Delhi District Court
State vs Okoye Jhonbosco Uchenna on 19 April, 2016
1
IN THE COURT OF MS SHAIL JAIN: SPECIAL JUDGE:
NDPS: 02: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI :
DELHI
SC NO. 5/13
STATE
versus
Okoye Jhonbosco Uchenna
s/o Mr Okoye Bathlemow
r/o 10/12, Water Works Road, Omagba
Onitsha State, Nigeria.
FIR No. : 279/12
Offence U/S : 21 NDPS Act
& u/s 14 Foreigners Act
Police Station :Crime Branch
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 17.01.2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19.04.2016
JUDGMENT
1. As per the prosecution case, accused Okoye Jhonbosco Uchenna was found in conscious possession of 120 grams of cocaine on 05/12/2012 at 8 pm on footpath near Gate of Shanker Lal Hall, Delhi University, Delhi. Accused 1 2 was also found to be living in India without any valid visa/permit/passport. The accused was arrested and after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed.
2. Accused was charged for the offense punishable u/s 21 NDPS Act along with the offence u/s 14 of Foreigners Act as he could not produce any valid document for stay in India, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. Prosecution had examined 8 witnesses in all to prove the case against the accused. The substance of the prosecution evidence is as follows:
4. PW1 HC Jag Narain has deposed that On 06.12.2012 at about 12.30 a.m , SHO Crime Branch Inspector Padam Singh called him in his office along with register no. 19 and handed over him four pullandas mark A to D along with FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo. Pullandas and FSL form were having the seal of KSS & PSR. He made entry at Sl No. 1795 in register no. 19. Inspector Padam Singh put his signatures in the relevant column of register no. 19. On the same day, at about 5 a.m. SI Paramjit arrived at the 2 3 malkhana and deposited personal search article of accused at same Serial no.
5. On 07/12/12 as per the instructions of SHO, he handed over pullanda mark A in sealed condition along with FSL form/Forwarding letter to SI Paramjit vide RC no. 656/21/12 for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini. After depositing the pulanda and documents SI Paramjit returned him one copy of RC along with copy of acknowledgment of FSL. On 30.01.13 SI Paramjit deposited one pullanda sealed with the seal of FSL and result of FSL. Pullanda was deposited in the malkhana and result was handed over to the IO and entry was made in this regard in register no. 19. Copy of register no. 19 is Ex.PW1/A & receipt is Ex.PW1/B and RC is Ex.PW1/C.
6. PW2 HC Sanjeev Kumar & PW5 Ct Paramjeet Singh are the member of the raiding party. They have deposed in detail about the recovery of contraband from the possession of the accused.
7. PW3 HC Harmoti Lal has deposed that on the 3 4 intervening night of 05/06.12.2012, he was posted as duty officer in PS Crime Branch. He stated that on receipt of rukka , he recorded the FIR of the present case. He has proved the copy of the same as Ex.PW3/A.
8. PW4 Ct Surinder has deposed that on 05.12.2012, copy of DD no. 19 dt. 05.12.2012 was received in the office of SOS Crime Branch. Same was put up before ACP . Copy of the same is Ex. PW4/A. Two reports u/s 57 NDPS Act , duly forwarded by Inspector K Singh were received in the office vide 2475 and 2476 dt. 06.12.2012. Same were put up before ACP Sh. Kishan Kumar. After going through the same, ACP signed the same. Copy of DD no. 2475 and 2476 dt. 06.12.2012 are Ex PW4/B and Ex. PW4/C.
9. PW6 Inspector Padam Singh Rana has deposed that on 06.06.2012, at about 12.10AM, Ct. Paramjeet of SOS Branch came at his office and handed over to him four pullandas mark A, B, C and D, bearing seal of KSS along with FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo. FSL form was also bearing same seal of KSS . He put his seal of PSR 4 5 on all the four pullandas Mark A, B, C and D as well as on FSL form . After obtaining the FIR number of the present case from the duty officer, he mentioned the same and put his signatures on all the four pullandas, FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo. At about 12.30AM, he called MHC(M) HC Jag Narain along with register no. 19 in his office and deposited all the above said four pullandas and documents in the malkhana . HC Jag Narain made the entries in register no. 19 . He recorded DD number 3, which is Ex.PW6/A in this regard. On 07.12.2012, at his instruction, sample pullanda along with FSL form and other documents were got deposited at FSL, Rohini through SI Paramjeet Singh .
