Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Ncb vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh And Anr on 29 July, 2017

               IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
                 ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 04 
              PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.



CNR No. DLND01­0000222011

SC No. 8484/16


Narcotic Control Bureau
Through Intelligence Officer
Sh. Rajesh Kumar
Delhi Zonal Unit, West Block­1,
Wing No. 7, R.K. Puram,
New Delhi­110066                            Complainant 


Vs 

1.       Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh
         S/o Sh Atiullah Shaikh
         R/o K­104, Hanjar Nagar
         Opposite Aghadi Nagar
         Andheri East, Mumbai­400093

2.       Nitesh Amrut Bhai Patel
         S/o Amrut Bhai Patel
         R/o B­138, Dharnidhar Bunglow
          Near Paeshwnath Canal
         Krishna Nagar, Naroda,
         Ahmedabad.                    Accused persons


NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr
SC No. 8484/16                                           Page no. 1/67
 Date of Institution                 :     30.08.2011
Date of Arguments                   :     21.07.2017
Date of Judgment                     :    29.07.2017

JUDGMENT:

­

1.   The Narcotics Control Bureau (hereinafter referred  to   as   NCB)   through   its   Intelligence   Officer   (IO)   Sh.  Rajesh   Kumar,   has  filed   the  present   complaint   against  the aforementioned accused persons u/s 8 (c) r/w section  22,   23   and   29   of   the   Narcotic   Drugs   and   Psychotropic  Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as NDPS Act).

2.   Briefly stated, the facts that can be culled out from  the assertions made in the complaint and the documents  filed therewith are as follows:­

(a)  On   31.03.2011,   Ms.   Mehak   Jain,   IO   received   a  secret information that some narcotics drugs is concealed  in a parcel bearing Airway Bill no. 466420580086, which  was lying with  Fedex Express Service India Pvt Ltd, C­ 152, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase­II, New Delhi and  if search is made, the same may result into recovery of  narcotic drugs.

(b)  The said information was reduced into writing and  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 2/67 put   up  before  Sh.  Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent of  NCB,  DZU and on his directions a raiding team consisting of  Investigating Officers Ms. Mehak Jain, Sh. C.S. Rai, Sh.  Harish   Kumar   and   driver   Rajbir   was   constituted.   At  15:00 hours they all left the office in official vehicle and  reached Fedex Office at about 16:00 hours. IO introduced  herself to Manager Sh. Punit Sharma and told him the  purpose   of   visit.   Thereafter   IO   introduced   the   team   to  Fedex   office   employees   and   requested   them   to   remain  present   as   independent   witness,   to   which   they  voluntarily agreed to join the proceedings. 

(c)  The   parcel   Airway   bill   no.   466420580086   was  produced by Manager Sh. Punit Sharma. On examination  the   parcel   in   the   form   of   cardboard   box   was   found  containing five executive synthetic fiber bags. The parcel  was attached with invoice performa and the Airway bill  booked   by   Ramesh   Bhai,   15   ground   floor,   Gold   Souk  Complex, CG Road, Ahmedabad, Gujrat and was destined  to   consignee   Sh.   Ganeshan,   No.   A­GF08,   Pongsapuri,  Lakshmana Jaya, A. Kampung Lakshmana, Batu Caves,  Selangor   Darulehsan­68100,   Malaysia.   The   said   parcel  was closely inspected and cavities were found in stitched  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 3/67 inner   layer   of   bags  which   were  found   containing  white  powder substance. On testing the same with testing kit it  gave positive result for Amphetamine. Since the texture  and   colour   of   all   the   substance   were   similar,   it   was  transferred into a transparent polythene bag which was  weighing about 2.4 kg. Two samples of 5 gm each were  taken from the said substance and were put in zip lock  packets.   The   samples   were   further   wrapped   in   paper  envelope   and     were   marked   as   A­1,   A­2.   The   packing  material   containing   the   card   board   box   with   five  synthetic   executive   fiber   bags   were   packed   in   a   white  cloth   which   was   marked   as   B.   All   the   parcels   and  samples were duly sealed with paper slips having dated  signature   of   IO,   both   witnesses   namely   Sh.   Gulshan  Kaushik and Sh. Puneet Sharma, and were sealed with  the seal of Narcotic Control Bureau DZU­5. 

(d)  Thereafter test memo in triplicate was prepared on  the spot and facsimile of seal was also affixed on all the  three   copies   of   test   memos.   Panchnama   was   also  prepared   at   the  spot   in   the   presence   of   both   witnesses  and   was   signed   by   them.   Both   the   witnesses   were  summoned   u/s   67   NDPS   Act   by   the   IO   and   their  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 4/67 statements   were   recorded.   The   case   property   and  samples   along   with   test   memos   in   triplicate   were  deposited with Malkhana Incharge and official seal was  deposited  with  seal incharge. The seizure report u/s 57  NDPS Act was submitted to Sh. Y.R. Yadav.

(e)  On 22.03.2011, Sh. Y.R. Yadav sent sample A1 for  chemical  examination  along with  test memos to CRCL,  New   Delhi.   On   02.06.2011   report   was   received   from  CRCL which confirmed positive test for Amphetamine. 

(f)  On 24.03.2011, Superintendent Sh. Pankaj Kumar  Dwivedi sent the shipper's address to Ahmedabad Zonal  Office   for   verification.   DZU   received   reply   vide   letter  dated 25.03.2011 submitting that on the said address one  courier   office   was   situated   in   the   name   of   Trackon  Courier Pvt Ltd, which was run by Sh. Sagar Iyer and no  person   by   the  name   of  Ramesh   Bhai  was  found   at  the  given   address.   Thereafter   vide   letter   dated   29.03.2011,  addressed   to   Superintendent,   Ahmedabad,   Sh.   Y.R.  Yadav sought details of Sagar Iyer and further asked him  to find out from Sh. Sagar Iyer about the shipment and  shipper   of   concerned   parcel.   Sh.   P.N.   Sarvaiya,  Superintendent   NCB   of   Ahmedabad   Zonal   Unit   (AZU)  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 5/67 vide its letter dated 05.04.2011 replied that the enquiries  conducted with regard to the seized parcel revealed that  one Nitesh Patel of Patel Courier had handed over this  shipment   to   Indo   Express   Courier   Service   owned   by  Sagar   Iyer   for   sending   it   to   Malaysia.   Nitesh   had  collected   the   said   shipment   from   another   courier  company of Ahmedabad namely Patel On Board Courier  (POBC) where the shipment had arrived from Chennai. It  was   further   revealed   that   Nitesh   Patel   was   given   the  contract to receive the shipment which was dispatched by  one   Rafique   Shaikh   of   M.R.   Express   Courier,   Mumbai,  whose   address   was   K­104,   Hanjar   Nagar,   Opposite  Aghadi Nagar, Pump House Andheri (East), Mumbai. It  was further revealed that with regard to the shipment,  Nitesh Patel received a copy of the document i.e. Airway  bill from Konnection Express Courier and Cargo, Royal  Villah Room no. 15, 3rd floor, 27/69, Venkatesh Street,  Chintadripet, Chennai. 

(g)  AZU   while   conducting   inquiry   also   recorded   the  statements   of   Nitesh   Patel   and   Sagar   Iyer   u/s   67   of  NDPS Act dated 04.04.2011 along with copies of performa  invoices which were handed over by Nitesh Patel during  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 6/67 recording of his statement. During his statement Nitesh  Patel,   explained   the   procedure   being   adopted   for  receiving the domestic and international courier parcels  through his courier office. He was also shown the copy of  performa invoice dated 24.02.2011 which was seized vide  panchnama dated 21.03.2011 mentioning shippers name  as   Ramesh     Bhai   with   the   address   and   the   consignee  name as Mr. Ganeshan destined to Malaysia with the five  executive   fiber   bag.   During   his   statement   he   disclosed  that   he   received   the   said   parcel   from   POBC   and   has  forwarded the same to Indo Express Courier Office. He  further revealed that said parcel was received by him on  the directions of one Mr. Rafiq Shaikh of Mumbai and he  further dispatched it to Malaysia through Indo Express.  He  also explained as to how the parcel  of  Mr. Ramesh  Bhai was received by him on 24.02.2011. 

(h)  Sagar   Iyer   Subramanium   in   his   statement   us/   67  NDPS Act disclosed that he is the owner of Indo Express  Courier   Services.   He   also   explained   the   procedure   for  collecting   and   dispatching   the   parcel   to   other   courier  services whether domestic and international. During the  investigation   he   disclosed   in   his   statement   that   in  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 7/67 performa invoice dated 24.02.2011, the name of shipper  was   mentioned   as   Ramesh   Bhai.   Whereas   the   address  and telephone number mentioned on the invoice was of  his   courier   service   and   his   office   address   was   also  mentioned  at  the place of authorized signatory. During  investigation   AZU   also   informed   the   DZU   that   Rafiq  Shaikh   is  the  person  who can  throw more light on  the  main   person   dispatching   these   shipments.   Hence,   Sh.  Y.R.     Yadav,   Superintendent,   DZU   NCB   vide   its   letter  dated   06.04.2011   and   07.04.2011   sought   information  regarding verification of address and antecedents of Rafiq  Shaikh from Mumbai zonal unit (MZU).

(i)  On 06.06.2011 Ms. Mehak Jain, IO received a secret  information that Rafiq Shaikh who was wanted in seizure  related   to   this   case   is   staying   in   room   no.   107,   Hotel  Milennium   2000   DX,   Pahar   Ganj,   near   New   Delhi  railway station and search of his person and room may  result   into   apprehension   of   Rafiq   Shaikh   and   possible  recovery of some narcotic drug from his possession. The  superintendent  on  the basis of  such  information  issued  authorization of search under sub section (2) of section 41  of NDPS Act to Sh. Rajesh Kumar, IO to carry out search. 

NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 8/67 Accordingly   Rajesh  Kumar  along with  Ms. Mehak Jain  and driver went to the said hotel in official vehicle and  reached there at about 16:15 hours. On reaching the hotel  IO   Rajesh   Kumar   contacted   Reception   Manager   and  disclosed his identity and inquired about the stay of Rafiq  Shaikh.   After   the   scrutiny   of   record   it   was   found   that  Rafiq   Shaikh   was   staying   in   room   no.   107   since  31.05.2011.   Thereafter   IO   requested   the   reception  manager and other person present in the lobby hotel to  join   NCB   team   as   independent   witness   to   carry   out  search of Rafiq Shaikh and his room and requested them  to be present during the proceedings. Upon request they  both agreed. The hotel staff informed IO that the person  for whom they are looking was out of the hotel and hence  they kept waiting in the lobby of hotel. At about 17:15  hours one person came at reception and asked for the key  of room no. 107. Reception Manager signaled the IO that  he is the same person who is staying in room no. 107. IO  and   other   team   members   intecepted   the   man   and  disclosed   their   identity   and   about   the   information.   On  inquiry he disclosed his name as Rafiq Shaikh. Notice u/s  50 NDPS Act was issued to him. His personal search was  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 9/67 taken   and   incriminating   documents   were   taken   into  custody.   Search   of   room   no.   107   was   conducted   but  nothing   incriminating   was   found.   Seizure   memo   was  prepared   at   the   spot.   Both   the   independent   witnesses  signed the same. Summons u/s 67 NDPS Act were also  served upon Rafiq Shaikh. 

