Delhi District Court
State vs Mazhar Ali S/O Sh. Akbar Ali on 5 June, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No.45/2013
FIR No.268/2012
PS Crime Branch
u/s 21 (C) NDPS Act
State
Vs.
Mazhar Ali s/o Sh. Akbar Ali
R/o 6/97, Friends Enclave,
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
Date of institution :20022013
Date when arguments concluded:03062014
Date when Judgment pronounced:05062014
Appearances: Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP for the State.
Ms. Sunita Tiwari, counsel for accused.
JUDGMENT
1. The accused has been forwarded by police to face trial u/s 21 of NDPS Act for being in possession of 300 gms. heroin State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 1 of25 illegally.
2. Facts are that on 17112012 at 6.30 AM, SI Satyawan received tip off in Narcotic Cell, Shakkarpur that a person namely Mazhar Ali, who had remained in jail in several NDPS cases was engaged in the sale of smack in retail as well whole sale with his son Rashid and on that day they would come near Shiv Temple, Jalebi Chowk, Sultanpuri between 8.30 and 9.00 AM to supply heroin in bulk quantity. The informer was produced before inspt. Vivek Pathak and after satisfaction, he flashed information to ACP Bir Singh on telephone who instructed him to proceed further. The information was reduced into writing vide DD No.7 and a raiding team of SI Satyawan, HC Om Prakash, HC Rohtashh, and Ct. Sohanpal was formed which left the Cell with IO bag, field testing kit and electronic weighing machine for the spot. They asked 45 public persons on the way to join the forthcoming raid but none agreed. They reached the spot and vehicle was parked about 30 meters away from the temple. The raiding team members took positions near the temple. The person wearing checkered shirt and slatee pant was seen coming from the side of Jalebi chowk at about 8.35 AM and the informer identified him from a distance of 20 State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 2 of25 meters as accused Mazhar Ali. Mazhar Ali stood in front of Shiv Temple and started waiting for somebody and after some time he started retreating but was apprehended at 8.45 AM. He was told about secret information and notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was served and interpreted to but he preferred to be searched by IO. Before his search, 810 persons who had assembled there due to curiosity, were asked to join the search but they did not agree. Thereafter he was searched by SI Satyawan and a black polythene was recovered from his right hand which was further containing a transparent polythene whose mouth was tied with rubber band. It was containing a matiyala colour powder which gave positive result of heroin on testing on field testing kit. It was 300 gms. Two samples of 5 gm each were separated, put into two transparent polythenes and marks A & B were given to them. Remnant heroin was put into same black polythene and mark C was given. FSL form was filled up. Mark A, B, C and FSL form were sealed with the seal of 7 A PS NB Delhi and seal after use was handed over to HC Om Prakash. All the articles were taken into possession, rukka and case property were sent to PS through HC Rohtash who got the case FIR registered and handed over case property to SHO. SHO State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 3 of25 affixed his own seal of PSR and wrote case particulars on the pullanda and FSL form and deposited in malkhana. Further investigation was conducted by ASI Devender Singh. Sample pullanda mark A was sent to FSL on 19112012 which opined that it was containing diacetylmorphine, phenobarbital, caffeine, paracetamol and 6 monoacetylmorphine. Percentage of diacetylmorphine and phenobarbital 27.6 & 27.2.
3. Charge u/s 21 (C) NDPS Act was framed against accused on 28032013 to which he claimed trial.
4. In order to substantiate the charge, prosecution examined 10 witnesses. Accused also examined one witness in defence.
5. PW4 HC Yatender Singh registered FIR Ex.PW4/A on 17112012 at 1.15 PM on receipt of rukka sent by SI Satyawan brought by HC Rohtash and made endorsement Ex.PW4/B on rukka regarding registration of FIR. He handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to HC Pradeep Khatri for handing over the same to ASI Devender Singh to whom further investigation was assigned.