10. PW7 SI Paramjeet Singh was second IO of the case. He has deposed that on 06.12.2012, further investigation of the present case was assigned to him. He along with Ct. Mahesh, driver went at the spot i.e. the footpath near gate of Shankar Lal Hall , Delhi University , Delhi, by government gypsy no. DL1CJ3853 where Inspector 5 6 Kharak Singh, HC Sanjiv along with other staff met him. Inspector Kharak Singh produced accused and the documents before him . He prepared site plan ( Ex. PW7/A) at the instance of Inspector Kharak Singh. He interrogated accused and recorded his disclosure statement, which is Ex. PW2/F. He arrested accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW2/D. He conducted the personal search of accused vide memo Ex. PW12/E. Thereafter, he deposited the personal search articles of the accused with MHC(M) . He prepared special report u/s 57 NDPS Act, which is Ex. PW7/B and produced the same before Inspector Kharak Singh of SOS Branch. He tried to ascertain the source of supply but nothing could be traced. Exhibits of the case were sent to FSL Rohini. Later on result (Ex. PX) was collected .
11. Witness has further deposed that at the time when accused was arrested by him on 06.12.2012, one passport no. A00642006 issued from Benin, Nigeria in the name of Okoye John Bosco was recovered from his personal search, 6 7 which was valid upto 25.05.2015. On the said original passport, one visa in the name of Okoye John Bosco was pasted which was issued on 22.12.2011 and the date of expiry was 22.06.2012 vide visa no. AP4112019. The passport is Ex.PY. The verification report from the Ministry of External Affairs is Ex.PW7/Y1. Vide this report, the aforesaid business visa was issued to accused Okoye John Bosco on 22.12.2011 and it was valid upto 22.06.2012.
12. PW8 Inspector Kharak Singh has deposed that on 5.12.2012 one secret informer came at his office and informed him that one person namely Okoye John Bosco, a Nigerian, who use to supply cocaine, would come near Shankar Lal Hall University Marg, Delhi University between 7.30 p.m. and 8.00 p.m. and he can be arrested if raid is conducted. He inquired from the secret informer. Thereafter, he informed ACP (SOS) Sh. KK Sharma, regarding the secret information, telephonicaly in his office. ACP directed him to take further necessary action. He recorded the secret information into writing vide DD 7 8 no.19, which is Ex. PW8/A.
13. Witness has further deposed that thereafter he constituted a raiding party consisting of himself, HC Sanjeev Kumar and Ct. Paramjeet. All the aforesaid police officials along with secret informer left their office in govt. vehicle DL 1 CJ 3853, which was being driven by Ct. Mahesh. He made entry DD no.20 in this regard, which is Ex. PW8/B. They reached at the spot at 7.30 PM via Ring Road. On the way 45 persons were asked to join the raiding party but none agreed and left without disclosing their names and addresses. Official vehicle was got parked towards at south side at a distance of 50 meters. Ct. Mahesh driver was deputed at the vehicle. He directed Ct Mahesh to reach at the spot, when signal is given to him. At about 7.55 PM, secret informer pointed out towards a person, coming from the side of main road, wearing light brown colour jacket and black jean, that he is the person Johnbosco, who is coming to supply the cocaine. After pointing out, secret informer left the spot. After seeing the 8 9 police party, he started going back. At about 8.00 PM, he was over powered by him with the help of other police officials . He gave signal to Ct. Mahesh to bring the vehicle at the spot and accordingly he brought the vehicle.