(j)  In pursuant to summons Rafiq Shaikh appeared on  06.06.2011   and   his   statement   was   recorded.   After   his  statement   he   was   arrested   on   the   same   day   at   about  23:00   hours.   Medical   examination   of   accused   Rafiq  Shaikh was also got conducted. 

(k)  In   pursuant   to   summons   u/s   67   NDPS   Act,   Sh.  Ramesh Chabbra, General Manager of Hotel Millennium  and   Sh.     Vijay   Srivastava,   employees   thereof   appeared  on 06.06.2011 and their statements were recorded.

(l)  On the basis of statement of accused Rafiq Shaikh,  IO   Rajesh   Kumar   along   with   G.S.Bhinder   conducted  search   of   M.R.   Logistics   3459,   Dariba   Pan,   Paharganj,  New   Delhi.   They   carried   out   proceedings   before  independent witness Lokesh Rao. His statement was also  recorded   by   IO,   wherein   he   disclosed   that   he   was  employee of Rafiq Shaikh. Rafiq Shaikh came to Delhi at  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 10/67 M.R.Logistics on 31.05.2011. On 04.06.2011 Rafiq handed  over a parcel to him and told him that he wanted to book  the parcel through Dart Air Services which was destined  for Malaysia. Rafiq Shaikh told him that the said parcel  was   containing   two   executive   fiber   bags.   He   further  disclosed that he accompanied Rafiq to Dart Air Services  to book the said parcel and the parcel was booked in the  name of S.K. International, Anna Salai Road, Chennai.  While   recording   the   statement   of   Lokesh   Rao,   secret  information was received that a parcel bearing AWB no.  9473192 containing some narcotics drugs was booked by  S.K. International 22 D, Anna Salai Road, Chennai,  was  lying   at   Dart   Air   Services   Pvt   Ltd,   Express   House,   A  50/4,   Mayapuri   Phase­I.   The   said   information   was  reduced   into   writing   and   was   placed   before   Sh.   Y.R.  Yadav, Superintendent, who directed to constitute a team  and   take   action   action   as   per   law   immediately.  Thereafter, Ms. Mehak Jain along with IO G.S Bhinder,  Sepoy   Mahender   Singh   and   driver   Malkeet   Singh,  reached Dart Air Office in official vehicle at about 17:15  hours.   IO   Mehak   Jain   introduced   herself   and   team  members   to   Mr.   Virender   Nautiyala,   Chief   Executive  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 11/67 officer   of   Dart   Air   Services.   Staff   of   Dart   Air   Services  joined the proceedings as independent witnesses. Parcel  bearing   Airway   bill   no.   9473192   was   produced   by   the  staff. The said parcel was attached with invoice performa  and it was booked by S.K. International and was destined  to   Hariz   Bin   Abdulla,   Malaysia.   Thereafter   the   parcel  was   cut   open   and   was   found   to   contain   two   executive  synthetic   fiber   bags.   On   minute   inspection   the   cavities  were   found   in   stitched   inner   layer   of   bags   which   was  found to contain a white powder substance. The  powdery  substance   was   tested   with   the   help   of   field   testing   kit  which gave positive result for Ephidrine. On weighing it  was found to be 1 kg. Two samples of 5 gm each were  taken from the said substance and were put in zip lock  packets.   The  samples  were further wrapped in a white  paper   envelope   which   was   sealed   with   the   seal   of  Narcotics   Control Bureau  DZU­5 and   were marked as  A­1,   A­2.     The   remaining   drug   was   packed   in   white  marking cloth and was marked as Mark A. The packing  material   containing   two   executive   fiber   bag   covering  HDPE bag was packed in a white cloth and was marked  as Mark B. Paper slips having dated signature of IO and  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 12/67 both witnesses namely Mridul Himdani and Arun Tyagi  were pasted on all four packets which were sealed with  the Narcotic Control Bureau seal DZU­5.   The facsimile  of   seal   was   appended   in   the   panchnama   dated  08.06.2011,   which   was   prepared   at   the   spot   in   the  presence of both the witnesses.

(m)  Test  memo   in  triplicate  was prepared  on  the spot  and   facsimile   of   seal   was   affixed   on   all   the   three   test  memos.     Statements   of   witnesses   namely   Mridul  Himdani and Arun Tyagi were recorded in pursuant to  summons u/s 67 NDPS Act. 

(n)  The   case   property   and   samples   along   with   test  memos   in   triplicate   were   deposited   with   Malkhana  incharge   and   official   seal   was   deposited   with   Seal  Incharge. The seizure report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding  seizure of 1 kg of Ephedrine was submitted by IO Mehak  Jain to Superintendent DSU. 

(o)  Rajesh   Kumar   in   pursuance   to   summons   dated  08.06.2011   appeared   and   tendered   his   statement   and  stated that he was working with Dart Air Services for the  last   about   4   years.   He   was   shown   the   invoice   dated  14.05.2011 bearing AWB no. 9473192, he stated that on  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 13/67 04.06.2011   two   persons   came   to   book   the   said   parcel  which   was   destined   for   Malaysia.   He   asked   them   to  submit   their   identity   proof   but   both   persons   said   that  they   will   bring   the   ID   proof   within   1   ½   hour.   Nobody  turned after 2 ½ hour so he did not forward the parcel  and held the same in office. He further stated that one  person was calling Rafiq Bhai to another person. He was  confronted with photograph of Rafiq Shaikh, which was  identified by him.

(p)  On 09.06.2011 Sh. Y.R. Yadav sent the sample A1  which   was   seized   from   Dart   Air   Services   to   CRCL   for  chemical   examination.   He   received   the   report   dated  15.07.2011 from CRCL which confirmed positive test for  Catamine Hydrocholride.

(q)   On   01.07.2011   summons   u/s   67   NDPS   Act   were  again issued to Nitesh Patel and in pursuance to that he  appeared and tendered his statement before Ms. Mehak  Jain   on   14.07.2011.   He   admitted   the   booking   of   parcel  seized from Fedex Express in the name of Ramesh Bhai  and that he received the parcel from Rafiq Shaikh, who  asked   him   to   book   the   parcel   in   the   name   of   Ramesh  Bhai. He admitted that Amphetamine was concealed in  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 14/67 the parcel booked by him. He stated that he was doing  the act for sake of money as Rafiq Shaikh used to help  him   financially   and   gave   him   business   too.   He   also  identified Rafiq Shaikh, when he was confronted with his  photograph.   Accused   Nitesh   Patel   was   arrested   on  14.07.2011 and his medical examination was conducted.  IO Mehak Jain submitted arrest report u/s 57 of NDPS  Act on 14.07.2011 to Superintendent DZU.

(r)  During   further   investigation   summons   u/s   67   of  NDPS   Act   was   issued   to   Musahid   Ali   of   Nisha   Cargo  Courier   of   Chennai,   who   appeared   and   tendered   his  statement on 19.07.2011. He was shown performa invoice  dated 24.02.2011 to which he stated that Rafiq Shaikh of  M.R. Express, Mumbai  had sent him a parcel and upon  his   instructions   he   further   booked   the   parcel   for  Ahmedabad. 

(s)  In   pursuance   to   summons,   Sagar   Iyer   again  appeared   and   tendered   his   statement   on   11.07.2011  before IO Mehak Jain. During recording of his statement  he   explained   the   procedure   of   booking   the   parcel   with  regard to performa invoice dated 24.02.2011. 

(t)  Superintendent   DZU   vide   its   letter   dated  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 15/67 01.07.2011 addressed to Superintendent Chennai sought  verification   of   address   and   occupant   of   parcel   whose  consignor   was   S.K.   International,   Chennai   from   where  1kg   of   Ephedrine   was   seized   on   08.06.2011.  Superintendent Chennai Zonal Unit vide its letter dated  05.07.2011 stated that IO of Zonal Unit verified the said  address but there was no 22­D in the said building. (u)  After   completing   the   investigation   complaint   was  filed in the court.

3.   On   the basis of complaint and documents two sets  of charges were framed. First charge u/s 23 r/w section 28  and   29  of   NDPS   Act  was   framed   against   both   accused  persons i.e. Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Nitesh Amrut Bhai  Patel, that on or before 21.03.2011 both of them conspired  together   to   export   illegal   psychotropic   substance   from  India to Malaysia under fake identity and in pursuance  to   the   said     conspiracy   they   procured,   stored   and  admitted   to   export   2.4   kg   of   Amphetamine   in   a   parcel  vide Airway bill no. 466420580086 which was seized on  21.03.2011 at 16:04 hours at Fedex Express Service Pvt  Ltd, Mayapuri, New Delhi.

4.   The   second   set   of   charge   was   framed   against  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 16/67 accused Rafiq Ahmed that on 04.06.2011, he attempted to  export illegal 1 kg of Ketamine in a parcel vide Airway  bill no. AWB 947312 which was seized on 08.06.2011 at  17:15 hours at Dartair Services Pvt Ltd, Mayapuri, New  Delhi.

5.   In   order   to   prove   the   charges   against   both   the  accused persons, prosecution examined 20 witnesses.

6.   PW­1   is   Ms.   Mehak   Jain.   She   was   the   first  Intelligence   Officer   who   conducted   major   part   of   the  investigation   and   searches   in   this   case   and   recorded  statements u/s 67 NDPS Act. She deposed on the lines of  complaint   and   proved   following   documents   i.e.   secret  information   as   Ex.PW1/A;   panchnama   as   Ex.PW1/B;  performa   invoice   Ex.PW1/B1   and   airway   bill   no.  466420580086   as   Ex.PW1/B2;   test   memo   as  Ex.PW1/C;  summons   issued   to   both   the   search   witnesses   as  Ex.PW1/D   and   Ex.PW1/E;   seizure   report   u/s   57   NDPS  Act   as   Ex.PW1/F;   statements   of   witnesses   of   search   at  Fedex Express as Ex.PW1/G and Ex.PW1/H respectively;  secret   information   in   connection   to   Rafiq   Shaikh   as  Ex.PW1/I; summons u/s 67 NDPS Act issued to accused  Rafiq Shaikh as Ex.PW1/J; statement of accused Rafiq as  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 17/67 Ex.PW1/K;   arrest   memo   of   accused   Rafiq   Shaikh   as  Ex.PW1/L; jamatalashi memo as Ex.PW1/M. She further  proved   arrest   report   of   accused   Rafiq   Shaikh   as  Ex.PW1/N; statement of Lokesh Rao as Ex.PW1/O; secret  information   regarding   parcel   AWB   no.   9473192   as  Ex.PW1/P;   the   panchnama   dated   08.06.2011   as  Ex.PW1/Q,   airway   bill   no.   9473192   Ex.PW1/Q1;   test  memo as Ex.PW1/R; summons u/s 67 NDPS Act to Arun  Tyagi and Mridul Hemdani (search witness at Dart Air)  as   ExPW1/S   and   Ex.PW1/T   respectively;   summons   to  Rajesh Kumar as Ex.PW1/U; statement of Rajesh Kumar  as Ex.PW1/V; seizure report u/s 57 NDPS Act as Dart Air  as   Ex.PW1/W;   statements   of   Arun   Tyagi   and   Mridul  Hemdani as Ex.PW1/X and Ex.PW1/Y; summons issued  to   Nitesh   Patel,   Sagar   Iyer   and   Musahid   Ali   as  Ex.PW1/Z,   Ex.PW1/Z1   and   Ex.PW1/Z2   respectively;  statement dated 11.07.2011 and 14.07.2011 of Sagar Iyer  as Ex.PW1/Z3 and Ex.PW1/Z4 respectively; arrest memo  of accused Nitesh Patel as Ex.PW1/Z5; jamatalashi memo  of   accused   Nitesh   as   Ex.PW1/Z6;   arrest   report   u/s   57  NDPS Act Ex.PW1/Z7 and statement of Musahid Ali as  Ex.PW1/Z8.

NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 18/67

7.   She   was   cross­examined   at   length.   The   relevant  part   of   her   cross­examination   would   be   discussed   at  appropriate stage.

8.   PW­2 Sh. V.B. Chaurasia, is the chemical examiner,  CRCL   who   examined   contents   of   both   the   samples   of  alleged recovery of psychotropic substance in the present  case. He proved receipt of receiving the sample parcels on  22.03.2011 and 09.06.2011 as Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/C  respectively and his reports as Ex.PW2/B and Ex.PW2/D.

9.   PW­3 Sh. Harish Kumar was also one of the IO at  NCB DZU, posted there on 21.03.2011. He accompanied  IO   Mehak   Jain   for   the   seizure   of   first   parcel   carrying  Airway   bill   no.   46642058056   from   Fedex   Express,  Mayapuri. 

10.  PW­4   Sh.   Gulshan   Kumar   Kaushik   was   working  with   Fedex   Express   Mayapuri   on   21.03.2011.   He   was  witness to the seizure of parcel which allegedly contained  2.4 kg of Amphetine. His statement was also recorded by  IO   Ms.   Mehak   Jain   u/s   67   NDPS   Act   qua   the   said  seizure.

11.  PW­5   is   another   employee   working   with   Fedex  Express,   Mayapuri   on   21.03.2011.   He   was   another  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 19/67 witness   to   the   search   and   seizure   of   said   parcel  containing   2.4   kg   of   Amphetamine.   His   statement   was  also recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act by IO Mehak Jain.

12.  PW­6   Sh.   P.N.   Sarvaiya   was   posted   as  Superintendent   NCB,   Zonal   Office   Amedabad   on  24.03.2011.   He   deposed   that   on   24.03.2011   he   received  fax request from NCB Delhi to verify address and name  of   one   Ramesh   Bhai   of   Ahmedabad.   In   reply   dated  24.03.2011,   he   intimated   that   one   courier   office   in   the  name of Trackon Courier Pvt Ltd is being run from the  said   address   mentioned   in   the   letter   dated   24.03.2011.  The said Trackon courier Pvt ltd was being run by Mr.  Sagar Iyer, assisted by Mr. Kumar Pillai. No person in  the   name   of   Mr.   Ramesh   Bhai   was   found   on   the   said  addres.   Along   with   his   reply   he   also   enclosed     one  business card Ex.PW6/B of Mr. Sagar Iyer mentioning his  cell number as 9376195587. He also requested NCB Delhi  Office   to   provide   more   details  and  to  intimate  whether  Mr. Ramesh Bhai was already apprehended or required  to be traced out so that further course of action can be  decided. For the purpose of better reference contents of  his reply Ex.PW6/A are reproduced herein below :­ NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 20/67   Please   refer   to   your   office   letter   no.  

VIII/14/DZU/2011­2012   dated   24.03.2011   on the above subject.

2.   As requested, one officer from this unit   was detailed to verify the name, address and   the antecedents etc. of Mr. Ramesh Bhai from   the   address   given   in   letter   cited   above.   The   officer visited the location of said address on   25.03.2011   and   it   was   noticed   that   in   the   above address, one courier office is situated in   the   name   of   "Trackon   Courier   Pvt   Limited"  

being run by Mr. Sagar Iyer assisted by Mr.   Kumar Pillai. Further, no person in the name   of Mr. Ramesh Bhai in that office at the given   address was found. One Business Card in the   name   of   "Indo   Express   Courier   and   Cargo"  

was obtained from the said courier office, a   copy   of   which   is   enclosed   herewith  wherein   the name of Mr. Sagar Iyer is mentioned with   Cel. No. 9376195587.

      3.  In   this   regard,   it   is   requested   to   provide   more   details   and   also   to   intimate   whether   Mr.   Ramesh   Bhai   is   already   apprehended   or is required  to be traced  out, so   that   further   course   of   action   can   be   decided,   if   needed.

13.  He   further   deposed   that   thereafter   he   received  another   letter   dated   29.03.2011   Ex.PW20/B   from   NCB  DZU,   contents   of   which   are   again   reproduced   herein  below :­ NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 21/67   Please   refer   to   NCB/AZU/Enq/2011­ 406 dated 25.03.2011.

  As discussed over telephone, please find   the   subscribers   details   of   Mr.   Sagar   Iyer   enclosed with his letter. Also kindly arrange   to   find   from   Mr.   Sagar   Iyer   about   the   shipment   and   the   Shipper   of   the   concerned   parcel.

14.  This   letter   was   replied   by   him   after   getting   the  inquiry   conducted   vide   his   letter   dated   05.04.2011  Ex.PW6/C which is as follows:­   Sub :­ Seizure of 2.4 kgs of Amphetamine   on 21.03.2011 - reg.

  Please   refer   to   your   letter   reference   no.   VIII/14/DZU/2011   dtd.   29.03.2011   on   the   above subject.

  It is to intimate that enquiry conducted   in this regard has revealed as under.

 1.   One Nitesh Patel of Patel Couriers had   handed   over   this   shipment   to   Indo   Express   Courier   Service   owned   by   Sagar   Ayer   for   sending it to Malaysia on commission basis.

2.  Nitesh   had   collected   the   said   shipment   from another courier company of Ahmedabad   namely   Patel   On   Board   Couriers   (POBC)   where   the   shipment   had   arrived   from   Chennai.

3.  Nitesh   Patel   was   given   the   contract   to   receive this shipment and to further dispatch   it,   by   one   Rafik     Shaikh   of   MR   Express   NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 22/67 Couriers,   Mumbai   on   commission   basis.   Address   of   Rafik   is   :­   K­104,   Hanjarnagar,   opp.   Aghadinagar   Pump   House,   Andheri   (East),   Mumbai­93,   Mo.   Nos.   09324338225,   09374335105, 07498285405, 022 32525652.

15.  PW­7 Sh. Hemant Kumar, was IO in NCB AZU and  on   24.03.2011   he   was   given   investigation   by   PW­6   to  verify     the   details   and   address   of   Ramesh   Bhai   as  required by NCB DZU. He went to verify the details and  address   of   Ramesh   Bhai.   It   was   revealed   to   him   that  there was no address of Ramesh Bhai at that location and  one courier office in the name of Trackon was functioning  under the ownership of Mr. Sagar Iyer. He communicated  this   to   his   Superintendent   PW­6.   Thereafter   PW­6  further   asked   him   to   collect   certain   information   and  provided him the copies of Airway bill, peforma invoices  etc. Then he again went to that courier office of Mr. Sagar  Iyer to seek the details of performa invoice provided by  his   Superintendent   PW­6.   On   showing   the   performa  invoice   Mr.   Sagar   Iyer   told   that   one   parcel   was  dispatched   by   him   on   24.02.2011   to   someone   namely  Ganeshan of Malaysia and this parcel was received from  Nitesh   Patel   of   Sarangpur,   Ahmedabad   who   was   also  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 23/67 running his courier service. Sagar Iyer provided address  and   contact   details   of   Nitesh   Patel.   Summons   u/s   67  NDPS  Act were issued to both  Nitesh  Patel and Sagar  Iyer. He recorded statements of these persons in his office  on 04.04.2011. He proved the statement of Nitesh Patel  as Ex.PW7/A and that of Mr. Sagar Iyer as Ex.PW7/B.  Nitesh   Patel   also   submitted   26   copies   of   performa  invoices   to   him   and   also   referred   to   one   Rafiq   Shaikh,  upon whose instructions he booked the questioned parcel.

16.  It appears that on the basis of inquiry conducted by  this officer i.e. PW­7, PW­6 had prepared the reply dated  05.04.11 Ex.PW6/C.

17.  PW­8   Sh.   Sagar   Iyer   Subramaniyam   is   the  franchisee   of   Trackon   courier.   His   statement   u/s   67  NDPS   Act   was   recorded   twice.   Once   by   PW­7   on  04.04.2011 at AZU and second time by PW­1 IO Mehak  Jain on 11.07.2011 vide Ex.PW1/Z3. The contents of his  statement u/s 67 NDPS Act and his testimony would be  discussed at later stage.

18.  PW­9   Sh   Ramesh   Chhabra   was   working   as  Accountant   in   Hotel   Millennium   from   where   accused  Rafiq   Ahmed   was   arrested   on   06.06.2011.   He   deposed  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 24/67 about the arrest of accused Rafiq Ahmed by NCB DZU on  06.06.2011 and recording of his statement u/s 67 NDPS  Act Ex.PW9/A qua the arrest of accused Rafiq and search  of his room.

19.  PW­10 Sh. Lokesh Rao deposed that he was working  as Incharge in M.R. Logistics. The owner of said company  was   accused   Rafiq.   He   further   deposed   that   on  07.06.2011   officials   from   NCB   came   to   his   office   and  informed that Rafiq Shaikh had been arrested and they  wanted   to   search   his   office.   They   requested   him   to  remain present as witness during the search proceedings.  Another   witness   was   called   from   neighbouring   office.  Nothing incriminating was found in the office. One officer  from NCB namely Rajesh Kumar, gave him summons u/s  67   NDPS   Act.   On   the   same   day   he   made   statement  Ex.PW1/O   u/s   67   NDPS   Act.   He   also   deposed   that   on  04.06.2011, accused Rafiq came to his office and handed  over  two  fiber  bags to him to book with Dart Airways.  Rafiq   Shaikh   accompanied   him   to   book   said   bags   with  Dart Airways.  After booking the said parcel Airway Bill  was   issued   to   Rafiq.   He   identified   the   bags   taken   out  from   the  parcel   seized  from  Dart  Airways as the  same  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 25/67 fiber   bags   which   Rafiq   Shaikh   had   booked   with   Dart  Airways in his presence. The contents of his statement  u/s   67   NDPS   Act   and   relevant   portion   of   his   cross­ examination would be discussed lateron.

