinit Pratap Singh duly forwarded by SHO, P.S. Seemapuri. This witness made entry in Dak Register vide serial no. 2426 and placed the report before Sh. Mukesh Tyagi, ACP, who has seen and signed upon the same.
This witness has brought original report U/s 57 NDPS Act prepared by SI Vinit Pratap Singh. Same was taken on record. The original report is Ex. PW-4/A, bearing signature of ACP at Point-A. The copy of entry no. 2426 in the Dak Register is Ex. PW-4/B (OSR).
10. PW-5 Dr. Adesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that he is working at FSL, Rohini since 1999. On 22.07.2020, he was posted as Senior Scientific Officer (Chemistry) at FSL, DLSH010043922020 Page 18 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act Rohini. On that day four sealed plastic containers Mark A1, A2, B1 and B2. Parcels were sealed with two seals of S.K. and two seals of H.K each in FIR No. 315/2020 dated 28.06.2020, U/s 20 NDPS Act, P.S. Seemapuri alongwith specimen seal, forwarding letter, copy of FIR, copy of seizure memo etc. were received in their office from SHO, P.S. Seeampuri vide letter reference no. 2596/R/SHO/Seemapuri dated 22.07.2020. Same was marked to this witness for chemical examination. The seals were intact and were tallying with specimen seal. He examined the exhibits from 28.07.2020 to 25.08.2020.
On opening the parcel Mark A1, it was found containing damp greenish brown fruiting and flowering vegetative material, weight approx. 362.9 grams (with plastic container seals and leucoplast) and it was marked as Ex. A1.
On opening the parcel Mark A2, it was found containing damp greenish brown fruiting and flowering vegetative material, weight approx. 362.7 grams (with plastic container seals and leucoplast) and it was marked as Ex. A2.
On opening the parcel Mark B1, it was found containing damp greenish brown fruiting and flowering vegetative material, weight approx. 359.1 grams (with plastic container seals and leucoplast) and it was marked as Ex. B1.
On opening the parcel Mark B2, it was found containing damp greenish brown fruiting and flowering vegetative material, weight approx. 359.4 grams (with plastic container seals and leucoplast) and it was marked as Ex. B2.
Upon physical, microscopic chemical and TLC examination of the substance Ex. A1, Ex. A2, Ex. B1 and Ex. B2, the same were found to be ganja (cannabis). After the examination the remnants of the exhibits were kept in separate four parcels which were sealed with the seal of AY FSL DELHI.
DLSH010043922020 Page 19 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act This witness prepared the detailed report bearing no. SFSL DLH/4506/CHEM/1201/20 dated 25.08.2020 which in original was received by one Ct. Mukesh Kumar on 07.09.2020.
Again a request for duplicate copy of the report was received from SI Vinit Pratap Singh on the ground that the original report was missing and the same was collected by SI Vinit Pratap Singh on 29.01.2024. The said photocopy of the report bears original signatures of this witness on each page at Points A and A1 and the photocopy signatures are at Points B and B1 is Ex. PW-5/A (running into two pages of same sheet).
It is stated by him that he submitted his report in a sealed envelope alongwith the sealed parcel for onward transmissions to the forwarding agency.
11. PW-6 Ct. (now HC) Gaurav deposed that on 22.07.2020 he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as Constable. On the directions of IO, he obtained four sealed parcels, sample seal and FSL form from MHC(M) vide RC No. 88/21/20. He deposited the parcels at FSL, Rohini, Delhi; came back to Police Station and deposited the receipt of FSL with MHC(M). Till the time the case property was in his possession, it has not been tampered with. The copy of RC is Ex. PW-6/A (OSR) which bears his signature at Point-A. Receipt of FSL is Ex. PW-6/B (OSR) which bears his signature at Point-A.
12. PW-7 HC Sunil deposed that on 28.06.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as HC.
He deposed almost on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 HC DLSH010043922020 Page 20 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act Prince and PW-2 Ct. (now HC) Kuldeep, on all other aspects.
It is stated by him that the vehicle wherein accused persons were coming was Mahindra XUV-500 of white colour bearing no. 0499 (complete number he does not remember).