PW2 HC Jag Narayan was posted as MHC(M) in Crime branch on 17112012. On that day, he deposed, SHO Padam State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 4 of25 Singh Rana called him in his office with register no.19 and handed over three pullandas marks A,B, C and FSL form all having one seal of 7A PS NB Delhi and one seal of PSR and carbon copy of seizure memo. He made entry No.1768 Ex.PW1/A in register no.19. SHO registered DD No.16 Ex.PW1/B regarding deposit of case property in malkhana. He further deposed that ASI Devender Singh came in the malkhana on the same day at 7.50 PM and deposited the personal search articles of the accused interalia containing carbon copy of notice u/s 50 NDPS Act and a cash of Rs.240/ for which he made entry at point X to X against the main entry. MHC(M) further deposed that as per the instructions of SHO, he handed over sample pullanda mark A in sealed condition to HC Satyavan on 19112012 vide RC No.638/21/12 Ex.PW1/C for deposit in FSL and after deposit, HC Satyavan handed him over receipt acknowledgment Ex.PW1/D. Remnant sample and FSL result were received in the malkhana from laboratory on 2112 2012 through Ct. Satpal and he made entry at point Z to Z in register no.19.
PW5 HC Satyavan also asserted that he had deposited sample pullanda mark A in FSL on 19112012 intact. MHC(M) State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 5 of25 and pullanda carrier did not tamper with the case property until it was in their possession.
PW3 inspt. Vivek Pathak deposed that on 17112012 at 6.45 AM SI Satyawan produced an informer in his office who told him that a person namely Mazhar Ali was engaged in the supply of heroin alongwith his son Rashid in the area of Sultanpuri and on that day also he would come near Shiv Temple, Jalebi chowk between 8.009.00 AM to supply heroin and, if raided, he can be caught red handed. After verification of the tip off, he informed ACP Bir Singh who authorised him to conduct the raid. This information was recorded into writing vide DD No.7 copy of which was produced before him and it was forwarded to ACP Bir Singh in compliance of section 42 of NDPS Act. He further deposed that a raiding team comprising of SI Satyawan, HC Rohtash, HC Om Prakash, Ct. Sohan Pal including informer was formed on his instructions which left the Narcotic Cell in government vehicle No.DL1CM4228 driven by HC Pradeep at 7.20 AM with IO bag, electronic weighing machine and field testing kit. He further deposed that second IO ASI Devender Singh produced accused before him on the same day at 9.15 PM and he found his arrest State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 6 of25 justified. Report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of 300 gm. heroin from accused was produced before him by SI Satyawan on 18112012. ASI Devender Singh also produced report under that section regarding arrest of accused. He forwarded both reports to the office of ACP.
PW6 ACP Bir Singh deposed that inspt. Vivek Pathak informed him on telephone at 6.55 AM about the secret information and he directed him to take immediate legal action. DD No.7 Ex.PW6/A was produced before him in the office on that very day. He further deposed that reports Ex.PW6/B(seizure of heroin) and Ex.PW6/C (arrest of accused) were produced before him on 18112012 which were received in his office vide dak entry Nos.2713 & 2714 Ex.PW6/D. DD No.7 was received in the office on 17112012 by entry No.2712. PW7 Inspt. Padam Singh Rana, SHO deposed that HC Rohtash came to his office on 17112012 at 3.35 PM and produced before him three cloth pullandas bearing Marks A,B,C, FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo. Parcels and FSL form were having seals of 7 A PS NB Delhi. He affixed his own seal of PSR on parcels and FSL form and put FIR number and case particulars on them. Then he called MHC(M) Jag Narayan State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 7 of25 and deposited the case property with him and registered DD No.16 Ex.PW1/B to that effect. He got sent sample pullanda mark A to the FSL on 19112012.
PW8 ASI Devender Kumar is the second IO. He deposed that he was present at Narcotic Cell on 17112012 at 3.30 PM when further investigation was assigned to him by inspt. Vivek Pathak vide DD No.17 Ex.PW2/F. HC Pradeep handed him over original rukka and copy of FIR and he left Cell with HC Laxman Parsad in a govt. vehicle No.DL1CM4228 driven by HC Pradeep Kumar and reached the spot where he found SI Satyawan, HC Om Prakash, Ct. Sohan Pal and accused. SI Satyawan handed him over relevant documents and custody of the accused. He prepared rough site plan Ex.PW8/A at the instance of first IO. After interrogation, he arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/B at 6.15 PM and then conducted his personal search and prepared personal search memo Ex.PW8/C. He further deposed that carbon copy of notice Ex.P3 and cash of Rs.240/ were recovered from the personal search of the accused. After interrogation he recorded the disclosure statement Ex.PW8/D of the accused. Personal search articles were deposited with MHC(M) HC Jag Narayan. Thereafter State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 8 of25 he alongwith other police officials reached Narcotic Cell Shakkarpur at 9.15 PM and produced accused before inspt. Vivek Pathak. He further deposed that he prepared report Ex.PW8/E u/s 57 of NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused and produced before inspt. Vivek Pathak on 18112012. Case property and inventory of the parcel no.3 was produced in the court of ld. MM on 12022013 in compliance of provisions of section 52 A of NDPS Act.