14. Witness has further deposed that he introduced himself and the other raiding party members to the accused and asked about his name and address. He disclosed his name as Okoye Jhonbosco Uchenna. Witness informed him about the secret information to the effect that he used to supply cocaine and there is a possibility of recovery of cocaine from him and for this purpose, his search is required. He informed accused regarding his legal right to the effect that he may be searched in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, same can be arranged before taking his search. The accused was also informed that he has legal right to take the search of member of the police party and the government vehicle, to which accused denied. Thereafter, notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was served upon the accused. Notice is Ex. PW 2/A. The accused had 9 10 given reply, which is Ex. PW 2/B. After that he requested 23 passersby to join the proceedings but none agreed and left the spot without telling their names and addresses. After that he searched the accused Okoye Jhonbosco Uhchenna. During his search, 12 white semitransparent polythene pouches were recovered from the left side pocket of his wearing jeans pant. Mouth of all polythenes were tied with the rubber band and some white powder substance was appearing in them. Mouth of all polythenes were opened and white powder substance was checked with the field testing kit and the same was found to be cocaine. The recovered cocaine was collected in one transparent polyethene and it was weighed, same was found to be 120 grams cocaine. Two samples of 2 grams each were taken out from the recovered cocaine and kept in two small transparent polythenes. Mouth of polythenes were tied with the rubber bands and converted into two cloth parcels marked as A and B. Rest of recovered cocaine was tied with the rubber band and converted into a cloth 10 11 pullanda marked as C. 12 empty polythenes along with rubber bands were kept in separate transparent polythene and was converted into cloth pullanda marked as D. FSL form was filled up . He affixed his seal of KSS on all four pullandas mark A, B, C & D and FSL form. Seal after use was handed over to HC Sanjeev Kumar. He had taken into possession the case property vide seizure memo Ex. PW 2/C. Thereafter he prepared the rukka (Ex. PW8/C) & handed over the same to Ct. Paramjeet Singh along with sealed case property, FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo and instructed him to hand over the rukka to Duty Officer and remaining case property with documents to SHO PS Crime Branch.
15. At about 2.00 AM SI Paramjeet Singh came at the spot in the same official vehicle. Witness handed over him the documents and the custody of the accused. SI Paramjeet Singh prepared site plan at his instance. Accused was interrogated by the IO and later on he was arrested vide memo (Ex. PW1/D). IO conducted the personal search of 11 12 the accused vide memo Ex. PW2/E . Thereafter IO recorded disclosure statement of the accused, which is Ex. PW2/F. IO deposited the personal search articles with the MHC(M). He prepared the report under Section 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of contraband and it was given in the office of ACP (SOS).
16. PW9 Dr Lingaraj Saboo was called for cross examination on the application u/s 311 Cr.P.C moved on behalf of the accused. This witness was cross examined by Ld defense counsel.
17. Thereafter prosecution evidence was closed.
18. Statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 CrPC wherein the entire incriminating evidence has been put forth and explained to the accused to which he pleaded innocence and false implication. He has submitted that no contraband was recovered from him and the same was planted upon him. He did not make any disclosure statement. He was lifted from his house at Vasant Kunj New Delhi on the grounds for verification of his passport and 12 13 has been falsely implicated in the present case.
19. Accused had stated that he does not want to lead any evidence in defence .
20. I have heard arguments from Sh Subhash Chauhan, Ld Additional P. P for the State and Ms Sunita Sharma, Ld defense counsel.
21. Ld Defense counsel Ms Sunita Sharma had filed detailed written arguments along with the copies of the judgments on which she has relied upon.
22. In the written arguments, main contention of Ld Defense counsel has been that when cloth pulanda ie case property was produced during the examination in chief of PW2 HC Sanjeev Kumar, it was found to have torn seal, hence it was not readable. Therefore, it is stated by Ld counsel for accused this is fit case for acquittal of the accused. Also it has been contended by Ld Defense counsel that no handing over memo or taking over memo for the seal has been prepared, therefore, the case of the prosecution is not reliable. Further Ld Defense counsel 13 14 has also taken the objection about the manner in which samples were drawn as sample from each of 12 purias, allegedly recovered from the possession of accused, were not drawn separately, therefore it has been argued by Ld Defense counsel that case of the prosecution is suffering from material discrepancies and benefit of which is to be given to the accused.