This witness correctly identified the accused persons in the Court. It is stated by him that after apprehension of accused persons, SI Vinit told the accused persons namely Khalid and Anup Nandi that since ganja was recovered from their possession, they (police officials) have to take their (accused persons') personal search as they (police officials) have apprehension that some more ganja could be recovered from their (accused persons') possession. SI Vinit apprised the above-said accused persons about their legal rights that if they want they can be searched in presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer or that they can be taken to the Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for this purpose and also explained them about the meaning of Gazetted Officer and Magistrate to the accused persons. SI Vinit prepared notices U/s 50 NDPS Act in duplicate by using carbon paper against accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid with two copies and served the respective original notices to the accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid, separately. Accused Khalid stated that he is illiterate and can only sign and that he does not want to be searched in presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. Accused Khalid kept the original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act with him. SI Vinit recorded refusal of accused in his handwriting.
Accused Anup Nandi told that he does not want to get himself searched in presence of any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. He kept the original DLSH010043922020 Page 21 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act notice U/s 50 NDPS Act with him.
It is stated by him that his statement was also recorded by the IO in the Police Station.
It is stated by him that original notices U/s 50 NDPS Act issued to accused persons namely Khalid and Anup already Ex. PW-1/S and Ex. PW-1/T bear his signature at Point-B respectively.
It was observed that the case properties, except the car of accused persons bearing no. DL 7 CM - 0499 have already been exhibited during the testimony of earlier witnesses. Hence, the production of the case property was dispensed with.
It is stated by him that accused Anup Nandi submitted that his son Devesh Nandi got the Mahindra XUV-500 bearing no. DL7CM-0499 released on superdari, while the said car was parked at Laxmi Nagar, however, in the month of November, December 2024, it was lifted by MCD officials, since it has crossed the limit of 10 years of plying the vehicle in Delhi and therefore, he could not produce the same now.
All the accused persons have stated that they were not disputing the identity of the car bearing no. DL7CM-0499 in which, the accused persons were apprehended.
13. PW-8 HC Amarpal deposed that on 29.06.2020, he was working as MHC(M) at P.S. Seemapuri. On that day at about 12:30 am, SHO Inspector Harish Kumar called this witness in his office and handed over to this witness two sealed parcels Mark A and B and four sealed plastic containers Mark A1, DLSH010043922020 Page 22 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act A2, B1 and B2; FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo on which the SHO has already put the FIR Number and his signatures. The pullandas were already sealed with the seals of SK and HK. This witness made entry in register no.19 at serial no. 833/3458. Same is Ex. PW-8/A (OSR).
On the same day, SI Vinit Pratap deposited personal search articles of the accused persons in the maalkhana and also deposited one car bearing no. DL 7CM 0499 in the maalkhana alongwith copy of seizure memo. This witness made entry in this regard in register no.19 vide the same serial number.
It is stated by him that on 22.07.2020, on the directions of SHO, he handed over four sealed parcels Mark A1, A2, B1 and B2 to Ct. Gaurav to be deposited at FSL vide RC No. 88/21/20. After depositing the same, Ct. Gaurav came back and handed over acknowledgment of FSL to this witness. The copy of RC No. 88/21/20 is already Ex. PW-6/A which bears signature of this witness at Point-B and acknowledgment of FSL is already Ex. PW-6/B. It is stated by him that till the time the case property was in his possession, it has not been tampered with.
14. PW-9 SI Vinit Pratap Singh deposed that on 28.06.2020, he was posted at P.S. Seemapuri as SI. On that day on receiving information from Duty Officer, he reached the spot i.e. in front of Samuday Bhawan, near Main Road, Old Seemapuri where Ct. Prince, HC Sunil and Ct. Kuldeep met him alongwith all the three accused persons namely Anup Nandi, Khalid and Rahul (correctly identified by the witness in the Court).
It is stated by him that one vehicle make Mahindra XUV-500 was DLSH010043922020 Page 23 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act also found stationed there, but he does not remember the registration number of the same.
It is stated by him that the police officials present there handed over two recovered plastic kattas to him. He opened the kattas, the same were found containing vegetative material which appeared to be ganja from its physical appearance and smell.
This witness deposed almost on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 HC Prince, PW-2 Ct. (now HC) Kuldeep and PW-7 HC Sunil, on all other aspects.