6. PW2 HC Rohtash, PW9 SI Satyawan and PW10 HC Om Prakash were all members of the raiding team headed by SI Satyawan who deposed that a secret informer gave him tip off in office on 17112012 at 6.30 AM that a person namely Mazhar Ali r/o village Sultanpuri, who had remained in jail in several NDPS cases, was dealing in smack in bulk as well as in retail alongwith his son Rashid Ali and on that day also he would come at the gate of Shiv temple between 8.309.00 AM to deliver heroin in bulk quantity to somebody. He produced the informer before inspt. Vivek Pathak and inspt. Vivek Pathak, after satisfying himself, forwarded the information to ACP Bir Singh on telephone. ACP Bir Singh asked him to proceed as per law. Thereafter he reduced the information into writing vide DDNo.7 A Ex.PW6/A at 7.00 AM State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 9 of25 and copy of DD was given to inspt. Vivek Pathak for onward transmission to senior police officials. First IO further deposed that raiding team comprising of himself, PW2, PW10 and Ct. Sohan Pal was formed at 7.15 AM. It left the Cell with IO kit, field testing kit and electronic weighing machine in government gypsy No.DL1CM 4228 vide DDNo.8 Ex.PW2/A and reached the spot via Shakarpur, ISBT, Burari chowk, Madhuban chowk and Mangolpuri fly over. He asked five passersby to join the investigation each at Pusta road, Burari chowk and the spot but they refused and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. The gypsy was parked about 30 meters away from Shiv temple towards Mangolpuri on the bank of the road. The informer identified a person at 8.35 AM coming from the side of Jalebi chowk wearing checkered shirt and slatee pant and pointed out to him. That person stood near the gate of the temple and started looking around with suspicious eyes. He started retreating after 45 minutes but was apprehended at 8.45 AM and on inquiry his identity came to be known as Mazhar Ali. He further deposed that he prepared original notice Ex.PW2/B u/s 50 NDPS Act and delivered a carbon copy Ex.P3 to the accused. It was interpreted to State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 10 of25 him if he wanted to be searched in the presence of gazetted officer of Magistrate, arrangements can be made but he refused to be searched in the presence of such officials and his refusal reply Ex.PW2/C was written by him. Thereafter he asked the accused to search the raiding team members and govt. gypsy before his search but he refused. Then he asked 810 public persons, who had assembled there due to curiosity, to join the search but they did not agree. He further deposed that he recovered black polythene from the right hand of the accused and it was found containing a transparent polythene which was further containing the matiyala powder and it was found to be heroin after testing on field testing kit. Total weight was 300 gms. Two samples of 5 gms. each were separated from it, were put in two different transparent polythenes and two cloth parcels were prepared to whom serial Nos.A & B were given. Remnant 290 gms. heroin was put in the same transparent polythene which was further put into the same black polythene and cloth pullanda was prepared which was given mark C. FSL form was filled up at the spot. All parcels and FSL form were sealed with one seal each of 7A PS NB Delhi and seal after use was handed over to HC Om Prakash. PW10 HC Om Prakash State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 11 of25 also asserted that seal after use was handed over to him. PW9 further deposed all three parcels and FSL form were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW2/D. Lastly he prepared rukka Ex.PW2/E and handed over rukka and case property to PW2 to take the same to PS for registration of FIR and for deposition in malkhana.
