Delhi District Court
State vs Ratnesh S/O Late Bhagirathi on 8 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN
SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS, (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. : 68/2009
FIR No. : 292/2009
U/s : 20/61/85 NDPS Act
PS : NDRS
State Versus Ratnesh S/o Late Bhagirathi
R/o Village Umri Ahara, PS Munderva
District Basti, U. P
Date of filing of Charge Sheet : 07.11.2009
Date of taking up matter for the first time : 30.11.2009
Date of conclusion of arguments : 04.08.2011
Date of Judgment : 08.08.2011
Sh. Rajiv Mohan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State.
Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, defence counsel for the accused.
JUDGMENT:
Accused was chargesheeted under section 20/61/85 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred as NDPS Act) to face trial on the allegations that on 12.09.2009 at about 12.30 pm at platform no. 1, New Delhi Railway Station, South End side, within the jurisdiction of PS New FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 1 of 22 Delhi Railway Station, he was found carrying 22 kg of Ganja in two trolly bags, in contravention to the provisions of the NDPS Act.
2. Briefly stated prosecution case is that :
On 12.09.2009 SI Anuj Nautiyal was patrolling in the area and who reached at Central Bridge, NDRS at 12.05 pm where he met HC Davis, HC Jagdish and Ct. Gyanender also patrolling in the area. They all started patrolling together and reached at platform no. 1 towards Nizamuddin side where they saw accused coming with 2 trolly bags. On seeing the police party, accused is alleged to have turned back and walked at fast pace. Thus on suspicion he was apprehended by SI Anuj Nautiyal with accompanying staff at about 12.30 pm. It is alleged that 2 trolly bags in possession of the accused were found containing Ganja and information to this effect was given by SI Anuj Nautiyal to the SHO. Total Ganja in the 2 bags was found to be 22 kg. Separate sample was drawn from Ganja in each bag, they were marked and sealed in separate pullandas. Remaining Ganja was kept as it is in the respective trolly bags and were also sealed in the separate pullandas and pullandas were formally seized.
FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 2 of 22 FIR was registered on the basis of rukka prepared by SI Anuj Nautiyal and investigation was assigned to ASI Ashok Kumar who reached at the spot and completed the proceedings including formal arrest of the accused. Samples were sent to FSL for opinion during investigation and after completion of investigation chargesheet was filed in the Court.
3. Copies were supplied to the accused. Prima Facie offence punishable under section 20 of NDPS Act was found to be made out against him. Charge was framed accordingly to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in all:
PW1 HC Ajit Singh is the reader in the office of ACP Railways who produced the record from the office showing that on 12.09.2009 an information under section 57 of NDPS Act (Ex. PW1/B) was received from SI Anuj Nautiyal forwarded by SHO NDRS with respect to which entry was made at serial no.
2108 of the diary register (Copy Ex. PW1/A). According to him the information was placed before the ACP who had signed on the same.
PW3 HC Prem Raj had received two sealed parcels on 22.09.2009 from MHC(M) vide RC no. 46/21 for depositing them FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 3 of 22 at FSL, Rohini. According to him both the parcels were sealed with the seals of 'AN' and 'CRN" which he deposited against acknowledgment receipt.
PW4 Ct. Sunil Kumar was the duty officer at PS NDRS on 22.09.2009 who produced the DD register containing DD no. 10B (Copy Ex. PW4/A) recorded at about 9.05 am about the departure entry of the officials for duty at the assigned places.
PW5 HC Anil Kumar was working as duty officer at PS NDRS on 12.09.2009 from 12 noon till 9.00 pm who after receiving the rukka from Ct. Gyanender at 3.30 pm, recorded FIR (copy Ex. PW5/A) and made endorsement on the rukka vide Ex. PW5/B. According to him, after registration of FIR, investigation was assigned to ASI Ashok Kumar to whom copy of FIR was sent alongwith original rukka through Ct. Gyanender.