This witness exhibited rukka as Ex. PW-9/A which bears his signature at Point-A. It is stated by him that in the personal search of accused Khalid, one original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act and some cash were recovered. It is stated by him that in the personal search of accused Anup Nandi, one original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act, some cash and one mobile were recovered.
It is further stated by him that he produced all the accused persons before the Court and he obtained one day PC remand of accused Khalid. During PC remand, this witness tried to search for source of contraband, but in vain.
It is stated by him that he also prepared report U/s 57 NDPS Act regarding recovery of contraband and arrest of accused persons and submitted the same for onward transmissions to the senior officers. The report already Ex. PW-4/A bears his signature at Point-B. During investigation, he came to know that the vehicle of accused persons was registered in the name of son of accused Anup Nandi. During DLSH010043922020 Page 24 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act investigation, this witness sent the exhibits to FSL for analysis. After completion of investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet for trial. After obtaining result of FSL, he filed the same before the Court through supplementary charge-sheet.
It is stated by him that at the time of incident Inspector Harish Kumar was working as SHO of the Police Station. This witness has worked with Inspector Harish Kumar for about one year and he is conversant with handwriting and signatures of Inspector Harish Kumar. Inspector Harish Kumar has since expired. The report U/s 57 NDPS Act already Ex. PW4/A bears signatures of Inspector Harish Kumar at Point-C. It was observed that the case properties have already been exhibited during the testimony of earlier witnesses. Hence, the production of the case property was dispensed with.
It is stated by him that there was no accused namely Afsar in the present case.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is stated by him that he sent the rukka at about 11:40 pm and it took about 15-20 minutes in preparing the same. He could not give any specific reason as to why he has used the seal of 'SK; instead of his own seal.
15. PW-10 Retired ACP Mukesh Tyagi deposed that on 28.06.2020, he was posted as ACP, Sub-Division Seemapuri. On that day at around 10:45 pm, SHO informed this witness regarding apprehension of some person with contraband in front of Samudai Bhawan, Old Seemapuri, Delhi where SI Vinit Pratap Singh, Ct. Prince, HC Sunil and Ct. Kuldeep met this witness. Accused DLSH010043922020 Page 25 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act persons namely Anup Nandi, Khalid and Rahul were also present. One Mahindra XUV 500 car was also stationed at the spot. This witness introduced himself to the accused persons. In his presence SI Vinit Pratap Singh served upon notices U/s 50 NDPS Act to accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid. After giving necessary directions, this witness left the spot.
It is stated by him that on 29.06.2020, his Reader placed before him report U/s 57 NDPS Act prepared by SI Vinit Pratap Singh, which was seen and signed by this witness. The report is already Ex. PW-4/A which bears signature of this witness at Point-A. This witness correctly identified accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid in the Court.
Identity of accused Rahul was not disputed.
16. No other witness was examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, P.E. was closed vide order dated 15.11.2025.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
17. Statement of accused Anup Nandi was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded his innocence and denied entire prosecution's case. It is stated by him that the entries in the register no.19 are false. It is stated by him that he was falsely arrested in the present case. It is stated by him that the report U/s 57 NDPS Act is false. It is stated by him that FSL report is a false report. It is stated by him that witnesses are interested witnesses. It is stated by him that being the police officials witnesses have deposed against him in order DLSH010043922020 Page 26 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act to prove their false case. It is stated by him that he was falsely implicated in the present case.
18. Statement of accused Khalid was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded his innocence and denied entire prosecution's case. It is stated by him that the entries in the register no.19 are false. It is stated by him that he was falsely arrested in the present case. It is stated by him that the report U/s 57 NDPS Act is false. It is stated by him that FSL report is a false report. It is stated by him that witnesses are interested witnesses. It is stated by him that being the police officials witnesses have deposed against him in order to prove their false case. It is stated by him that he was falsely implicated in the present case and the contraband was planted upon him.
19. Statement of accused Rahul was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded his innocence and denied entire prosecution's case. It is stated by him that the entries in the register no.19 are false. It is stated by him that he was falsely arrested in the present case. It is stated by him that the report U/s 57 NDPS Act is false. It is stated by him that FSL report is a false report. It is stated by him that witnesses are interested witnesses. It is stated by him that being the police officials witnesses have deposed against him in order to prove their false case. It is stated by him that he was falsely implicated in the present case. He was working as a driver of co-accused Anup Nandi for about 1-1½ years before his apprehension. It is stated by him that he was got employed with co-accused Anup Nandi through his friend Raja.