23. Ld Defense counsel has also pointed out that there was some difference in the colour of the case property produced before the court, which raises doubt about the story of the prosecution. It is also submitted by Ld Defense counsel that no FSL form was sent to FSL, Rohini, therefore the case of the prosecution is not proved. It is also pointed out by Ld Defense counsel that proceedings in this case have been done by the person, below the rank of SI. Hence the person is not competent to conduct the investigation of the present case. It has also been submitted by Ld Defense counsel that in the statement, PW8 Inspector Kharak Singh had stated that secret information was reduced into 14 15 writing vide DD no 19 but in the cross examination, PW8 has stated that he had not reduced into writing, secret information on any separate paper except DD. Thus, statement of PW8 is contradictory and the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful. It is also submitted by Ld counsel for accused that PW1 HC Jag Narain had admitted in his cross examination that he had given the case property to SI Paramjit Singh to deposit the same at FSL Rohini & not 'pulanda', thus the result of FSL is false and fabricated. With these submissions, Ld Defense counsel has prayed that accused be acquitted in the present case as prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused of being found in possession of 120 grams of cocaine. In support of her arguments, Ld Defense counsel has relied upon various judgments, but only some of the judgments are being mentioned for the sake of brevity:
1. 1992 Crl. L. J 2342
2. 2012 VI AD (Delhi) 707 3.2013 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 94 15 16
4. 2013 I AD (DELHI) 6
5. 2011 (3) JCC NARCOTICS 195
6. 2013 (2) JCC 66
24. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sh Subhash Chauhan, Ld Additional P.P for the State that the prosecution has proved its case sufficiently as the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused was found in conscious possession of 120 grams of cocaine and he was also found staying in India without any valid visa or permit. Accused has committed the offences u/s 21 NDPS Act along with section 14 of Foreigners Act, therefore, the accused should be convicted for both the offenses.
25. As regards the argument of Ld Defense counsel, Ld Additional P.P had submitted that 'seal' which Ld Defense counsel has referred in the testimony of PW2 HC Sanjiv Kumar was 'torn', because the sample was sent to FSL and seal was opened for chemical examination of the sample. 16 17 There is no illegality or discrepancy in the testimony of PW found in this regard.
26. As regards argument of Ld Defense counsel in respect of not sending FSL form to FSL Rohini, it was submitted by Ld Additional P.P that in the absence of FSL form along with the case property, no sample is being accepted by FSL Rohini, therefore, it cannot be presumed that FSL form was not sent or proved by the IO. As regards submission of Ld Defense counsel that proceedings in this case were done by the person, below the rank of SI, Ld Additional P.P has countered the argument by saying that IO of the present case is Inspector Kharak Singh and above the rank of SI, therefore, it cannot be said that investigation of this case was carried out by an incompetent person.
27. I have considered the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and material on record. I have also gone through the judgments relied upon by Ld counsel for accused.
28. In the present case, charge was framed against accused 17 18 u/s 21 NDPS Act along with for offence under section 14 of Foreigners Act, as accused was found in conscious possession of 120 grams of cocaine and was found staying in India without any valid visa or permit. Prosecution has examined 8 witnesses in all to prove the case against accused. PW9 Dr Lingaraj Sahoo, Senior Scientific Officer of FSL was summoned for cross examination by accused after moving an application u/s 311 Cr.P.C.
29. In this case, case of the prosecution is that on 5/12/2012 a secret information was received by Inspector Kharak Singh that a person namely Okoye Jhon Bosco, who is residing at Uttam Nagar, used to supply cocaine. It was also informed to Inspector Kharak Singh that above mentioned person will come near Shanker Lal Hall, University Marg, Delhi University on that date between 7.30 p.m to 8 p.m and if raid is conducted, he can be arrested. Acting upon this secret information, a raiding party was constituted by Inspector Kharak Singh, PW8. Raiding team reached at the spot and when secret informer pointed out towards a 18 19 person coming from the main road, he was stopped and on completion of the proceedings in compliance with the provisions of NDPS Act, it was found that person was named as Okoye Jhon Bosco and was found in possession of 120 grams of heroin. Two grams each of two samples were drawn and rest of the proceedings in compliance with the provisions of NDPS Act were completed.
30. In the entire written arguments submitted by Ld counsel for accused, not even a single discrepancy or material contradiction has been pointed out in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. Though various defects have been pointed out by Ld defense counsel in the prosecution evidence but after considering the same, it is clear that these defects are neither existing in the case of the prosecution nor they are material to the case of the prosecution. I will discuss each of the contention of Ld counsel for accused separately.
31. First contention of Ld counsel for accused has been that when cloth pulanda was produced in the court at the 19 20 time of examination of PW2 HC Sanjeev Kumar, it was found bearing 'torn seal' which was not readable. Ld counsel for accused has paid too much attention on this point but has forgotten that this pulanda ie pulanda mark 'A' was the pulanda, sent for FSL Rohini, for examination of the case property. Once the pulanda is received in FSL, Rohini, it was to be opened by FSL officer and thereafter same is to be resealed with the seal of FSL and sent back to the PS Crime Branch. In this process, initial seal, which was affixed on the pulanda by the first IO, is bound to break and therefore, there is every likelihood that the seal, which was initially affixed on the cloth pulanda by the IO may not be readable. It is also clear from the examination in chief of PW2 HC Sanjiv Kumar that pulanda mark A was clearly bearing the seal of FSL Rohini and cloth pulanda, which was taken out from this pulanda, was bearing torn seal making it clear that it was the seal affixed by the IO at the time of preparation of sample, which was sent for examination at FSL, Rohini. Therefore, I am of the opinion 20 21 that there is no substance in the argument raised by Ld counsel for accused in this regard.
32. It is also the contention of Ld defense counsel that there were 12 semi transparent polythenes recovered from the possession of accused, therefore, samples should have been taken from each polythene. At this stage, it is important to consider that total quantity recovered from the possession of accused is 120 grams of cocaine, out of which two sample of two grams each were taken out by the IO. Thus, it is clear that in each of these 12 polythenes, there would have been a very little quantity of contraband available, which would not have made it practicable to take sample from each polythene, hence, in my opinion, there is no illegality or ambiguity in the procedure adopted by the IO Inspector Kharak Singh in taking the samples from polythenes. Result of FSL has also proved the contents to be cocaine and hence it has been proved that the accused was found in possession of cocaine. There is no argument raised by Ld defense counsel nor any witness has been examined 21 22 on behalf of the accused to prove that accused was not found in possession of cocaine.
33. It has also been argued by Ld defense counsel that as per the case of prosecution, sample of two grams each was taken whereas as per result of FSL Ex.P.X, the sample was 2.38 grams. Therefore, it has been argued that there was tampering with the case property. In this regard, I am of the opinion that difference between 2 grams and 2.38 grams is negligible, which cannot be considered as tampering with the case property. When the sample is being taken , IO is weighing the contraband on electronic weighing scale, which might not be having exact measure of 2 grams whereas in FSL, sophisticated weighing balances are used, which are accurate and are capable of measuring the weight accurately upto 0.001 gram of weight. Even otherwise, it is also to be noted that this weight mentioned in the FSL is along with the polythene, whereas weight mentioned by the IO and the other prosecution witness is without polythene. Therefore, I am of the opinion that 22 23 there is no discrepancy in the weight of the sample sent to FSL for examination, which could disprove the case of prosecution.
34. A very strange argument has been raised by Ld defense counsel in detailed written arguments, wherein she has mentioned that PW1 HC Jag Narain had stated in his cross examination that he had handed over the case property to SI Paramjit Singh in the morning. The contention of Ld defense counsel on this point is that 'only case property' was handed over to SI Paramjit Singh and not 'pulanda'. This argument does not appear to be valid argument, which needs any explanation. Case property include one pulanda or all the pulandas, as single pulanda is also part of the case property deposited in malkhana. When the MHCM ie PW1 HC Jag Narain was specifically talking in cross examination about the 'pulanda' handed over to SI Paramjit Singh for depositing the same in FSL, and at that time the word 'case property' is mentioned by him, it is clear that he was referring to the same pulanda & that it 23 24 actually denotes 'pulanda' as both words can be interchangeably used. Therefore, this argument of Ld defense counsel appears to have been taken only for the sake of argument and does not have any substance in it.