PW11 HC Davis V. J, produced the register no. 19 containing the entries dated 12.09.2009 made by HC Aman, No. 263DRP, the then MHC(M) PS NDRS, who is no more alive. As per entry at serial no. 3222 (copy Ex. PW11/A), four sealed parcels bearing seals of 'AN' and 'CRM' alongwith form FSL and carbon copy of seizure memos were deposited in the malkhana by Inspector C. R Meena SHO. On the same day personal search FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 4 of 22 articles of the accused were deposited by ASI Ashok Kumar and entry no. 3223 was made in this regard in register no. 19 (copy Ex. PW11/B).
PW2 HC Davis V. J, PW7 HC Jagdish Prashad, PW9 Ct. Gyanender Kumar and PW10 SI Anuj Nautiyal are the witnesses of search, recovery and seizure. PW2 HC Davis V. J was also the MHC(M) on 22.09.2009 when he handed over the sample pullandas to PW3 for depositing them at FSL vide RC no. 46/21 (copy Ex. PW2/F) and had received acknowledgment receipt (Copy Ex. PW2/G) with respect to which he had made entry in register no. 19 at point Q to Q1 (Ex. PW2/E).
PW6 Inspector C. R Meena was the SHO PS NDRS on the date of incident and PW8 ASI Ashok Kumar was the investigating officer (IO).
It is clarified that HC Davis V. J has been examined twice, once as PW2 being a witness of search, recovery & seizure besides being MHC(M) on 22.09.2009 and again as PW11, to prove the record of the entries in the register no. 19 made by HC Aman Kumar on 12.09.2009, the then MHC(M), who has died.
5. All the incriminating evidence on record was put to the FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 5 of 22 accused. He was examined in the court and his statement was recorded under section 313 Cr. P. C. He denied that on 12.09.2009 he was carrying Ganja in the trolly bags. He claimed that on the said day he had returned from Bhuvneshwar by Rajdhani train and denied that he had tried to avoid the police party, claiming to be innocent and falsely implicated. However, he did not wish to lead any evidence in defence.
6. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and Ms. Sadhna Bhatia, defence counsel for the accused. I have gone through the evidence on record.
7. PW10 SI Anuj Nautiyal deposed that on 12.09.2009 at about 12.05 pm, while on patrolling duty vide DD no. 14A (Mark A1), he reached at Central Footover bridge where he met HC Davis V. J, HC Jagdish and Ct. Gyanender. They all started patrolling together and when they reached at platform no. 1 towards Nizamuddin side, they saw accused coming with two trolly bags, who on seeing the police party started retreating. He was thus apprehended on suspicion.
8. According to PW10 SI Anuj Nautiyal, trolly bags in possession of the accused were checked and they were found containing Ganja. He conveyed this information to SHO on the FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 6 of 22 wireless, who directed him to conduct proceedings. PW10 sent Ct. Gyanender to bring the weights and scale. PW10 deposed that he told the accused that there was likelihood of more contraband in his possession and thus he was required to be searched. He informed the accused about his legal right to give his search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate vide written notice under section 50 of NDPS Act (Ex. PW2/A). Accused is stated to have refused to avail this offer which was recorded on notice at point P to P1.
9. PW10 SI Anuj Nautiyal further deposed that "Ganja" recovered from the two trolly bags was weighed separately. Weight of Ganja in the trolly bag bearing the words "BHARAT BAG" was found to be 12 kg and total weight of Ganja from the other blue and black colour trolly bag bearing the words "LOOKS BAG"was found to be 10 kg. 1 kg Ganja was taken out as sample from each bag and converted into separate pullandas. Sample pullanda of Ganja from the first bag was given Mark S1 and the sample pullanda of Ganja from the other bag was given Mark S2. Remaining Ganja was kept and sealed in the respective trolly bags, the first bag was marked A1 and the second bag was marked A2.
FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 7 of 22
10. According to PW10, he filled the form FSL at the spot, affixed his seal of 'AN' on all the pullandas as well as on form FSL and he handed over the seal to HC Davis V. J. All the sealed pullandas alongwith form FSL was seized vide memo Ex. PW2/B. He prepared rukka Ex. PW10/A and handed over the same to Ct. Gyanender for the registration of the case at about 3.15 pm. According to him all the sealed parcels alongwith form FSL and copy of seizure memo were also given to him with direction to hand over them to SHO.
11. PW10 stated that investigation was assigned to ASI Ashok Kumar, who reached at the spot, took custody of the accused, prepared the site plan and carried out further investigation. According to him he sent the information under section 57 of NDPS Act (Ex. PW1/B) through SHO. He identified the Ganja produced in two trolly bags bearing words "BHARAT BAG HOUSE" and "LOOKS - MODI BAG" produced in sealed pullandas Mark A1 (Ex. P1) and Mark A2 (Ex. P2) respectively as was recovered from the possession of the accused. He also identified the remnant samples produced in the envelopes S1 (Ex. P3) and S2 (Ex. P4) as the samples drawn at the spot.
12. PW2 HC Davis V. J, PW7 HC Jagdish Prashad and FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 8 of 22 PW9 Ct. Gyanender Kumar have deposed on the lines of PW10 SI Anuj Nautiyal. In addition PW9 deposed that he carried the rukka and the case property to the police station where he handed over the rukka to the duty officer and the case property alongwith connected documents to the SHO, who affixed his seal of 'CRM' on each parcel and form FSL. This witness claims to have returned to the spot with ASI Ashok Kumar.
13. PW6 Inspector C. R Meena testified that on 12.09.2009 he was looking after the work of SHO of police station New Delhi Railway Station when at about 12.35 pm he received wireless message from SI Anuj Nautiyal (PW10) about apprehension of one Ratnesh at platform no. 1 with Ganja in his possession. PW6 deposed that he was unable to reach at the spot due to other official work and so he directed PW10 to proceed as per law. According to this witness, at about 3.35 pm, PW9 came to his office and handed over him 4 sealed parcels bearing the seals of 'AN' alongwith FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo. He stated that seals were intact and he affixed his seal of 'CRM' on each parcel and Form FSL and mentioned the FIR no. on them. He stated that he handed over all the sealed parcels alongwith connected documents to MHC(M) who made entry in register no. FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 9 of 22 19 in this regard, which was signed by him (PW6) and he lodged DD no. 20A (Copy Ex. PW6/A). He further deposed that HC Aman Kumar, who was working as MHC(M) at that time, has expired. He identified the handwriting and signatures of HC Aman Kumar in entry no. 3222 (Copy Ex. PW2/E) of register no. 19, which he signed at pointX. According to him further investigation was assigned to ASI Ashok Kumar who produced the accused before him at 9.05 pm. According to this witness he forwarded the information under section 57 of NDPS Act (Ex. PW1/B) to ACP.
14. PW8 ASI Ashok Kumar is the IO who testified that on 12.09.2009 investigation of this case was assigned to him and consequently he reached at the spot alongwith Ct. Gyanender (PW9) at platform no. 1 NDLS, Nizamuddin side, where he met SI Anuj Nautiyal (PW10) alongwith the staff and the accused in his custody. He testified that he prepared the site plan Ex. PW8/A, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/C, conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW2/D and recorded disclosure statement of accused vide Ex. PW7/A. He took the accused to the police station and produced before SHO. He also deposited personal search items in the malkhana. According to him on 22.09.2009 exhibits were sent to FSL vide RC no. 46/21 FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 10 of 22 through HC Prem Chand (PW3) and the examination result was received from FSL vide Ex. PX1 and Ex. PX2.
15. PW2 HC Davis V. J, PW7 HC Jagdish Prashad and PW9 Ct. Gyanender Kumar are also the witnesses of arrest memo and personal search memo of the accused and identified their signatures on the documents in this regard.