DLSH010043922020 Page 27 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act
20. Accused persons namely Khalid and Anup Nandi chose not to lead any defence evidence.
Accused Rahul chose to lead defence evidence and he wish to examine his friend Raja in his defence, however, he does not lead any evidence in his defence, hence defence evidence was closed on his behalf also vide order dated 04.02.2026.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
21. This Court has heard the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the record as well as written arguments carefully.
22. It is contended by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the procedures as per NDPS Act have been complied with in the present matter at the time of recovery and thereafter. It is contended that accused persons in criminal conspiracy with each other were trying to flee away after getting down from a silver colour car make Mahendra XUV-500 bearing registration no. DL 7CM 0499 being driven by accused Rahul in which the contraband was kept and was to be transported. In pursuance of said criminal conspiracy accused Anup Nandi was found in possession of ganja weighing about 7 Kgs 600 grams and accused Khalid was found in possession of ganja weighing about 7 Kgs 400 grams in two different plastic kattas. There is nothing on record to suggest that police officials had any enmity with the accused persons. Thus, the offence U/s 20(b)
(ii)(B) NDPS Act is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused DLSH010043922020 Page 28 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act persons namely Khalid & Anup Nandi and the offence U/s 29 r/w Section 20(b)
(ii)(B) NDPS Act is proved beyond reasonable doubt against all the accused persons namely Anup Nandi, Khalid and Rahul.
23. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the accused persons that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that SHO who had put his seal on the case property has not been examined. It is contended that seal and seized articles were given to the same person i.e. PW-2 Ct. (now HC) Kuldeep, thus chances of tampering cannot be ruled out. It is contended that no public witness was joined in the present investigation. It is pointed out that no CCTV footage qua arrest of the accused persons or their movement towards the spot of their arrest has been filed on record. There is no videography or photography of the alleged recovery, sampling and seizure proceedings. Proceedings U/s 52A NDPS Act qua contraband has not been complied with in the present matter.
Legal Requirement to prove the Charges :-
24. Accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid have been charged for the offence punishable U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act as 7 Kgs and 600 grams ganja was recovered from katta in possession of accused Anup Nandi and 7 Kgs and 400 grams ganja was recovered from katta in possession of accused Khalid. Accused persons namely Anup Nandi, Khalid and Rahul have been charged for the offence punishable U/s 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act as in criminal conspiracy with each other they were carrying ganja in the kattas in DLSH010043922020 Page 29 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act the recovered car. Section 20 NDPS Act reads as under :
"20. Punishment for contravention in relation to cannabis plant and cannabis. Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder,--
(a) cultivates any cannabis plant; or
(b) produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-
State, exports inter-State or uses cannabis, shall be punishable,--
(i) where such contravention relates to clause (a) with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to one lakh rupees; and
(ii) where such contravention relates to sub-clause (b),-- (A) and involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(B) and involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees;
(C) and involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees."
(emphasis supplied)
25. As far as contravention of the provision is concerned, Section 8 of NDPS Act completely prohibits the possession of narcotic drug or psychotropic substances, except for medical or scientific purposes, that too in the manner as prescribed by the Act. This section reads as under :
"No person shall-
(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by DLSH010043922020 Page 30 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.FIR No. 315/2020
(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation:
Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of Ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter-State and export inter-State of Ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:
Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the export of poppy straw for decorative purposes."
(emphasis supplied)
26. As per the Section, possession of all narcotic drugs is prohibited by Section 8.
27. The term "narcotic drugs" is defined in Section 2(xiv) as under:-
(xiv) "narcotic drug" means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs;
28. As per the definition, 'narcotic drug' includes cannabis (hemp). Therefore, the possession of cannabis (hemp) is prohibited by Section 8 of NDPS Act.
29. The term "cannabis (hemp)" is defined in Section 2(iii) of NDPS Act, as under :
"(iii) "cannabis (hemp)" means--DLSH010043922020 Page 31 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020
(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act
(a) charas, that is, the separated resin, in whatever form, whether crude or purified, obtained from the cannabis plant and also includes concentrated preparation and resin known as hashish oil or liquid hashish;
(b) Ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated; and
(c) any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any rink prepared therefrom"
(emphasis supplied)
30. "Cannabis (hemp)" besides other things also means Ganja i.e. the flowering and fruiting tops of cannabis plant. In the present case, the prosecution would be required to prove that the recovered substance was Ganja.