35. It is further contended by Ld defense counsel that no FSL form was sent with the case property as is not mentioned in the acknowledgment of the FSL, I am of the opinion that once PW1 HC Jag Narain had specifically stated that pulanda mark A along with FSL form was given to SI Paramjit Singh for depositing the same in FSL, Rohini and no suggestion was given to PW1 in cross examination, that no FSL form was handed over to SI Paramjit Singh for depositing in FSL Rohini. Therefore, it cannot be said that FSL form was not deposited with FSL Rohini. At this stage, argument of Ld Additional P.P that without the FSL form, case property will not be deposited in FSL, becomes important and has to be considered. In the absence of any evidence on record that no FSL form was deposited in FSL, much importance cannot be attached to this argument. 24 25
36. As regards other contention of Ld defense counsel that "it has been stated by prosecution witnesses that case property, when deposited was of white colour, but when it was produced in the court, it was slightly 'off white' in colour and was having brown dots, which were diminishing on pressing", it was argued by Ld counsel for accused that the case property has been tampered with. On this aspect, an application was moved on behalf of the accused for cross examination of Scientific Officer, who had examined the case property and PW9 Dr Lingaraj Saboo Senior Scientific Officer FSL was called for cross examination. Specific question has been put to the witness about the change of colour, to which he had answered that colour of cocaine can change due to the additives present in the exhibits. It was also stated by PW9 that cocaine can transform into lumps, if moisture is present in the substance or even if the same is kept in polythene for long period. The suggestion given by Ld defense counsel that cocaine cannot change its form from powder substance to 25 26 semi solid or that cocaine can not change its colour due to additives with the passage of time, was specifically denied by PW9 and it has been specifically stated by witness that he has given this statement in the court as per his experience of 15 years working in this field. It is clear from the testimony of PW9 being Senior Scientific Officer, professionally qualified expert in the field that cocaine can change its colour due to presence of additives and can also form lumps due to moisture even if it is kept in polythene. Therefore, all these submissions of Ld defense counsel in this regard are devoid of merit. Testimony of PW9 clearly proves the contraband recovered to be cocaine, which was capable to change its colour from 'white' to 'off white' due to presence of additives and therefore, there is no material discrepancies shown by Ld defense counsel in the case.
37. Lastly, it is also important to mention here that it has been argued by Ld defense counsel that in the statement of PW8 Inspector Kharak Singh, he has stated that he has recorded secret information into writing vide DD no 19 is 26 27 self contradictory and falsifies the stand of the prosecution as in the cross examination he has stated that he has not reduced the secret information into writing on any separate piece of paper except the DD. By reading the argument raised by Ld defense counsel, I am of the opinion that there is no difference in both the sentences as mentioned by Ld defense counsel. In cross examination it has been specifically mentioned by Inspector Kharak Singh PW8 that he had reduced into writing the facts of secret information u/s 42 Cr.P.C vide separate DD no. 19 and has not recorded secret information on any other paper except DD no. 19, thus, in my opinion, there is no contradiction in both statements of IO, hence it cannot be said that prosecution case has become doubtful.
38. In view of above discussion and evidence led by the prosecution, I am of the opinion that it has been categorically proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that accused was found in possession of cocaine. Requirements of section 42, 50, 55 and 57 of 27 28 NDPS Act have been duly complied with by the prosecution.
39. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that prosecution has clearly proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused Okoye Jhon Bosco was found in conscious possession of 120 grams of cocaine and therefore, he is liable to be convicted u/s 21 NDPS Act.
40. As regards the charge u/s 14 of Foreigners Act, no argument has been raised by Ld defense counsel in defense of the accused. PW7 SI Paramjeet had proved original Passport of the accused as Ex.PY, as recovered from his personal search. As per Passport , visa of accused had expired on 22/06/12 whereas in the present case, accused was found staying in India without valid visa/permit on 05/12/2012. No Evidence has been led by the accused to show that he was having any valid visa or permit to stay in India beyond 22/06/2012. Hence, I am of the opinion that offence u/s 14 of Foreigners Act has also been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. He is liable 28 29 to be convicted for the offence u/s 14 of Foreigners Act.
41. In view of my above discussion, I am of the opinion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that accused had committed the offence u/s 14 of Foreigners Act, coupled with the offence u/s 21 NDPS Act. Hence accused Okoye Jhon Bosco is convicted for the offence u/s 21 NDPS Act & section 14 of Foreigners Act also.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.04.2016 (SHAIL JAIN ) SPECIAL JUDGE: NDPS02 CENTRAL DELHI 29