PW2 HC Rohtash deposed that he left the spot in govt. gypsy at 11.45 AM for PS and reached there at 1.15 PM and handed over rukka to DO. At that time SHO was not in the PS. DO gave rukka and copy of FIR to driver HC Pradeep at 2.25 PM and HC Pradeep returned to the spot. He further deposed that SHO came in PS at 3.35 PM and he produced before him the case property, FSL form and copy of seizure memo upon which SHO affixed his seal of PSR and put case particulars including FIR number and deposited it with MHC(M). Thereafter he reached Narcotic Cell, Shakkarpur at 5.30 PM where other raiding team members arrived at 9.15 PM. The accused was produced before inspt. Vivek Pathak.
Evidence of PW2 and PW10 is on the lines of testimony of PW9.
7. In the statement u/s 313 Cr. PC, the accused denied that any recovery was effected from him. His claim is that he has State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 12 of25 been falsely implicated falsely.
8. DW1 Nasim is the son of accused. He deposed he was present in his house on 17112012. Ten persons in civil dress came to his house on that day at 8.009.00 AM in a Swift maruti and WagonR car No.DL9CN6178. His brother Arif @ Bablu, cousin brother Rasheed and father Mazhar Ali were picked up and taken at unknown place by those persons. He made a PCR Call at 9.30 AM. One of the abductor came to his house and demanded money for release of his brothers and father and when he failed to give them any amount, his father was booked in the present case and brothers were released. He tendered into evidence the PCR form Ex.DW1/A obtained on RTI application Ex.DW1/B.
9. APP argued that a specific information was available to the police that accused was dealing in heroin in bulk quantity. The informer was produced by PW9 SI Satyawan before inspt. Vivek Pathak, who flashed the information to ACP Bir Singh. Information was reduced into writing vide DD No.7. Copy of DD No.7 was also sent to the ACP. The police had tried to join the public witnesses in the investigation but they refused and so it cannot be said that no attempt was made by police to rope in independent witness in the State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 13 of25 search. APP further submitted that one seal each of 7 A PS NB Delhi was affixed on two samples of 5 gms. each and on remnant pullanda mark C containing 290 gms. heroin. The pullandas were deposited in the malkhana intact by the SHO and pullanda mark A was sent to FSL and FSL report is sealing the fate of the accused with the opinion that it was containing diacetylmorphine and phenobarbital.
On the other hand defence counsel argued that there are different versions about the place of recovery, no independent witness was joined, credibility of PW2 is at stake, log book has not been produced, Ct. Sohanpal who was one of the raiding team members has not been examined, there is possibility of tampering of sample and lastly that if prosecution and defence version are juxtaposed, it is the defence version which is prevailing upon.
10. SITE PLAN It is the case of the prosecution in chargesheet and also deposed by PW2, PW9 and PW10 that accused was apprehended in front of Shiv temple. As per rough site plan Ex.PW8/A, Kalimata temple is just before Shiv temple, MCD office is ahead of Shiv temple and park is ahead of MCD office on the road to State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 14 of25 Mangolpuri. The accused was apprehended at point A which is in front of MCD office. Version of PW9 at page No.10 of cross examination is that MCD office is about 15 minutes away from the place of recovery.
The walls of Shiv temple and MCD office are abutting each other. As per rough site plan, Shiv temple is larger than MCD office. So there can be said to be no difference in Shiv temple and MCD office. Whether the accused was apprehended in front of Shiv temple or MCD office, it is immaterial because location of both premises changes after 45 ft. Variation of 45 ft. in the evidence of recovery witness about the place of apprehension of the accused, cannot be said to be causing any dent to the prosecution story.