31. The prosecution would also be required to prove that the quantity of the contraband recovered was of small, intermediate or commercial quantity. The terms "small quantity" and "commercial quantity" are defined in Section 2(xxiiia) & 2 (viia), as under :-
"(xxiiia) "small quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;"
(viia) "commercial quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
32. The notification specifying small quantity & commercial quantity vide SO1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 mentions the small quantity and commercial quantity for various Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, including DLSH010043922020 Page 32 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act 'Ganja'. As per entry at serial no.55 in the said notification, the small quantity for Ganja is 1000 gms and commercial quantity is 20 Kgs.
33. In order to prove the charges U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following facts :
(1) That the accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid were in possession of contraband.
(2) That the possession was in contravention of the provision of the Act or any rule or order made or condition of license granted thereunder.
(3) That the contraband was Ganja.
(4) That the quantity of the contraband was intermediate (i.e. more than 1000 grams, but less than 20 Kgs), for Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act.
(5) That the contraband in possession of accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid, was in furtherance of criminal conspiracy and abetment of all the accused persons namely Anup Nandi, Khalid and Rahul.
34. Besides proving the aforesaid facts, the prosecution is also required to prove that the investigating agency carried out the investigation in compliance with the provisions of NDPS Act. The investigating agency must adhere strictly to the legal procedure established during the search, ensuring transparency and fairness in the investigation. By adhering to this procedure, the agency demonstrates its commitment to protecting personal liberty, a fundamental right of citizens. This ensures that the search was conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of the judicial system. The credibility of the DLSH010043922020 Page 33 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act evidence presented by the prosecution is enhanced when the investigating agency follows the statute scrupulously as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case titled as Koyappakalathil Ahamed Koya vs. A.S. Menon and Ors. (03.07.2002 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1838/2002 :-
"In view of the principle that Ceaser's wife must be above-board, the investigating agency has to be consistent with the procedure laid down by law while conducting the search and it has to be above-board in following the procedure by investigating into the crime and if that is done it would assure the judicial mind that by giving importance to the personal liberty a fundamental right of (he citizen, the search was conducted. If that is done, then there would be creditworthiness to such evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution. The investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and failure to do so must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting action against the concerned official so that laxity on the part of the investigating authority is curbed."
Thus, the failure to adhere to the procedure raises a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the manner in which the investigation is carried out, which obviously favors the accused.
35. It is settled legal proposition that the procedure provided under Chapter V of the NDPS Act has to be scrupulously followed for the Court to raise such presumption. For raising the presumption U/s 54 of the Act it must be first established that recovery was made from the accused and the procedure provided under the NDPS Act followed thoroughly without fail. It is further settled law that for attracting the provision of Section 54 of NDPS Act, it is essential for the prosecution to establish the element of possession of contraband by the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the burden to shift to the accused to prove his innocence. This burden on the prosecution is a heavy DLSH010043922020 Page 34 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act burden. To decide whether the burden has been discharged or not by the prosecution, it is relevant to peruse the record and evidence and consider the submissions made by the parties.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
36. The Court will now proceed to examine and discuss the various aspects of the case and the relevant pieces of evidence under distinct headings as follows:-
Discussion on the point of compliance of Sections 42 or 43 of NDPS Act
37. The present case is a case of chance recovery as no secret information was received before the apprehension of the accused persons. Accordingly, the recording of secret information in terms of Section 42(1) NDPS Act and forwarding the same to immediate official superior within 72 hours was not required in the present case. Thus, the question of compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act does not arise in the facts of this case.
38. Being a case of chance recovery, the most important document in the present case was the DD entry whereby the police party consisting of PW-1 HC Prince, PW-2 Ct. Kuldeep and PW-7 HC Sunil were on patrolling in the area of Seemapuri on the date and time of incident in question. As per testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-7 they had left the Police Station for patrolling in the area of Seemapuri at about 6:50 pm on 28.06.2020.