16. Ld. Addl. PP has argued that when the police party comprising of PW2 HC Davis V. J, PW7 HC Jagdish Prashad, PW9 Ct. Gyanender Kumar and PW10 SI Anuj Nautiyal apprehended the accused on suspicion on the date of incident, Ganja was recovered from the two trolly bags carried by him at the time of apprehension. It is submitted that all the four witnesses of search and recovery have deposed consistently about the material facts. Ganja recovered from the trolly bags was sealed and seized after taking sample from the each trolly bag and as per the FSL result, the samples have been found to be Ganja. It was submitted that FIR was registered on the basis of rukka prepared by PW10 and proceedings conducted during investigation have been duly proved by IO ASI Ashok Kumar (PW8). Ld. Addl. PP further submitted that the recovered contraband was duly given in the charge of SHO (PW6) in compliance of section 55 NDPS Act FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 11 of 22 and information of arrest and recovery was duly communicated to the senior police officer in compliance of section 57 of NDPS Act.
17. Ld. defence counsel has argued that testimony of the police witnesses of recovery, search and seizure cannot be believed as despite the fact that recovery was made from a public place, there is no independent witness. It is further argued that neither entries in register no. 19 (Copy Ex. PW11/A) nor the RC (Copy Ex. PW2/F) contain any endorsement about sending the FSL form to FSL alongwith samples and therefore link evidence is not established, the benefit of which should go to the accused.
18. I have considered the rival submissions in the light of evidence on record.
19. According to PW2, PW7, PW9 and PW10, the members of the police team patrolling in the area, they apprehended the accused at platform no. 1 towards Nizamuddin side, on suspicion, as he had tried to avoid the police party. Their presence at the spot on the stated date and place has not been shaken in the crossexamination. All the witnesses have deposed consistently about the circumstances and the place from where accused was apprehended. Though certain suggestions were given to them in the crossexamination that accused was FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 12 of 22 apprehended outside the railway station, but the accused has not disputed their testimony about the place of his apprehension in his statement recorded in the Court under section 313 Cr. P. C. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the four police witnesses about the date, time, place and circumstances of apprehension of the accused.
20. All the four police witnesses of recovery have deposed consistently that the two trolly bags in possession of accused were found containing Ganja. Testimony of these witnesses is assailed by the Ld. Defence counsel on the sole ground that there is no independent public witness of recovery, despite the fact that the alleged incident took place at railway station where many public persons were present besides the railway officials.
21. Issue of nonjoining of independent public witnesses in the search, recovery and seizure has been raised before superior Courts in many cases. The ratio of various judicial pronouncement in this aspect leads to the settled legal position that testimony of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there is no independent public witness to corroborate their version; testimony of police witnesses can be relied and made the basis for conviction of accused, if it is found credible and FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 13 of 22 trustworthy, public witnesses are generally reluctant to join police proceedings and if they do not join the investigation despite efforts being made by the police to join them, the version of the police witnesses can be believed if it is found trustworthy {Reference to Apex Court's decision in "Ajmer Singh V/s State of Haryana, 2010(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 99" and decision of High Court of Delhi in "Ramesh Kumar Rajput V/s State of NCT of Delhi, 2009(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 289" and "Gopal V/s State, 2009(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 301" }.
22. Evidence on record shows that till the time the accused was apprehended and the trolly bags in his possession were searched, the police party had no prior information to foresee the recovery of Ganja. Therefore, it was a chance recovery of Ganja and till the time the recovery was made, police party had no occasion or reason to join the independent public witnesses.
23. All the witnesses have deposed consistently that immediately after recovery, PW10 informed SHO (PW6) about the circumstances in which contraband was recovered from the possession of the accused and on the direction of SHO, PW10 conducted formal proceedings of seizure. SHO (PW6) has FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 14 of 22 corroborated the police witnesses on this fact and there is no reason to believe or discard their testimony about the circumstances of apprehension of accused and recovery of Ganja from the trolly bags in his possession. It has come in the testimony of all these witnesses that despite efforts made by PW10, no public person joined the proceedings. Though as per deposition of the police witnesses, neither any railway employee nor any stall vendor was asked to join the proceedings, in the facts and circumstances of this case when it was a chance recovery, joining of independent public witnesses after recovery would not have made much difference.