11. PUBLIC WITENSS PW2, PW9 and PW10 deposed that PW9 SI Satyawan had asked five passersby each at Pusta road beneath foot over bridge, Burari chowk red light and at the spot to join investigation. Even before the search of accused, PW9 had asked 810 onlookers to join the search but they refused. As per page no.2 of cross examination of PW2 there were many residential houses, shops, offices and commercial establishments situated on the way to the State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 15 of25 site from Narcotic Cell, Shakkerpur. No person was called from those places to join the investigation. To the same effect is the evidence of PW9 at page no.8 of crossexamination. Testimony of PW2 and PW9 shows that they did not call public persons from the nearby situated establishments, shops and residential houses. But they had asked five passersby at Pusta road, Burari chowk red light and at the spot. Even after apprehension of the accused, PW9 had asked 810 public persons to join the search but they refused. Hence it cannot be said that no attempt was made by the police to join the public witnesses in the search of the accused. In Ram Swaroop v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Crl. Appeal No.1327 of 2010 decided by the Apex Court on 21052013, it was held that there was no absolute ruling that police officers cannot be cited as witness and that their depositions should be treated with suspect. The Supreme Court cited State v. Anil Singh, 1998 SUPP SCC 686 in which it was held that generally the public at large are very reluctant to come forward to depose the court and therefore the prosecution case cannot be doubted for nonexamining the independent witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also had relied upon State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil & Ors., (2001) 1 SCC State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 16 of25 652 in which following was held:
" We felt that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such notion was lavishly entertained during the British period and policemen also knew it. Its hangover persisted during post independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that police records are untrustworthy. As a preposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official act of the police have been performed is of wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence when police officer gives evidence in the court that certain article was recovered by him on the strength of statement made by the accused, it is upon the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown unreliable. It is for the accused, through crossexamination of witnesses or through any other material to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police, the court should certainly take into account the State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 17 of25 fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions."
In Ramjeet Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2006) 13 SCC , the Supreme Court opined that it is now well settled that what is necessary for proving the prosecution case is not the quantity but quality of evidence. The court cannot overlook the changes in the value system in the society. When an offence is committed in a village owing to land dispute, the independent witnesses may not come forward.
In view of the aforesaid authorities, it can safely be stated that in the case at hand there is no reason to hold that non examination of the independent witnesses affect the prosecution case.
12. CREDIBILITY OF PW2 Questions were asked from PW2 in crossexamination about secret informer. He could not recollect the age, colour of State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 18 of25 cloth and language, built up and height of the informer. He could not recollect if anything was written in the seizure memo about the testing of heroin on field testing kit. He is not aware of the time when IO started writing seizure memo. He does not know the particulars of electronic weighing machine. He does not know by what quantity the first sample was less than 5 gms. when it was weighed first time. He had taken the rukka to PS on which case FIR was registered but he is not aware of the name of the computer operator.
Above details are very minor one. These facts are very trivial in nature as they do not pertain to the main case. PW2 did not falter on the issue of notice u/s 50, recovery, separation of samples, sealing, seizure and taking of case property to the PS. Moreover there are two other recovery witness PW9 and PW10 who are corroborating each other.
13. POSSIBILITY OF TAMPERING OF SAMPLE Sample parcel mark A was taken to FSL by PW5 HC Satyawan and his signature is not appearing in column no.7 of register no.19. Two samples of 5 gms. each including polythene were taken. Sample pullanda mark A was sent to FSL which was State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 19 of25 found 5.86 gms. with polythene.
The deposition of sample parcel in FSL has been corroborated by PW1 MHC(M) HC Jagnarain. SHO deposed that pullanda was given to PW6 HC Satyawan by MHC(M) on his instructions. As per FSL report Ex.PI the sample was deposited in FSL by PW5 HC Satyawan intact having one seal each of 7A PS NB Delhi and PSR. There is a slight variation of .86 gm in weight. That variation can be due to weighing process or air pressure. These facts are not sufficient to hold that sample was tampered with.
14. LOGBOOK NOT PRODUCED It is correct that logbook has not been produced by prosecution. PW2 deposed in crossexamination that logbook was maintained by the driver but he did not mention the distance in the logbook in his presence. PW8 ASI Devender Singh deposed that on that day he had maintained the logbook but he did not file the copy of the same with the chargesheet. PW9 deposed in cross examination that he did not maintain the logbook of the vehicle. He stated voluntarily that generally it is maintained by the second IO and driver. PW10 deposed in crossexamination that IO had not maintained any logbook on the way to the spot. So evidence of State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 20 of25 PW2, PW8, PW9 and PW10 is contradictory to each other regarding maintenance of logbook of the vehicle on that day. Log book is merely the corroboratory piece of evidence of the recovery witness to show that the raiding team members had travelled to a particular place i.e. the place of recovery on a particular day. In the case in hand, in the absence of logbook, corroboration is coming to the evidence of PW9 from the testimony of PW2 and PW10. If the accused was so much confident that the gypsy No.1C M4228 was not taken to Jalebi chowk, Sultanpuri on 17112012 by PW2, PW9 and PW10, it was upon him to examine the driver of the said vehicle but he did not muster enough courage to do so. So the fault of nonproduction of logbook is on both part i.e. on the part of the prosecution as well as accused.