DLSH010043922020 Page 35 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act
39. There is a GD entry no. 0053A dated 28.06.2020, time 18:50 hours on record as per which PW-1 HC Prince, PW-2 Ct. Kuldeep and PW-7 HC Sunil were on patrolling in the area, however none of the witness has exhibited this GD entry. The concerned Duty Officer has not been examined before the Court to prove this GD entry. There is no mention of this GD entry either in the rukka or in the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of any of the member of the police party.
40. The failure to prove departure/ GD entry no. 0053A is detrimental to the case of prosecution as this was the entry whereby the entire police proceedings had started and whereby the police officials reached the spot. In absence of due proof of this departure/ GD entry, there remain no documentary evidence to show that the police officials were present at the spot at the time as claimed by them.
41. As per prosecution case, PW-1 HC Prince, PW-2 Ct. Kuldeep and PW-7 HC Sunil were checking the vehicles on the road by putting a picket during which they by chance apprehended the accused persons. However, no specific duty was assigned to the police party to check the vehicles. Further, no written document qua any such checking wherein particulars or registration number of any such vehicle was recorded, could be produced before the Court.
42. It is stated by PW-2 Ct. (now HC) Kuldeep and PW-7 HC Sunil that they signaled the vehicle to stop on that vehicle was stopped about 20-25 meters away from their checking place. Per contra, PW-1 HC Prince did not DLSH010043922020 Page 36 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act state that they signaled the vehicle to stop, rather it is stated by him that the vehicle had stopped by itself 20-25 meters away from the police picket.
43. The story of prosecution that all the occupants of the vehicle including driver alighted the same and started running here and there with kattas of ganja in their hand, also appears to be improbable, as if accused persons really wished to run away they should have left the kattas in the car itself or they could have tried to run away with the car itself.
44. The accused persons were sighted by the patrolling party at about 9:55 pm. They were immediately apprehended with kattas of ganja in their hands, however the first information qua apprehension of the accused persons was sent to the Police Station at 22:45 hours (10:45 pm) recorded vide DD No. 0070A i.e. almost 50 minutes after apprehension of the accused persons. There was no reason for such delay, as the only proceedings done by the members of patrolling party was apprehending the accused persons, checking the kattas and nothing more. No document was prepared by them. Thus, there was no reason of delay of 50 minutes.
45. There is doubt qua timing of preparation of rukka and recording of FIR as well in the present matter as the rukka was prepared and sent at 11:40 pm. Interestingly, rukka was received in the Police Station at 11:40 itself, while the place of recovery was 2.5 Kms away from the Police Station. From this fact, it appears that the rukka was written while sitting in the Police Station.
DLSH010043922020 Page 37 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act
46. The recovery of the psychotropic substance as stated above is also shrouded with doubts as there is no videography or photography of the search, arrest or recovery proceedings was clicked/ made. No CCTV footage qua presence of the accused persons at the time and place of arrest or their movements towards the spot of arrest has been filed on record.
47. The place of recovery was a public place. Admittedly, a number of public persons were present there at that time. Despite that police did not join and did not even sincerely try to join any public person. Though, it is a fact that generally public persons do not became part of police proceedings or investigation, more so in a case of Narcotic Drugs. This inaction on the part of the police raises doubt qua time and place of recovery as stated by the police.
Non-joining of public witness during the proceedings, raises serious doubt as regards the recovery made from the accused. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon judgment titled as Bantu Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Bail Appl. No.2287/22 dtd.08.07.2024 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court).
Thus, in the present matter, it can be safely held that sincere and sufficient efforts were not made by the police party to join the independent witness in the investigation.
48. In view of the above-stated circumstances, it can be held that prosecution has failed to prove presence of the police party at the time and spot of recovery beyond reasonable doubt, thus the very foundation of the present case that the police party was present at the spot at the time of alleged recovery DLSH010043922020 Page 38 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act is doubtful. Further, there are shortcomings and discrepancies in the recovery proceedings which makes the entire case of prosecution doubtful and makes the defence of accused persons probable that they were falsely implicated in the present case.
Discussion on the point of compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act
49. Section 50 NDPS Act is as under :-
"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 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 (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."