20.  PW­11   Sh.   Malkeet   Singh   was   working   as   driver  with   NCB   DZU   on   09.06.2011   and   took   sealed   sample  Mark A1 recovered from Fedex Express Services to CRCL  for chemical analysis.

21.  PW­12 Mridul Hemlani deposed that on 08.06.2011  he   was   working   as   Account   Assistant   in   Dart   airways  when   NCB   officials   visited   his   office   and   conducted  search   and   seizure   proceedings,   qua   the   parcel   which  lateron found to be containing Ephedrine. He stated that  he voluntarily became witness to the search and seizure  proceedings.

22.  PW­13   Sh.   Rajesh   Kumar   deposed   that   on  04.06.2011  he  was working at Dart Airways, Mayapuri  and was sitting on reception. Two persons came to book a  parcel   destined   to   Malaysia   in   the   name   of   S.K.  International.   He   issued   Airway   bill   for   the   same   and  demanded   identity   proof   of   the   consignor.   The   persons  told him that they were not having any identity proof and  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 26/67 that they would return with the same within 1 ½ hour.  He waited for around 2 ½ hours but said persons did not  turn up. So he did not forward the parcel and held the  same.   After   3­4   days   on   08.06.2011   some   officials  from  NCB handed over to him a summon Ex.PW1/U. He went  to NCB office and tendered his statement Ex.PW1/B u/s  67 NDPS Act and stated that two persons came to book  the   questioned   parcel.   One   of   the   persons   was   calling  another as Rafiq bhai. He identified the photograph Mark  X of the said Rafiq Bhai before the NCB official. Relevant  part of his cross­examination would be also discussed in  later part of the judgment.

23.  PW­14 is retired constable Narender Kumar, as per  his testimony, on 22.03.2011, on directions of IO Sh. S.K.  Sharma he took a sealed sample Mark A1 to CRCL and  delivered the same to PW­2 who was working as Incharge  Narcotics   Cell,   CRCL.     On   06.06.2011   on   asking   of   IO  Rajesh   Kumar,   he   also   participated,   as   a   member   of  raiding team in proceedings of search and seizure as well  as arrest of accused Rafiq Shaikh from Millennium Hotel,  Paharganj. He stated   that IO Rajesh Kumar recovered  two cards and a driving license from personal search of  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 27/67 accused Rafiq. Accused was given summons to come and  give his statement at NCB office. 

24.  PW­15   Inspector   Rajesh   Kumar,   as   per   his  statement, was posted as Intelligence Officer in NCB on  06.06.2011.   He   deposed   that   on   that   day   the   then  Superintendent   Sh.   Y.R.   Yadav   issued   search  authorization Ex.PW14/1 in his favour to search room no.  107,  Hotel  Millennium Paharganj, where accused Rafiq  Shaikh   was   staying.   He   proved   photocopy   of   the   guest  register maintained at Millennium Hotel as Mark P15/A  containing   the   relevant   entry   of   accused   at   Mark   X,  notice   issued   to   accused   Rafiq   u/s   50   NDPS   Act   as  Ex.PW15/1,   Seizure   Memo   and   the   articles   recovered  during search as Ex.PW15/2, Ex.PW15/2A, Ex.PW15/2B,  Ex.PW15/2C, Ex.PW15/2D. He further deposed that   on  06.06.2011   itself   he   recorded   statements   of   Sh.   Vijay  Srivastava Ex.PW15/B and Ramesh Chhabra Ex.PW9/B,  both   employees   of   Millennium   Hotel   qua   witnessing  search and seizure at the said hotel.

25.  PW­16   Sh.   Arun   Tyagi,   as  per   his  deposition   was  working with M/s Dart Air services, Mayapuri. He also  witnessed the search and seizure proceedings at Dartair  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 28/67 services   on   08.06.2011,   which   led   to   seizure   of   1   kg   of  Ephedrine/Ketamine. He gave his statement Ex.PW1/X to  the NCB officials.

26.  PW­17 deposed that he was posted in NCB in the  year 2009­10 and was Malkhana Incharge in NCB DZU  on 21.03.2011. As per entry no. 292 dated 21.03.2011 in  Malkhana   register,   IO   Ms.   Mehak   Jain   deposited   the  case   property   with   him   in   sealed   condition.   On  22.03.2011   he   handed   over   sample   A1   along   with   test  memo in duplicate to Superintendent Y.R. Yadav through  sepoy Narender Kumar. On 08.06.2011 remnant sample  A1 along with test report form was received back by him  through Superintendent Y.R. Yadav, which was deposited  back   by   him   in   Malkhana.   The   report   Ex.PW2/B   from  CRCL was handed over to IO of the case. On 08.06.2011  IO   Mehak   Jain   deposited   with   him   the   case   property  seized from Dartair Services. On 09.06.2011, he handed  over   samples   of   the   same   to   Sh.   Y.R.   Yadav,  Superintendent  for sending the same to CRCL through  PW­11   driver   Malkeet   Singh.   The   report   from   CRCL  along   with   remnant   sample   was   received   back   by   him  and was handed over to IO. He further deposed that on  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 29/67 14.07.2011   he   also   conducted   jamatalashi   of   accused  Nitesh Patel vide Ex.PW1/Z6.

27.  PW­18 Sh. Musahid Ali stated that in the year 2011  he was working in a courier company M/s Nisha Cargo at  Patllam,   Chennai.   Accused   Rafiq   used   to   send  consignment   from   Mumbai.   Accused   Rafiq   asked   him  telephonically   to   hand   over  one  particular   consignment  containing   a   fiber bag  to  one Qasim  Bhai.  Qasim  Bhai  asked   him   to   send   the   said   parcel   to   Ahmedabad.   He  refused to do the same. Then accused Rafiq telephoned  him and requested him to send the parcel to Ahmedabad.  He   booked   the   said   parcel   and   send   the   same   to  Ahmedabad. Thereafter, he was informed in Chennai by  officers   of   NCB   to   make   his   statement   in   Delhi.   His  statement   recorded   before   the   NCB   officials   is  Ex.PW1/Z8.   This   witness   was   cross­examined   at   the  request of learned SPP as he was partly resiling from his  previous   statement.   In   his   cross­examination   he   stated  that he did not receive summon at Chennai and received  the   summon   Ex.PW1/Z2   from   NCB   office   at   Delhi.   He  further stated that NCB officials had shown him the copy  of   performa   invoice,   airway   bill   and   manifest   report  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 30/67 which  he  identified   as the documents received by him  with the consignment handed over by Qasim Bhai to him.  He also stated that he identified accused Rafiq from his  photograph shown to him and put his cross signature on  the photograph. He identified accused Rafiq in court also.  In his cross­examination by learned counsel for accused  he stated that he used to receive cargoes from different  courier companies. He did not used to raise any bills upon  the   courier   companies   from   which   he   used   to   receive  cargoes for further distribution. He had not maintained  any record about receipt of cargo or its distribution. He  also stated that he put his signatures on Ex.PW1/B1 i.e.  the performa invoice without going through the contents  of   the   same.     He   had   no   idea   whether   PW1/B2   i.e.  manifest report was prepared at Mumbai, Chennai or at  Ahmedabad.   He  deposed   that   he  put   his   signatures  on  the same when it was shown to him during his statement  in NCB office and he was told by NCB officials that this  document Ex.PW1/B2 was related to the consignment in  question   and   he  was not  aware  of   the contents of  that  document. 

28.  PW­19   Sh.   Vijay   Shanker   @   Vijay   Srivastav   was  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 31/67 also employee of Millennium Hotel from where accused  Rafiq   was   arrested   on   06.06.2011.   He   testified   that   on  06.06.2011   at   around   4   pm   NCB   officials   came   at   his  hotel   when   he   was   working   as   Manager   at   Reception.  NCB officials asked him to become independent witness  of   search   of   accused   Rafiq   and   his   room.   At   that   time  accused   Rafiq   was   not   in   the   hotel.   NCB   officials  searched   for   him.   When   Rafiq   came   in   the   hotel   he  signaled NCB officials. Rafiq went outside the hotel. NCB  officials followed him. Thereafter NCB officials came back  along with accused Rafiq. Thereafter room of Rafiq was  checked.     Learned   SPP   cross­examined   this   witness  submitting  that  he was resiling from his statement. In  cross­examination he denied that NCB officials disclosed  their purpose of visit to the hotel. He further denied that  Rafiq came to the reception of the hotel at around 17:10  hours and asked for the key of his room. He volunteered  that   by   that   time   Rafiq   was   already   apprehended.   He  denied that NCB officials gave their introduction to Rafiq  and also informed him about their purpose of visit and  thereafter asked Rafiq to disclose his identity. He further  denied the suggestion that search authorization warrant  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 32/67 for search of accused Rafiq and his room was shown to  him and accused Rafiq. He further denied that one of the  NCB official gave notice u/s 50 NDPS Act to the accused  and informed him about his legal right that his search  can   be   made   in   the   presence   of   Gazetted   officer   or  Magistrate. He further denied that accused Rafiq made  endorsement on the said notice stating that he does not  want the presence of Magistrate or a Gazetted officer and  that NCB officials can take his search. He identified his  signatures   on   Ex.PW14/1   i.e.   authorization   of   search  under   sub­section   2   of   section  41   NDPS   Act   issued   in  favour of IO Rajesh Kumar and Ex.PW15/1 notice u/s 50  NDPS Act given to accused Rafiq. He admitted that IO  Rajesh   Kumar   collected   two   cards   of   bank   and   driving  license of Rafiq Ex.PW15/B to Ex.PW15/D. He admitted  making of his statement Ex.PW15/3 u/s 67 NDPS Act. He  denied that accused Rafiq was arrested by NCB officials  in his presence. In cross­examination by learned counsel  for accused he denied that the statement Ex.PW15/3 was  dictated to him by NCB officials.