24. Despite lengthy crossexamination of the four police witnesses nothing has come on record to create any doubt about truthfulness of their deposition about recovery or to shake their credibility.
25. The second defence plea, which has been vehemently argued is that prosecution has failed to establish the link evidence on record. In order to appreciate this contention, relevant evidence in this regard is taken note of hereinafter.
26. PW10 SI Anuj Nautiyal deposed that after taking out 1 kg Ganja as sample from each trolly bag, he made separate FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 15 of 22 pullandas of the two samples (marked S1 and S2) and made separate pullandas of the trolly bags containing remaining Ganja (marked A1 and A2). As per his deposition after making the pullandas, he filled form FSL at the spot and affixed his seal of 'AN' on all the pullandas as well as of form FSL. His deposition about filling the form FSL at the spot and putting his seal impression has gone totally unassailed as he has not been cross examined on this fact. PW2, PW7 and PW9, the other three witnesses of search, recovery and seizure have corroborated PW 10 about filling of form FSL at the spot and sealing of pullandas. Their testimony has gone unassailed as nothing has been asked from them in the crossexamination on this fact.
27. PW10 SI Anuj Nautiyal and PW9 Ct. Gyanender have deposed consistently that sealed pullandas of the case property alongwith form FSL (bearing the seal impression of 'AN') and carbon copy of seizure memo were handed over by PW10 to PW9 for being given to the SHO. Their deposition on this fact has remained unshaken in the crossexamination.
28. Testimony of PW9 is specific on the fact that he handed over all the sealed pullandas alongwith form FSL and copy of seizure memo to Inspector C.R Meena SHO (PW6) who FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 16 of 22 then affixed his own seal of 'CRM' on the pullandas and form FSL. His deposition in this regard has gone unassailed as he has not been crossexamined on this fact. SHO (PW6) has corroborated PW9 about receiving four sealed pullandas of the case property alongwith one FSL form and copy of seizure memo. PW6 has corroborated PW9 on the fact that after receiving pullandas of the case property and the connecting documents (Form FSL & copy of seizure memo), he (PW6) affixed his seal of 'CRM' on the pullandas as well as on form FSL, mentioned the FIR no. on them and deposited them in the malkhana through MHC(M). Testimony of PW6 has withstood the test of crossexamination and nothing has come on record to shake his testimony.
29. As per evidence of PW2 HC Davis V. J and PW6 Inspector C. R Meena, on 12.09.2009, HC Aman Kumar No. 263 DRP was working as MHC(M) at police station New Delhi Railway Station. Both these witnesses have deposed that HC Aman Kumar has expired. Testimony of PW2 and PW6 about the fact that HC Aman Kumar was the MHC(M) on 12.09.2009 who had received the pullandas of the case property alongwith connected documents from PW6, has gone unassailed and the fact that HC Aman Kumar is dead has not been contradicted by any material or FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 17 of 22 circumstances.
30. As per testimony of PW2 and PW6, entry at serial no. 3222 was made in register no. 19 (Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW11/A) by HC Aman Kumar on 12.09.2009 about deposition of the case property and there is nothing on record to disbelieve their testimony on this fact. Further as per evidence of PW6, he lodged DD no. 20A (Copy Ex. PW6/A) regarding receiving and depositing the sealed pullandas of the case property alongwith form FSL and carbon copy of seizure memo and there is nothing on record to create any doubt about his testimony in this regard.
31. Besides oral testimony of the police witnesses as discussed above, seizure memo (Ex. PW2/B) and rukka (Ex. PW10/A) show that form FSL was filled at the spot on which PW10 had affixed his seal of 'AN'. The malkhana register entry no. 3222 (Ex. PW2/E and Ex. PW11/A) shows that four sealed pullandas (A1, A2, S1 and S2) bearing the seals of 'AN' and 'CRM' were deposited in the malkhana alongwith FSL form, bearing the seal impression of 'AN' and 'CRM'. Making of this record has been proved by PW6 in whose presence this entry was made and who signed this entry at pointX (Ex. PW2/E). Therefore, the oral evidence on record, duly supported by the FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 18 of 22 documents, establish that four sealed pullandas were deposited in the malkhana alongwith form FSL all bearing the seals of 'AN' and 'CRM'.
32. As per evidence on record on 22.09.2009, PW2, who was MHC(M) on that day, had handed over to PW3, two sealed pullandas bearing seals of 'AN' and 'CRM' alongwith form FSL also bearing the seals of 'AN' and 'CRM' for depositing at FSL vide RC no. 46/21 (Copy Ex. PW2/F), which were deposited by PW3 at FSL against acknowledgment (copy Ex. PW2/G), which he handed over to PW2. Oral testimony of both these witnesses about the fact that on the stated date two sealed pullandas were handed over to PW3 alongwith form FSL, all bearing the seals of 'AN' and 'CRM' has gone unrebutted, leaving no doubt that two sample pullandas alongwith form form FSL were carried by PW3 for depositing at FSL.
33. Though endorsement made by PW2 in the register no. 19 in entry no. 3222 dated 12.09.2009 at point P to P1 (Copy Ex. PW2/E) about handing over the samples to PW3 alongwith Form FSL is not specific about the FSL form, but in view of unrebutted testimony of PW2 and PW3 in this regard, there is no reason for any doubt that pullandas were received by PW3 from PW2 FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 19 of 22 alongwith form FSL.
34. The fact that FSL form was deposited alongwith sample pullanda at FSL, is further corroborated and substantiated by the FSL result (Ex. PX1), wherein it is specifically mentioned that two sealed pullandas marked as S1 and S2 (the sample pullandas prepared and marked at the spot) were received at FSL, Rohini with the seals intact, that tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding letter (FSL form). This report has not been challenged and thus it leaves no doubt that sample pullandas S1 and S2 were deposited at FSL, Rohini alongwith FSL form (forwarding letter), seals of 'AN' and 'CRM' intact, leaving no doubt about deposition of the FSL form. This fact cannot be disbelieved merely for the reason that the RC (Copy Ex. PW2/F) and the acknowledgment (Copy Ex. PW2/G) do not specifically mention about Form FSL, as these two documents are primarily meant to contain the description of the pullandas/objects/items dispatched and received. It is inconsequential in the light of unassailed oral and documentary evidence, that establish deposition of the FSL form alongwith sample pullandas at FSL .
35. The evidence on record establish the link evidence leaving no scope of tampering at any stage. Defence contention in FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 20 of 22 this regard is unfounded. (Reliance is placed on the decisions of High Court of Delhi in Ramesh Kumar Rajput @ Khan V/s The State NCT of Delhi, 2009 (1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 289; Francis O Akahie V/s N. C. B, 2010(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 77 and Bilal Ahmed V/s State, I (2011) DLT (Crl.)
180.)
36. Ex. PX1 and Ex. PX2 are the results received from FSL about the nature of contents in sample pullandas S1 and S
2. As per results, the samples were examined by chemical tests and chromatography methods and they gave positive result for cannabinoids including Tetrahydrocannabinol. On the basis of macroscopical and microscopical characteristics, the contents of samples S1 and S2 have been identified to be Indian Hemp Plant i.e Cannabis Sativa (Ganja).
37. In view of the above observation, discussion & findings, based on the evidence on record, prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond all reasonable doubts that total 22 kg of Ganja was recovered from the two trolly bags in possession of the accused. Recovered quantity of Ganja falls in the category of 'commercial quantity' as per entry no. 55 of table notified vide S.O FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 21 of 22 No. 1055(E) dated 19.10.2001. Therefore, accused is held guilty and convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 20(b)(C) of NDPS Act.
Announced in the open Court (Santosh Snehi Mann) 8th of August, 2011 Special Judge, NDPS (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 292/2009; PS NDRS; State V/s. Ratnesh Page No. 22 of 22