(emphasis supplied)
50. As per prosecution case, after apprehension of the accused persons, contraband was seized from plastic kattas. Thus, nothing recovered in the personal bodily search of the accused persons as contraband was allegedly recovered from the kattas carried by accused persons namely Anup Nandi and DLSH010043922020 Page 39 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act Khalid in their hands. As regards recovery made from a katta carried by suspects in their vehicle or hand is concerned, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act do not apply to recoveries other than those made from the person of the accused.
51. In Saikou Jabbi Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0991/2003 , heroine was found in a bag being carried by suspect. It was held that Section 50 was not applicable as it applies to search of a person.
52. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh, 2019 INSC 1145 made following observations in this regard :-
"16. As regards applicability of the requirements Under Section 50 of the Act are concerned, it is well settled that the mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to "personal search" and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises.
17. The conclusion (3) as recorded by the Constitution Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh clearly states that the conviction may not be based "only" on the basis of possession of an illicit Article recovered from personal search in violation of the requirements Under Section 50 of the Act but if there be other evidence on record, such material can certainly be looked into.
In the instant case, the personal search of the Accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as "personal search" was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. Any such idea would be directly in the teeth of conclusion (3) as aforesaid.
18. The decision of this Court in Dilip's case, however, has not adverted to the distinction as discussed hereinabove and proceeded to confer advantage upon the Accused even in respect of recovery from the vehicle, on the ground that the requirements of Section 50 relating to personal search were not complied with . In DLSH010043922020 Page 40 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.FIR No. 315/2020
(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act our view, the decision of this Court in said judgment in Dilip's case is not correct and is opposed to the law laid down by this Court in Baldev Singh and other judgments.
19. Since in the present matter, seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs. were found from the vehicle which was being driven by Accused-Baljinder Singh with the other Accused accompanying him, their presence and possession of the contraband material stood completely established."
53. In view of the law laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 and State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh, 2019 INSC 1145 as well as other judgments cited above, it is held that the compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act is not mandatory in the present case, as the recovery was effected from the plastic kattas carried by accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid in their hands and not from the person of the accused persons.
54. Section 57 of the NDPS Act which requires that :-
"Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure, under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior."
55. In the present matter, after apprehension of the accused persons and recovery of contraband investigation of the case was marked to PW-9 SI Vinit Pratap Singh who had arrested the accused persons. SI Vinit Pratap Singh had sent a special report U/s 57 NDPS Act on 29.06.2020 which is Ex. PW-4/A. The said report was also forwarded by SHO, P.S. Seemapuri on 29.06.2020. The said report was dispatched vide dispatch no. 2300 dated 29.06.2020, P.S. Seemapuri and received vide diary no. 2426 dated 29.06.2020 in the office of DLSH010043922020 Page 41 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act ACP concerned. The said report has been duly proved on record. The report was submitted to ACP concerned within 48 hours of recovery. Accordingly, in the opinion of the Court the provisions of Section 57 of the NDPS Act were duly complied with by the Investigating Agency in the facts of the present case.
Discussion on the point of compliance of Section 52A & 55 NDPS Act
56. As a matter of fact, in the present case the sampling proceedings were conducted, but not before the Ld. Magistrate U/s 52A of the NDPS Act, rather by PW-9 SI Vinit Pratap Singh at the spot.
57. It is contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that the entire recovery proceedings are vitiated due to non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment titled as Bharat Amble Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No.250/25 of Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the law on compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act as under :-
"50. We summarize our final conclusion as under: -
(I) Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of inventories, taking of photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2) of the NDPS Act.
(II) Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet we are of the opinion that the process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in DLSH010043922020 Page 42 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.FIR No. 315/2020
(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act the presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure.
(III) Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is actually produced before the court or not.
(IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein.
(V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.
(VI) If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
(VII) Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
(VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record.
(IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities.
(X) Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of DLSH010043922020 Page 43 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt."
(emphasis supplied)
58. Though, in the present case there is no compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act, as the sampling proceedings were done by the IO, however, in view of the judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, decided on 20.12.2024 and Bharat Aambale (supra), the said fact by itself does not vitiate the trial. As held by the Hon'ble Court in absence of compliance U/s 52A NDPS Act the onus is upon the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused persons, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt.