29.  PW­20   Sh.   Y.R.   Yadav,   was   posted   as  Superintendent   NCB   DZU   on   21.03.2011.   He   deposed  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 33/67 that   PW­1   IO   Mehak   Jain,   put   a   secret   information  before him that one parcel was lying at Fedex which is  suspected   to  contain narcotic drugs. He directed  her to  constitute   a   team,   issued   seal   of   NCB   DZU   and   made  relevant   entry   at   seal   movement   register   exhibited   as  Ex.PW20/A with relevant entry at point X1. Lateron on  the   same   day   IO   Mehak  Jain   submitted  seizure   report  Ex.PW1/F u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of 2.4 kg of  Amphetamine.   On  25.03.2011 he received  a letter  from  Superintendent   Ahmedabad   regarding   verification   of  address of Ramesh Bhai along with visiting card of one  Sagar Iyer. On 29.03.2011 he wrote letter Ex.PW20/B to  Superintendent   Ahmedabad   sent   through  fax   receipt  Ex.PW20/C. On 05.04.2011 he received a detailed inquiry  report   Ex.PW6/C   from   Superintendent   Ahmedabad.   On  06.04.2011 he sent a letter Ex.PW20/D to Zonal Director,  Mumbai   for   verification   of   address   of   Rafiq   Shaikh  through fax with receipt Ex.PW20/E. In the said letter he  also requested to verify the antecedents of Rafiq Shaikh.  On 07.04.2011 he again sent  a letter Ex.PW20/F to Zonal  Director,   Mumbai   giving   details   of   seizure   of   2.4   kg   of  Amphetamine   through   fax.     On   06.06.2011   IO   Mehak  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 34/67 Jain   put   a   further   secret   information   Ex.PW1/I   before  him   about   availability   of   accused   Rafiq   Sheik   at   Hotel  Millennium.   He  issued search authorization  Ex.PW14/1  in favour of IO Rajesh Kumr and seal of NCB DZU and  made   relevant   entry   in   seal   movement   register  Ex.PW20/A.   IO   Rajesh   Kumar   submitted   his   report  Ex.PW15/4 at the back of search authorization and also  returned seal to him. On 07.06.2011 he received a report  Ex.PW2/B from CRCL of sample Mark A1 in respect of  Amphetamine.  He marked  the same to IO Mehak Jain  and remnant sample to IO Malkhana. On the same day  IO Mehak Jain also submitted report u/s 57 NDPS Act  regarding arrest of accused Rafiq Shaikh.  On 08.06.2011  IO Mehak Jain also submitted another secret information  about   the   parcel   lying   at   Dart   Air   Services.   He   again  directed   constitution   of   team   and   issued   search  authorization.   After   coming   back   from   the   said   courier  office IO Mehak Jain returned the seal to him and put  seizure report Ex.PW1/W of 1 kg of ephedrine. He sent  sample mark A1 along with test memo to CRCL through  driver PW­11 Malkeet Singh and collected  receipt after  the sample being deposited by him to CRCL. Thereafter  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 35/67 he received another report Ex.PW2/D along with remnant  samples from CRCL. On 01.07.2011, he wrote a letter to  Superintendent,   NCB   Chennai   through   fax   regarding  verification of address of S.K. International. He received  reply   from   the   Superintendent   Chennai,   on   05.07.2011  and   also   received   one   visiting   card   along   with   report.  Report is Ex.PW20/L and the visiting card is Ex.PW20/M.  Exhibition  of  these two documents by this witness was  objected to by learned counsel for accused.

30.  Statement   of   both   the   accused   persons   were  recorded separately u/s 313 Cr.PC and all incriminating  evidence was put to them. Both accused persons denied  all incriminating evidence. 

31.  Accused   Rafiq   Shaikh   stated   that   he   has   been  falsely   implicated   in   this   case   and   he   was   taken   away  from his hotel to the NCB office and was illegally kept  there and during his confinement he was forced to write a  dictated   statement   and   was   forced   to   sign   on   various  blank   papers,   semi   written   papers   and   written   papers  and his thumb impression was also obtained on various  papers  and that he had nothing to do with the alleged  booking of parcels and that no contraband was recovered  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 36/67 from him or at his instance.

32.  Accused Nitesh Patel stated that he has been falsely  implicated in the present case due to business rivalry and  his   statement   was   recorded   initially   by   NCB   officials  Ahmedabad and nothing incriminating was found against  him. They do not find his involvement in any transaction.  Thereafter he was called by NCB officials at Delhi, where  his family history was obtained and he was beaten up. He  was forced to write a dictated statement.   He retracted  the said statement by sending his retraction from jail.

33.  Accused   Nitesh   preferred   to   appear   as   defence  witness and was examined as DW­1. He stated that he  was in the courier business for the last about 15 years. In  the first week of April 2011, 4­5 officials came to his office  to inquire about some parcel. The said officer asked him  to   accompany   them   to   their   office   as   they   were  conducting some inquiry about some parcel. He replied to  them that he never dealt with said parcel. They inquired  about his family history. Officials took his statement. On  certain papers they wrote something and then obtained  his   signatures   on   the   same.   He   was   asked   about   his  family, his education and qualification. He was asked to  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 37/67 go back at about 9­10 pm. They called him on the next  day at their office. On that day also they made him write  on certain papers and obtained his signatures. Thereafter  he   was   never   called   by   NCB   Ahmedabad.   After   2­3  months he was again called at NCB Ahmedabad in the  month of July. They gave him summons and asked him to  go   to   Delhi   office,   where   he   was   supposed   to   give   his  statement   in   a   similar   manner.   When   his   earlier  statement   was   recorded   he   was   put   under   pressure   to  make the statement and he was told that he would be let  free.   Then   he   went   to   NCB   office   Delhi   on   14.07.2011  where he met IO Mehak Jain and 4­5 other officers. IO  Mehak   Jain   put   4­5   questions   about   consignment   to  which   he   replied   that   he   did   not  know  anything   about  consignment.   Thereafter   he   was   pressurized   and   was  asked to write a statement as dictated by NCB officials.  Thereafter he was allowed to go to Ahmedabad. He was  arrested   and   sent   to   jail   from   where   he   sent   the  complaint   through   Munshi   of   his   jail   ward.   The   said  complaint is the application for retraction Ex.DW1/A.

34.  In his cross­examination by learned SPP for NCB,  he   stated   that   NCB   Ahmedabad   did   not   give   him   any  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 38/67 summons   u/s   57   NDPS   Act.   He   also   stated   that   NCB  officer   at   Ahmedabad   had   explained   him   the   effect   of  section 67 of NDPS Act and also informed him that he  had to say truth and had a right to remain silent. He was  shown his statement Ex.PW7/A written before the NCB  Ahmedabad.   He   admitted   his   signatures   upon   the  statement   Ex.PW7/A   written   before   NCB   Ahmedabad  but   volunteered   that   first   page   of   the   statement   was  written   by   him   whereas   the   remaining   pages   were  written   by   NCB   official   and   that   he   do   not   know   the  contents   of   other   pages   of   statement   Ex.PW7/A.   He  admitted that in his statement from page no. 2 to 11 of  Ex.PW7/A, NCB officers wrote the questions, asked the  said questions to him and he gave answers which were  recorded by him.   He again said in the next breath that  he do not know if the answers which were given by him  were infact recorded by NCB officials or not as he was  made   to   sign   without   telling   the   contents   and   without  giving  him the opportunity to go through the contents of  the same. He denied that he requested the NCB officer to  write his statement on 04.04.2011. 

35.  In   his   further cross­examination  on  15.03.2017 he  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 39/67 stated that he did not know PW­8 Sagar Iyer that he is  running a courier company under the name and style of  Indo Express Courier Service and he further denied that  he   sent   about   26   courier   parcels   to   Malaysia   through  Sagar   Iyer.   He   denied   the   suggestion   that   IO   did   not  dictated   the   statement   to   him   and   further   denied   that  before   recording   his   statement   u/s   67   NDPS   Act,   IO  Mehak   Jain   stated   that   said   statement   can   be   used  against him and any other person in the court of law or  that he was not bound to give any statement. He denied  that   during   his   statement   PW­8   Sagar   Iyer   was   also  present at NCB Office. He stated that he came to know  about   Rafiq   Shaikh   only  when  he was produced  in  the  court. He denied that Rafiq Shaikh used to telephonically  inform/SMS   him   about   the   taking   of   consignment   by  giving the name of consignor and consignee.

36.  Detail arguments were advanced by learned counsel  for   the   parties.   Both   the   parties   have   also   filed   their  respective written submissions.

37.  The   court   has   considered   arguments   advanced   by  counsel   for   parties   and   have   also   gone   through   the  written submissions, evidence and material available on  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 40/67 record.

38.  POINTS   FOR   DETERMINATION   U/S   354   (1) 

(b) Cr.PC.:­    From the arguments of learned counsels for parties,  following points for determination emerge :­

1.      Whether   the   prosecution   is   able   to   prove   link  evidence   to  prove   conspiracy   between   both   the   accused  persons for first charge    related to recovery of 2.4 kg of  Amphetamine from Fedex Express Services, Mayapuri?

2.  Whether either of accused is guilty for  any offence  related to aforesaid recovery of  Amphetamine?

3.  Whether the prosecution is able to prove the link of  accused Rafique qua recovery of 1 kg of Ketamine seized  in the parcel lying at  Dart Air Services.

39.  Learned Sh. Saxena, argued on behalf of both the  accused persons that both the parcels, one recovered from  Fedex   Express   Services   India   Pvt   Ltd,   and   another  recovered from Dart Air Services Pvt Ltd, Mayapuri were  unclaimed parcels. The prosecution has miserably failed  to   prove   link   evidence   to  connect   either   of   the   accused  with   these   recoveries.   He   has   submitted   that   chain   of  circumstances is not complete and that accused persons  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 41/67 cannot be convicted on the basis of retracted statements  recorded   by   Intelligence   Officers   u/s   67   NDPS   Act.   He  has submitted that there are major contradictions in the  testimony   of   different   prosecution   witnesses   and   cross­ examination   of   the   witnesses   reveals   that   no   fair  investigation was conducted.

40.  Per contra learned Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, SPP for  NCB has submitted that prosecution is able to prove its  case beyond reasonable doubt and both accused persons  are liable to be convicted for the charges framed against  them.

41.  Since two sets of charges have been framed it would  be proper to analyise the prosecution evidence separately  for each charge. 

  Charge   qua   recovery   of   2.4   kg   of  Amphetamine   on   21.03.2011   from   the   office   of  Fedex Express Service, Mayapuri, New Delhi.

42.  It is submitted by learned Sh. Saxena that as per  prosecution case parcel in question was sent by accused  Rafiq Shaikh to Chennai to one Musahid Ali who in turn  handed   over   the   same   to   one   Kasim   Bhai   as   per   the  instruction   of   Rafiq   Shaikh   and   that   said   Kasim   Bhai  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 42/67 took   the   parcel   and   thereafter   in   the   gap   of   3/4   hours  returned the parcel to Musahid Ali, who booked the same  through   POBC,   Chennai  to   POBC  Ahmedabad.  He  has  further   submitted   that   in   Ahmedabad,   the   said   parcel  was  collected  by accused Nitesh Amrut Bhai Patel and  thereafter the same was handed over to Mr. Sagar Iyer of  M/s   Indo   Express   Courier   Service.   Mr.   Sagar   Iyer  prepared the proforma invoice and signed the same and  handed over the parcel to the office of Fedex Express on  24.02.2011 at Ahmedabad from where parcel in question  reached   the   office   of   Fedex   Express,   Mayapuri   from  where   the   same   was   seized   by   NCB   officials   on  21.03.2011.

43.  Sh.   Saxena   argued   that   prosecution   did   not   seize  any   documents   from   the   office   of   Musahid   Ali,   POBC  Chennai   and   POBC   Ahmedabad   about   the   alleged  booking/receipt of parcel in question. He referred to the  examination of PW­18 Musahid Ali submitting that   as  per   his   testimony   this   witness   was   in   contact   with  accused Rafiq through telephone but no call detail record  or SMSs of this witness or of accused Rafiq Shaikh have  been produced to reflect any telephonic contact between  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 43/67 the   two.   He   has   also   submitted   that   this   witness   was  incompetent to prove the Airway bill allegedly recovered  from   Fedex   Express   Mayapuri   as   the   same   was   not  signed or booked by him. He also stated that the witness  was   not   even   properly   served   notice   u/s   67   NDPS   Act  Ex.PW1/Z2   as   in   his   cross­examination   he   stated   "  I   cannot tell as to what is written in Ex.PW1/Z2 since it is   in   English   language".  He   has   also   submitted   that   no  document   was   collected   by   IO   from   Chennai   to  corroborate   that   any   parcel   was   booked   by   PW­18  Musahid Ali at the instance of accused Rafiq.

44.  He also argued that apart from statement of Sagar  Iyer, there is no other material to connect accused Nitesh  Amrat Bhai Patel with the alleged parcel. He submitted  that Sagar Iyer was himself a suspect. He is signatory to  the   performa   invoice,   through   which   the   alleged   parcel  was booked. In his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act he had  given mobile number of accused Nitesh Amrat Bhai Patel  but   no   call   detail   record   was   collected.   He   further  referred the cross­examination of PW­1 Ms. Mehak Jain  where she stated "Musahid Ali informed me that he was   talking  to   Rafiq   Shaikh  on  phone."    and "In  the report   NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 44/67 submitted by Ahmedabad Zonal Unit it was stated that   messages were exchanged through SMS between accused   no. 1 and 2. I myself did not make any effort to retrieve   the   SMS   messages.   Accused   Nitesh   Patel   might   be   receiving those messages on his mobile but no efforts were   made   to   obtain   the   call   details   records   of   his   mobile.   Same is my answer in respect of Sagar Iyer." 

45.  He   submitted   that   two   statements   of   Sagar   Iyer  were recorded, one on 04.04.2011 and other on 11.07.2011  and there are improvements in both the statements. He  submitted that Sagar Iyer was himself in the business of  courier   service   and   stated   that   accused   Nitesh   handed  over more than 20 parcels to  him but did not provide his  identity   document   stating   that   he   was   in   a   hurry.   He  argued   that   it   cannot   be   believed   that   on   all   those  occasions PW­8 Sagar Iyer accepted the parcels without  identification   documents   and   without   signatures   of  accused   and   instead   signed   himself   on   his   behalf   .   He  referred   to   cross­examination   of   PW­8   Sagar   Iyer  recorded on 13.02.2014 at page no. 3­4 where he stated "I   used   to  maintain   computerized  data   with   respect  to  all   parcel   booked   by  me  and  I did maintain  the  said  data   NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 45/67 even for parcels booked by Nitesh Patel. Vol. I had sent   him emails also confirming the sending of parcel booked   by him. I did not give a copy of said data to NCB officials,   nor mentioned about the same in my statement given to   NCB.  Vol.  I do  have the said data  and  I have brought   photocopy   thereof   today   in   court.   The   same   is   marked   PW8/DA (colly). The parcels that were booked by Nitesh   Patel,   were   always   booked   in   the   name   of   one   Ramesh   Bhai. On court query. I used to agree to book the parcels   in the name of Ramesh Bhai because Nitesh was known to   me as he had worked with me in courier company AFL in   the year 2001 to 2003." 

46.  He has submitted that adverse inference should be  drawn against the prosecution for not collecting relevant  documents and the court should presume that had these  documents   been   collected   during   investigation   same  would   have   gone   against   the   prosecution   case.   He   also  argued that no reliance can be placed on Mark PW8/DA  (colly) because no certificate u/s 65B Indian Evidence Act  was   filed.  He   further   argued   that   no   document   was  collected   during   investigation   through   which   accused  Nitesh   collected  parcel  from POBC    Ahmedabad  for its  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 46/67 further delivery to PW­8 Sagar Iyer.

47.  He   has   further   argued   that   first   statement   of  accused   Nitesh   Patel   was   recorded   on   04.04.2011   itself  but no investigation and inquiry was conducted pursuant  to said statement. Parcel  in question started its journey  from   Ahmedabad   on   24.02.2011   and   was   seized   on  21.03.2011. In between parcel exchanged various hands,  prosecution has failed to prove that in between there was  no possibility of tampering with the same and that how  the   parcel,   complete   in   all   respect,   did   not   reach   its  destination for such a long time, when ordinarily it takes  10­12 days only to reach its destination.

48.  Counsel for accused persons has submitted that the  persons   who   have   physically   handled   the   parcels   have  been made witness. On the other hand on similar facts  without   any   recovery   of   contraband   material   or  documents from accused, they have been prosecuted.  He  has  also argued that statement  recorded  by IOs u/s 67  NDPS   Act   cannot   be   used   u/s   10   or   30   of   the   Indian  Evidence   Act   against   accused   persons   and   both   the  accused   have   retracted   their   statements   at   the   first  available opportunity. He relied upon the judgments in  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 47/67 the case of DRI Vs Raj Kumar Mehta and ors 2011 (3)  JCC Narcotics 156 ;  Union of India Vs Balmukund  2009   (2)   Crimes   171   SC  and  NCB   Vs   Aziz   Ahmed  2010 (1) JCC (Narcotics) 6.

49.  He   also   submitted   that   neither   PW­1   Ms.   Mehak  Jain informed the accused persons about their rights to  remain silent and not to make confessional statement as  was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  D.K.  Basu Vs State of West Bengal AIR 1997 SC 610  nor  PW­1 sated that the confessional statement was taken on  oath   as   held   by   Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Shivakaram   Payaswami   Vs   State   of   Maharashtra  JT 2009 (1) SC 625.

50.  He also submitted that statements u/s 67 NDPS Act  are recorded under doubtful circumstances and cannot be  relied upon. Two statements u/s 67 NDPS Act of PW­8  Sagar   Iyer   were   recorded   on   04.04.2011   at   NCB  Ahmedabad and on 11.07.2011 at NCB Delhi. Similarly,  two statements u/s 67 NDPS Act of accused Nitesh Patel  were recorded on 04.04.2011 at NCB Ahmedabad and on  14.07.2011   at   NCB   Delhi.   At   the   time   of   recording   of  statement of accused Nitesh Patel on 14.07.2011, PW­8  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 48/67 Sagar Iyer was also present. He has argued that presence  of Sagar Iyer on 14.07.2011 at NCB office is not normal  as   he   is   resident   of   Ahmedabad   and   his   statement  already   got   recorded   on   11.07.2011   and   there   was   no  purpose of his stay at NCB office till 14.07.2011. He also  argued that that photograph of accused Nitesh Patel from  PW­8   Sagar   Iyer   was   identified   under   suspicious  circumstances as it has not come on record  as to how IO  procured the said photograph. It has further not come on  record   that   the   said   photograph   was   mixed   with   other  photograph.   He   has   led   same   arguments   qua  identification of photographs of accused Rafiq Shaikh by  PW­18   Musahid  Ali  in  his  statement  u/s 67 NDPS  Act  recorded on 19.07.2011.

51.  Court has considered arguments advanced by both  the learned counsels for parties.

52.  Court   is   in   agreement   with   the   submissions   of  learned   SPP   that   so   far   as   the   recovery   of   2.4   kg   of  Amphetamine   in   a   parcel   vide   Airway   bill   no.  466420580086,   seized   on   21.03.2011   at   Fedex   Express  Services, C­152 Mayapuri, Industrial Area is concerned,  there   is   sufficient   material   on   record   to   connect   both  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 49/67 accused persons. 

53.  It   is   rightly   submitted   by   learned   Sh.   Rajesh  Manchanda,   SPP   that  the  statement  of  accused  Nitesh  Patel   recorded   by   NCB   AZU,   Ahmedabad   was   never  retracted by him and the same can be considered on its  face value.

54.  In his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.PC, in reply to  question   no.   13   accused   Nitesh   Patel   stated   "My   statement was recorded by NCB officials at Ahmedabad   and they found that I was not involved in any transaction   and as such I was not arrested."  In reply to question no.  52 he again stated "My statement was recorded initially   by   NCB   Officials   at   Ahmedabad   and   nothing   incriminating was found against me. They did not find   any involvement of mine in the transaction and as such I   was not arrested by them. Thereafter I was called by NCB   officials of Delhi. I went to their office where I was kept in   their   office.   My   family   history   was   obtained   and   I   was   beaten.   I   was   forced   to   write   a   dictated   statement.   I   retracted   the   said   statement   by   sending   my   retraction   application  from the jail. I am having photocopy of the   same and I am tendering the same. The same is Mark AB.  

NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 50/67 I do not know accused Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh.". 

55.  It is therefore clear that accused Nitesh Patel has  not alleged that his statement by NCB AZU (Ahmedabad)  was obtained by force or coercion or under some threat.  In the said statement Ex.PW7/A, accused Nitesh qua the  parcel     booked   vide   performa   invoice   dated   24.02.2011,  categorically stated that the said parcel was given by him  on   24.02.2011   to   Indo   Express   Courier   for   further  dispatch   to   Malaysia   and   that   the   said   parcel   was  received by him on the directions of one Mr. Rafiq Shaikh  of Mumbai through Patel On Board Courier (POBC) and  that   Rafiq   Shaikh   runs   a   domestic   and   international  courier in the name of M.R. Express with the address K­ 104,   Hanjar   Nagar,   Opposite   Aghodi   Nagar,   Pump  House, Andheri East and that Rafiq Shaikh is a Vadodra  based Gujrati person but runs his business at Mumbai,  and that the said parcel was dispatched from Chennai on  23.02.2011   by   Konnection   Express   Courier   and   Cargo,  Royal   Villa,   Chennai   from   POBC   Chennai   to   POBC  Ahmedabad,   and   that   the   details   of   Mr.   Ramesh   Bhai  were given to him by Rafiq Shaikh on phone, and that he  was directed by  Rafiq Shaikh to receive the parcel and to  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 51/67 further   dispatch   the   same   to   Malaysia   through   Indo  Express, and that to his knowledge Rafiq had no direct  contact with Mr. Sagar Iyer (PW­8) of Indo Express, and  that he himself had direct contact with Mr. Sagar Iyer of  Indo Express, and that he had received the parcels in the  name of Mr. Ramesh Bhai from Chennai 26 times as per  directions   of   Mr.   Rafiq   Shaikh   for   further   dispatch   to  Malaysia, and that he was submitting the xerox copy of  some   airway   bills   which   were   booked   in   the   name   of  Ramesh   Bhai   for   further   dispatch   to   Malaysia.   Along  with   his   said   statement   he   purportedly   submitted   a  number of performa invoices in the name of Ramesh Bhai  as   consignor/shipper   with   different   consignees   at  Malaysia. 

56.  It   is   important   to   mention   here   that   by   the   time  first   statement   of   accused   Nitesh   Patel   was   being  recorded on 04.04.2011, accused Rafiq Shaikh was not in  picture   and   his   name   was   taken   for   the   first   time   by  accused Nitesh Patel in his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act  Ex.PW7/A   while   admitting   that   the   questioned   parcel  booked in the name of Ramesh Bhai, was given by him to  Sagar Iyer of Indo Express. He provided correct address  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 52/67 and   particulars   of   accused   Rafiq   Shaikh   when   Rafiq's  name did not surface anytime prior in the inquiry.

57.  This   statement Ex.PW7/A of accused Nitesh Patel  was   corroborated   by the  statement  of  PW­8  Sagar Iyer  Subramanium. 

58.  It is rightly submitted by learned SPP that in view  of   un­retracted   statement   of   accused   Nitesh   Patel  recorded   by   NCB,   Ahmedabad   on   04.04.2011,  corroborated by statement of Sagar Iyer Subramanium,  there   is   sufficient   material   to   connect   both   accused  persons   with   the   questioned   parcel   in   the   name   of  Ramesh Bhai. Non conduct of further investigation by the  IOs in the form of collecting documents from Konnection  Express   Courier   or   POBC   Chennai   or   non­collection   of  call   detail   records   of     both   accused   or   non­retrieving  SMSs   exchanged   between   them,   do   not   reduce   the  evidentiary value of the voluntary statement of accused  Nitesh. 

59.  Mr. Sagar Iyer appeared in the court as PW­8 and  deposed   on   the   lines   of   his   statement   recorded   u/s   67  NDPS. No material contradiction is seen in his testimony  recorded   in   court   or   in   his   cross­examination.   He  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 53/67 identified accused Nitesh Patel.

60.  It is further rightly submitted by learned SPP that  the   subsequent   statement   of   accused   Nitesh   Patel  recorded   u/s   67   NDPS   by   NCB   DZU   Ex.PW1/Z4   is   in  furtherance of his earlier statement Ex.PW7/A. Learned  SPP   has   further   rightly   submitted   that   at   the   time   of  recording of second statement also,  accused Nitesh Patel  was  not in custody as he was not arrested till then. It is  admitted by accused Nitesh that he was called by NCB  DZU   by   serving   summons   u/s   67   NDPS   Act   vide  Ex.PW1/Z.   Till   the   recording   of   his   statement   dated  14.07.2011, he was not an accused in the case and was  not   in   custody.   Hence,   the   judgment   relied   upon   by  learned   counsel   for   defence   in   the   case   of  Harpreet  Singh Bahad Vs DRI, Bail Application no.2211/2008  decided   on   23.09.2009  and    D.K.   Basu   Vs   State   of  West   Bengal   AIR   1997   SC   610,   are   not   applicable  because   no   custodial   interrogation   of   accused   Nitesh  Patel was conducted by NCB officials.

61.  The statements of accused Nitesh Patel and PW­8  Sagar   Iyer   are   further   corroborated   by   statement  Ex.PW1/ZA of PW­18 Musahid Ali, who also stated that  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 54/67 on telephonic instructions of accused   Rafiq Shaikh, he  booked the questioned parcel without any knowledge that  it   was   containing   Ketamine/Amphetamine   through  Konnection Express Courier and that he was not knowing  accused   Nitesh   Patel   but     Rafiq   Shaikh   had   intimated  him that one Nitesh Patel would collect the said parcel  from Patel Courier. He also identified the photograph of  accused  Rafiq Shaikh by crossing his signatures over the  same.

62.  As already stated Mr. Musahid Ali was examined as  PW­18.   In   his   testimony   before   the   court   he   admitted  recording   of   his   statement   Ex.PW1/Z8   after   service   of  summons   Ex.PW1/Z2.   He   also   admitted   that   he   was  explained by NCB officials that he had to say truth and  that   his   statement   can   be   used   against   anyone   in   the  court of law.  Even if no further documents were collected  after   his   statement   and   no   other   investigation   was  conducted, it cannot be said that the prosecution  failed to  establish   the   link   of   both   accused   persons   with   the  questioned parcel recovered from Fedex Express Services  because the accused had already admitted the booking of  said parcel in his voluntary statement given before NCB  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 55/67 Ahmedabad, which has not been retraced till date. 

63.  Hence, connection of both the accused persons with  the  parcel  recovered vide airway bill no. 466420580086  from Fedex Express Service on 21.03.2011 is established  beyond reasonable doubt.

64.  Now   coming   to   the   knowledge   of   accused   persons  about   the   parcel   containing   contraband   substance  Amphetamine,   it   is   rightly   submitted   by   learned   SPP  that   had   there   been   nothing   illegal   in   the   export   or  transit   of   the   said   parcel,   there   was   no   reason   with  accused   Rafiq   or   accused   Nitesh   to   book   the   same   on  fictitious name and address. 

65.  In   response   to   submissions   of   learned   defence  counsel that the parcel has changed many hands and no  inference that the contraband were put in the parcel by  either of accused can be drawn and that both accused are  entitled for benefit of doubt, learned SPP has relied upon  the landmark judgment of Iqbal Moosa Patel Vs State  of Gujrat (2011) 2 SCC 198, wherein the Hon'ble Apex  Court held as under:­   That   degree   is   well   settled.   It   need   not   reach   certainty,   but   it   must   carry   a   hight degree of probability. Proof beyond   NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 56/67 reasonable   doubt   does   not   mean   proof   beyond   a   shadow   of   a   doubt.   The   law   would fail to protect the community if it   permitted   fanciful   possibilities   to   deflect   the course of justice. If the evidence is so   strong against a man  as to leave only a   remote possibility in his favour which can   be dismissed with sentence of course, it is   possible but not in the least probable, the   case   is   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt   .......

  It   is   true   that   under   our   existing   jurisprudence   in   a   criminal   matter,   we   have   to   proceed   with   presumption   of   innocence,   but   at   the   same   time,   that   presumption is to be judged on the basis of   conceptions of a reasonable prudent man.   Smelling   doubts   for   the   sake   of   giving   benefit of doubt is not the law of the land.

66.   In the case of Sucha Singh and Anr. Vs State of  Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643, it was held by Hon'ble Apex  court :­   ...... Exaggerated  devotion to the rule   of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful   doubts   or   lingering   suspicion   and   thereby   destroy   social   defence.   Justice   cannot   be   made sterile on the plea that it is better to   let a hundred guilty escape than punish an   innocent.   Letting   the   guilty   escape   is   not   NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 57/67 doing   justice   according   to   law.   (See   Gurbachan   Singh   V.   Satpal   Singh   AIR   1990 SC 209). Prosecution is not required to   meet any and every hypothesis put forward   by the accused. A reasonable doubt is not an   imaginary, trivial or merely possible doubt,   but   a   fair   doubt   based   upon   reason   and   commonsense.   It   must   grow   out   of   the   evidence   in   the   case.   If   a   case   is   proved   perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a   case   has   some   flaws   inevitable   because   human beings are prone to err, it is argued   that   it   is   too   imperfect.   One   wonders   whether   in   the   meticulous   hypersensitivity   to   eliminate   a   rare   innocent   from   being   punished,   many   guilty   persons   must   be   allowed   to   escape.   Prof   beyond   reasonable   doubt is a guideline, not a fetish.

67.  From   the   facts   and   circumstances   it   is   rightly  submitted by learned SPP that the retraction of accused  Nitesh Patel from his statement dated 14.07.2011 u/s 67  NDPS   Act   Ex.PW1/Z4   appears   an   after   thought.   As  already   observed   by   the   time   of   recording   of   this  statement, accused was not arrested, he was not under  custody, his statement was already recorded once by NCB  Ahmedabad. The argument advanced by learned defence  counsel   that   accused   Nitesh   Patel   was   not   arrested   by  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 58/67 NCB   officials   at   Ahmedabad   because   nothing  incriminating   was   found   against   him   is   immaterial   as  NCB AZU was asked to do limited job by NCB Delhi, who  was already seized with the inquiry/investigation of the  case.  It has to be kept in mind that the inquiry in which  statement of accused Nitesh Patel and Sagar Iyer were  recorded by NCB Ahmedabad was conducted pursuant to  the letter dated 29.03.2011 Ex.PW20/B written by NCB  Delhi to NCB Ahmedabad to  "Arrange to find from Mr.   Sagar   Iyer   about   the   shipment   and   shipper   of   the   concerned parcel."   Hence, no question qua the conttents  inside   the   parcel   could   have   been   put   by   NCB  Ahmedabad. 

68.   But in further inquiry second statement of accused  Nitesh   Patel   was   recorded   on   14.07.2011   by   DZU   in  which he deposed in furtherance of his earlier statement  and categorically admitted his conscious involvement as  well   as   involvement   of   accused   Rafiq   in   an   attempt   to  export the contraband Amphetamine to Malaysia. He also  identified   accused     Rafiq   Shaikh   by   cross   signing   his  photograph. There is no record that this statement was  retracted   at   earliest   opportunity   as   argued   by   learned  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 59/67 defence   counsel.   The   photocopy   of   retraction   statement  was forwarded by accused during his statement u/s 313  Cr.PC.     Even   if     it   is   considered   that   application   for  retraction was made from jail, as argued by defence, the  same   appears   to   be   an   after   thought   in   the   facts   and  circumstances of the case. The court is not supposed to  discredit   the   statements   recorded   u/s   67   NDPS,  involuntary,   because   vague   allegations   of   torture   have  been made by accused. Reliance in this respect is placed  upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prabhu  Dayal Vs Director of Revenue Intelligence 2003 Crl. 

L.J 4996 SC. 

69.  In the facts and circumstances of the case both the  statements   of   accused   Nitesh   Patel   appear   to   be  voluntary. They are further corroborated by statement of  independent witnesses i.e. PW­8 Sagar Iyer and PW­18  Musahid Ali. 

70.  Hence, court is of the opinion that prosecution has  successfully proved that both accused conspired together  for   export   of   2.4   kg   of   psychotropic   substance  Amphetamine   in   a   parcel   vide   airway   bill   no.  466420580086   seized   on   21.03.2011   at   16:04   hours   at  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 60/67 Fedex   Exprss   Services   India   Pvt   Ltd,   C­152,   Mayapuri  Industrial   Area,   Phase­II   and   thereby   both   of   them  contravened the provisions of section 8 (c) of NDPS Act  and committed offences punishable u/s 23 r/w section 29  of NDPS Act. 

    Charge qua recovery of 1 kg of Ketamine on  08.06.2011 from the office of  Dart Air Services Pvt  Ltd, Mayapuri, Phase­I, New Delhi.

71.  So far as this charge against accused  Rafiq Shaikh  is   concerned,   the   court   is   in   agreement   with   the  submissions of learned defence counsel that prosecution  has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of the  Act. 

72.  PW­1   IO   Mehak   Jain,   in   her   cross­examination  dated   17.01.2013,   interalia   stated   "On   08.06.2011,   I   received   the  secret  information   at  about  04.00  pm  from   my   secret   source.   In   the   secret   information   Ex.PW1/P,   almost   same   facts   were   disclosed   as   were   disclosed   by   Lokesh Rao in his statement recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act   by me  on  07.06.2011 except  in Ex.PW1/P there was an   information that the said parcel is suspected to contain   some contraband. I did not have any suspicion about the   NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 61/67 involvement of Rafiq Shaik and concealment of some drug   in   the   parcel   booked   on   04.06.2011   on   the   basis   of   statement of Lokesh Rao. I did not mention the time of   receipt of information on Ex.PW1/P".

73.  The court do not understand that when similar facts  were   disclosed   by   PW­10   Lokesh   Rao,   why   the  information   was   not   reduced   into   writing   u/s   41   (2)   of  NDPS   Act   and   why   PW­1   delayed   the   recording   of  information, and the subsequent search and seizure till  08.06.2011. PW­10 Lokesh Rao, as per his statement u/s  67 NDPS Act Ex.PW1/O, had already disclosed about the  questioned   parcel   lying   at   Dart   Air   Services   Mayapuri  but IO Mehak Jain did not record or put the same before  her superior officers for the reasons best known to her.  Hence,   the   story   of   secret   information   received   on  08.06.2011   at   4   pm,   as   put   forward   by   PW­1,   becomes  doubtful.

74.  In addition thereto no document whatsoever exists  linking accused   Rafiq Shaikh with the alleged recovery  from Dart Air Services. There is   even no admission in  the statement recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act of accused  Rafiq  Shaikh qua the parcel allegedly recovered from Dart Air  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 62/67 Services. Statement of PW­10 Lokesh Rao that he was an  employee   of     accused   Rafiq   Shaikh   and   he   went   along  with him for booking of that parcel and the statement of  PW­13 Rajesh Kumar that he was an employee of Dart  Air   Services   and   accused     Rafiq   Shaikh   along   with  another person visited the said Dart Air on 04.06.2011 for  booking   of   questioned   parcel   are   not   trustworthy   for  following reasons :

(I)   In his statement Ex.PW1/O recorded u/s 67 NDPS  Act this witness i.e. PW­10 Lokesh Rao stated that  Rafiq  Shaikh is the owner of M.R. Logistics, Paharganj and the  concerned article was booked by him, while this witness  accompanied him, but no document was collected by NCB  Delhi   qua   the   ownership   or   any   connection   of   accused  Rafiq Shaikh with said M.R. Logistics. Though from the  statement of witness, he appears to be incharge of that  local office and he stated that Rafiq Shaikh visited M.R.  Logistics only once in 2/3 months, no record, attendance  register, accounts detail etc. were collected to corroborate  his statement. No call detail record of witness was traced  that he was ever in contact with accused  Rafiq Shaikh. (II)  IO did not collect from this witness or from accused  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 63/67 Rafiq   Shaikh   any   receipt   or   copy   of   airway   bill   etc.   to  show that the parcel was booked by accused.   PW­1 IO  Mehak Jain stated in her cross­examination that she did  not recollect if there was any CCTV cameras installed at  reception   of   Dart   Air   Services   to   verify   presence   of  accused   Rafiq   on   04.06.2011.   In   her   cross­examination  she stated that the invoice of the questioned parcel was  also  seized   along  with   the packet   by her  but    the said  invoice   was   never   produced   before   the   court.   In   his  statement   recorded   u/s   67   NDPS   Act   accused     Rafiq  Shaikh   stated   that   M.R.   Logistics   was   owned   by   Mr.  Manoj   and   Lokesh   but   no  inquiry   about   the  same   was  conducted. Accused  Rafiq Shaikh did not state anything  about   the   questioned   parcel   in   his   statement.     Hence,  statement u/s 67 NDPS Act of PW­10 Lokesh Rao as well  his testimony before the court is not sufficient to convict  accused   Rafiq Shaikh in the facts and circumstances of  the case.

(III)  PW­13,   Rajesh   Kumar   employee   of   Dart   Air  Services though in his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act as well  as   in   his   examination   before   the   court   on   04.06.2011,  stated   that   two   persons   came   to   book   the   questioned  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 64/67 parcel and one of them was calling the other person as  Rafiq Bhai but he failed to admit or deny which of the  persons   had   signed   the   airway   bill.   He   even   failed   to  remember   that   the   name   of   other   person   was   Lokesh  Rao. Though he stated that he had filled airway bill on  04.06.2011   but   there   was   no   date   of   04.06.2011   on  questioned   airway   bill   Ex.PW1/Q1,   rather   underneath  the   signature   of   PW­13   the   date   was   mentioned   as  08.06.2011. Hence, there is a doubt whether the parcel  was   actually   booked   on   04.06.2011   or   08.06.2011.   It   is  important   to   mention   here   that   on   08.06.2011   accused  Rafiq   Shaikh   was   already   in   judicial   custody   after   his  arrest on 06.06.2011.

(IV)  PW­13 though deposed that he filled up the airway  bill but in his cross­examination he stated that accused  Rafiq   Shaikh   visited   his   office   for   the   first   time   on  04.06.2011   and   no   advance   was   received   in   respect   of  questioned   airway   bill   Ex.PW1/Q1.   This   statement   is  contrary   to   the   contents   of   the   document   Ex.PW1/Q1  which mentions "less advance Rs.500" at point F. He also  stated   in   his   cross­examination   that   accused     Rafiq  Shaikh   was   present   in   NCB   office   when   his   statement  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 65/67 was recorded though accused was already in jail by that  time. Hence, his uncorroborated testimony and statement  u/s   67   NDPS   Act   is   not   worth   reliance   to   prove   that  accused     Rafiq   Shaikh   visited   or   accompanied   witness  Lokesh Rao to book the questioned parcel. 

75.   There   is   no   other   material   brought   on   record   by  prosecution   to   connect   accused     Rafiq   Bhai   with   the  booking of questioned parcel. Hence, the prosecution has  failed to prove second set of charge against accused Rafiq  Shaikh qua recovery of 1 kg of Ketamine from a parcel  lying at Dart Air Services Pvt Ltd.

76.  In   view   of   the   aforesaid   discussion   of   court   the  prosecution   has   successfully   proved   that   both   accused  conspired   together   for   export   of   2.4   kg   of   psychotropic  substance Amphetamine in a parcel vide airway bill no.  466420580086   seized   on   21.03.2011   at   16:04   hours   at  Fedex   Exprss   Services   India   Pvt   Ltd,   C­152,   Mayapuri  Industrial   Area,   Phase­II,   both   accused   persons   are  accordingly   convicted   for   offence   punishable   u/s   23   r/w  section 29 of NDPS Act. 

77.  Accused   Rafiq   Shaikh   is   acquitted   from   another  charge u/s 23 NDPS Act qua recovery of 1 kg of Ketamine  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 66/67 from a parcel lying at Dart Air Services Pvt Ltd.

78.  Both   convicts     are   taken   into   custody.   Their  personal bond and surety bond are discharged. 

79.  Case   property   be   confiscated   to   State   and   be  destroyed as per law. 

80.  Both   convicts   be   heard   separately   on   the   point  of  sentence.

Announced in the open court on the 29th day of July, 2017    ( Ajay Pandey )                                     Addl. Sessions Judge ­04,         New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,                      New Delhi/29.07.2017 NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 67/67 IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY  ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 04  PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.

NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr.

ORDER ON SENTENCE 29.07.2017 Present:­ Sh. Rajesh Manchanda, learned SPP for NCB.

Both convicts in custody.

Sh. Yogesh Saxena, learned Advocate for convicts. Vide   my   separate   judgment   of   even   date,   both  convicts are  convicted for offence punishable u/s 23 r/w section  29 of NDPS Act   Arguments on the point of sentence heard.

It   is   submitted   by   learned   SPP   that   since   the  convicts     have   contravened   the   provision   of   section   8   (c)   of  NDPS   Act   and   committed   offences   punishable   u/s   23   r/w  section 29 of NDPS Act and the psychotropic substance dealt  by them was higher than the commercial quantity, they do not  deserve   any   leniency   and   they   should   be   imposed   the  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 68/67 maximum punishment.

On   the   other   hand   Sh.   Yogesh   Saxena,   learned  counsel for the convicts submitted that both the convicts are  poor persons and both have families and the family members  are dependent upon them for their livelihood. It is stated that  convicts   Rafiq   Ahmed   Shaikh   and   Nitesh   Patel   are   aged   48  and   37   years   respectively.   It   is   further   submitted   that   they  have no previous criminal antecedents and hence lenient view  may be taken by the court.

Dealing   with   the   issue   of   sentencing,   the   Hon'ble  Supreme   Court   in   case   titled   and   reported   as  Karamjeet  Singh Vs State (Delhi Admn.) (2001) 9 SCC 161 has made  the following observations:­  Punishment   in   criminal   cases   is   both   punitive   and   reformative.   The   purpose   is   that   the person found guilty of committing the offence   is made to realise his fault and is deterred from   repeating   such   acts   in   future.   The   reformative   aspect is meant to enable the person concerned   to   relent   and   repent   for   his   action   and   make   himself   acceptable   to   the   society   as   a   useful   social   being.   In   determining   the   question   of   proper punishment in a criminal case, the court   has   to   weigh   the   degree   of   culpability   of   the   NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 69/67 accused, its effect on others and the desirability   of   showing   any   leniency   in   the   matter   of   punishment in the case. An act of balancing is,   what   is   needed   in   such   a   case;   a   balance   between   the   interest   of   the   individual   and   the   concern of the society; weighing the one against   the other. Imposing a hard punishment on the   accused serves a limited purpose but at the same   time, it is to be kept in mind that relevance of   deterrent   punishment   in   matters   of   serious   crimes   affecting   society   should   not   be   undermined. Within the parameters of the law   an   attempt   has   to   be   made   to   afford   an   opportunity to the individual to reform himself   and lead the life of a normal, useful member of   society   and   make   his   contribution   in   that   regard.   Denying   such   opportunity   to   a   person   who has been found to have committed offence   in the facts and circumstances placed on record   would only have a hardening attitude towards   his fellow beings and towards society at large.   Such   a   situation,   has   to   be   avoided,   again   within the permissible limits of law.

In view of the fact that there is no previous criminal  antecedents of both the convicts and the fact that they have  family members who are dependent upon them, they deserve  lenient view to be taken by court.

Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances, the  NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 70/67 imposition   of   minimum   sentence   would   be   sufficient   in   the  present case.  Hence, both the convicts are sentenced to RI for  10 years with fine of Rs.1,00,000/­ each for offence punishable  u/s 23 r/w section 29 of NDPS Act. In default of payment of fine  they shall further undergo SI for 15 days.

Benefit of section 428 Cr.PC, be given to convicts. Case   property   is   confiscated   to   NCB   and   the   same  may be disposed of as per rules and procedures.

Copy of judgment and sentence is supplied to convicts  free of cost.

File be consigned to record room.

                       ( Ajay Pandey )                                     Addl. Sessions Judge ­04,          New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts,                      New Delhi/29.07.2017 NCB Vs Rafiq Ahmed Shaikh and Anr SC No. 8484/16 Page no. 71/67