15. DEFENCE VERSION DW1 Nasir claimed that his real brother Arif @Bablu, cousin brother Rasheed and his father Mazhar ali were picked up illegally by the police officials in civil dress from his house on 17112012 between 8.309.00 AM for which he made complaint by dialing 100 number at 9.30 AM. In this regard he obtained PCR form Ex.DW1/A by filing RTI application Ex.DW1/B. In cross State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 21 of25 examination, DW1 admitted that PCR form Ex.DW1/A was filled by PCR call receiver on his information. Column no.1 of PCR form is meant for mentioning the name of the informant, is blank. Had DW1 made call at 100 number his name would have been appearing there. Also the nature of complaint is quarrel whereas his case is that he had made complaint of abduction of his brothers and father by police officials in civil dress. DW1 further admitted in crossexamination that when PCR van came to his house to attend call, he had told the attending officials that his father and brothers were kidnapped by some persons but at point C in PCR form Ex.DW1/A, he told attending police officials that only his brothers were taken away by some persons. In examination in chief he had deposed that police official had come in a Swift Maruti and Wagon R car but at point C there is a mention of only Wagon R car. Due to so many contradictions, evidence of DW1 is unconvincing.
16. CONCLUSION Police has complied with the provisions of section 42, 50,52, 52 A, 55 and 57 of NDPS Act. Version of recovery police officials is supported by documents like DD No.7, 8, case FIR, State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 22 of25 carbon copy Ex.P3 of notice and original notice Ex.PW2/B. Action of SHO is corroborated by DDNo.16 A Ex.PW11/B. Reports u/s 57 of NDPS Act were sent to ACP well in time. The accused has failed to substantiate his own version.
Taking into account all these facts, accused Mazhar Ali is held guilty u/s 21(C) of NDPS Act. Let he be heard on the point of sentence separately.
Announced in the Open Court On day of 5th June, 2014.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 23 of25
IN THE COURT OF MR. UMED SINGH GREWAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)
NORTH DISTRICT:ROHINI COURTS:DELHI
SC No.45/2013
FIR No.268/2012
PS Crime Branch
u/s 21 (C) NDPS Act
State
Vs.
Mazhar Ali s/o Sh. Akbar Ali
R/o 6/97, Friends Enclave,
Sultanpuri, Delhi.
Date of institution :20022013
Date when arguments concluded:03062014
Date when Judgment pronounced:05062014
Appearances: Mr. Ashok Kumar, APP for the State.
Ms. Sunita Tiwari, counsel for convict with convict produced from JC.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Convict has been held guilty u/s 21 (C) of NDPS Act.
2. Ld. APP for the State argued that convict has been found guilty in a commercial quantity under NDPS Act. He further submitted that quantity is much more than commercial quantity and submitted that he be punished with the maximum punishment provided for the offence.
State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 24 of25
3. Counsel for convict argued that he is aged about 68 yrs. He has three married sons and three married daughters who are residing separately from his ailing wife of 65 years. Lastly, the counsel submitted that convict is the only bread earner of his family.
4. Taking into account aggravating and mitigating circumstances, the convict Mazhar Ali is sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and a fine of Rs.1 lac (Rupees One Lac only), in default of payment of fine he shall further undergo SI for two years for the offence punishable u/s 21 (C) of NDPS Act.
5. Benefit of section 428 Cr. PC be given to the convict.
6. Fine not deposited.
7. Case property stands confiscated and be destroyed as per rules after the expiry of the period of appeal or after awaiting the outcome of appeal, as the case may be.
8. Let a copy of Judgment and Order on Sentence be given to convict.
9. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the Open Court On day of 9th June, 2014.
(UMED SINGH GREWAL)
ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS)
North Distt: Rohini Courts: Delhi
State v.Mazhar Ali 268/12 25 of25