59.(i) In the present matter, the articles were sealed at the spot by IO PW- 9 SI Vinit Pratap Singh. However, he sealed the articles with the seal of 'SK' which apparently not belonging to him. He has nowhere stated in his testimony to whom this seal was belonging. In his cross-examination, he could not tell any specific reason as to why he has used the seal of 'SK' instead of his own seal. This shortcoming in the story of the prosecution raises doubt qua recovery and safe keeping of the contraband.
(ii) After sealing and seizure of the case property with the seal of 'SK', PW-9 SI Vinit Pratap Singh handed over the case property to PW-2 Ct. (now HC) Kuldeep for handing over the same to SHO for depositing the same into DLSH010043922020 Page 44 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 STATE Vs. ANUP NANDI & ORS.
FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act maalkhana. Interestingly, SI Vinit Pratap Singh also handed over the seal of 'SK' whereby he had sealed the case property to Ct. Kuldeep only to whom the custody of the case property was handed over. There is no explanation as to why sealed case property as well as the seal was handed over to the same police official and not to any other member of the patrolling party. In such circumstances, when the sealed case property and the seal used on the same were in the possession of same person, the chances of tampering cannot be ruled out.
(iii) Ct. Kuldeep who had taken the case property to the Police Station had stated that he had handed over the case property to the SHO Inspector Harish Kumar and rukka to Duty Officer. SHO Inspector Harish Kumar could not be examined in the Court as he died. PW-8 MHC(M) HC Amarpal has deposed in his testimony that when SHO called him in his chamber, the articles were already sealed with the seals of 'SK' and 'HK'. Thus, there is no witness examined before this Court to prove that SHO Inspector Harish Kumar has put his seal on the case property in presence of that witness. Though, when the sample parcels reached FSL they were bearing two seals i.e. 'SK' and 'HK'. When the remaining case property was produced before the Court, the same was bearing the seals of 'SK' and 'HK'. Still, prosecution has not examined any witness in whose presence SHO Inspector Harish Kumar has put his seal on the case property.
In such circumstances, due compliance of Section 55 NDPS Act could not be proved on record.
DLSH010043922020 Page 45 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act
60. In view of the above-mentioned discrepancies, there are serious doubts qua safe custody of the case property in the present case. Hence, chances of tampering cannot be ruled out in the present matter. In such circumstances, non-compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act became fatal to the case of prosecution.
61. During trial, PW-5 Dr. Adesh Kumar, Senior Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini exhibited on record FSL report dated 25.08.2020 as Ex. PW-5/A (running into two pages) wherein it was held that the parcels Mark A- 1, A-2, B-1 and B-2 were found to be ganja (cannabis).
62. Upon reviewing the evidence, particularly the failure of the Investigating Agency to subject the recovered contraband (ganja) to sampling proceedings under section 52A NDPS Act and doubts qua safe keeping of the case property, the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts against accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act cannot be raised in this case against accused persons, as the recovery of contraband could not be established beyond reasonable doubt, as the sealed case property as well as the seal were handed over to the same police official. Further, the departure entry whereby the police party reached the spot has not been proved on record. There is no explanation as to why SI Vinit Pratap Singh used the seal of 'SK' instead of his own seal.
DLSH010043922020 Page 46 of 46 SC No. 143/2020 FIR No. 315/2020(Seemapuri) U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) & 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act Conclusion
63. In the present matter, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the departure entry whereby the police party reached the spot which is a material lacuna in the case of prosecution. Also, there are doubts qua safe keeping of the case property. All these contradictions raises serious doubts in the mind of the Court as regards the story of the prosecution. In the opinion of the Court, it cannot be said beyond doubt that there is no material contradiction in the story of the prosecution. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the benefit of doubt would go in favour of the accused persons.
64. Accordingly, accused persons namely Anup Nandi and Khalid for the offence punishable U/s 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act and accused persons namely Anup Nandi, Khalid and Rahul for the offence punishable U/s 29 r/w Section 20(b)(ii)(B) NDPS Act, are acquitted. Accused persons are directed to comply with Section 481 BNSS (earlier Section 437-A Cr.P.C.), as per rules.
65. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
Announced in the open Court GAJENDER
SINGH
signed by
GAJENDER
on 21st May, 2026 NAGAR SINGH
NAGAR
(Gajender Singh Nagar)
Special Judge (NDPS Act)
District Shahdara
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi