Delhi District Court
Reliance Upon The Case Of State Of Punjab vs Balbir Singh on 16 December, 2013
1
In the Court of Dig Vinay Singh : Additional Sessions Judge
Spl. Judge : NDPS (NW) : Rohini Courts : Delhi
In the matter of :
SC No. : 03/13
FIR No. : 257/12
PS : Crime Branch
U/s. : 18 NDPS Act
State
Versus
Jagdish Kumar Bishnoi
S/o Arjun Ram
R/o Plot no. 45-46, Block-A,
near Joshi Colony,
Bhandiyawas Road, Balotra,
Distt. Badmer, Rajasthan
Date of receipt : 22.01.2013
Date of arguments : 06.12.2013
Date of announcement : 16.12.2013
JUDGMENT
1. The sole accused of this case was sent up for trial with the case of prosecution that on 29.10.2012 at 11.45 AM, he was found possessing 2 kg „„Opium‟‟, at Footpath in front of KD Block Market, near Kohat Enclave Metro Station, Pitam Pura, Delhi. The accused was apprehended on prior secret information. From the recovered „Opium‟, samples were drawn and one of the sample was sent to the FSL which also confirmed the substance to be „Opium‟. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 1 of 21 2 filed.
2. Accordingly, a charge U/s.18 NDPS Act, 1985 was framed against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In support of its case, prosecution examined total 10 witnesses, out of which, PW7 HC Yogesh Kumar, PW8 HC Om Prakash, PW10 ASI Devender are the recovery witnesses. ASI Devender is the initial Investigating Officer. PW9 SI Sunil is the subsequent Investigating Officer. The rest of the witnesses are more or less formal in nature.
3.1. It is deposed by ASI Devender that on 29.10.2012 at about 9.30 AM one secret informer came to Narcotics Cell Office, Shakar Pur and gave information that the accused would come between 11.30 AM to 12.30 PM at KD Block Market, Pitam Pura, near Kohat Enclave Metro Station to deliver „Afeem‟ to someone. ASI Devender produced the secret informer before PW5 Inspt. Vivek Pathak, who on being satisfied with the information telephonically informed the ACP Sh. Bir Singh. Thereafter, the secret information was reduced to writing vide DD No.10 at 10 AM, Ex. PW2/A and a true copy of the said DD was forwarded to Inspt. Vivek Pathak in compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. In turn Inspt. Vivek Pathak forwarded the report to the ACP. Thereafter, a raiding party comprising of the recovery witnesses as well as HC Mukesh _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 2 of 21 3 was constituted. It is deposed by the recovery witnesses that the raiding team along with the informer went to the spot vide DD No.11 Ex. PW10/B & B1. The raiding team took position at the spot at about 11.15 AM. The accused came to the spot at about 11.40 AM from Madhuban Chowk side on foot and he was holding one white colour bag in his left hand. The informer identified the accused and left the spot. The accused stood for about 3-4 minutes at a distance of about 3-4 meters from the raiding team towards Wazir Pur Depot side while waiting for somebody and thereafter he started walking back. At that time, he was apprehended. Section 50 NDPS Act was complied with and a written notice Ex. PW7/A was delivered to the accused. The accused refused to exercise his legal rights and, in his own handwriting noted down the refusal Ex. PW7/A1 on the original notice. Thereafter, the bag of accused was searched which was found to be containing 2 kg of „Opium‟. Out of the recovered „Opium‟, two samples of 50-50 grams each were separated and kept inside two parcels Mark A & B. The remaining „Opium‟ was kept in parcel Mark C. Form FSL was filled up and thereafter all the three sealed parcels were sealed with the seal of DS by ASI Devender. Same specimen seal was applied on the FSL Form also. Subsequently, all the three sealed parcels and FSL Form were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/B. Thereafter, rukka Ex. PW7/C was prepared and was handed over to HC Yogesh to be taken to PS Crime Branch Malviya Nagar for registration of FIR. Besides the rukka, HC Yogesh was also _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 3 of 21 4 handed over all the three sealed parcels, FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo to be handed over to the SHO PS Crime Branch Malviya Nagar.
3.2. It is deposed by HC Yogesh PW7 and by HC Dayanand PW1 that on reaching the Police Station, rukka was handed over to PW1 who registered FIR Ex. PW1/A and made endorsement on rukka Ex. PW1/B and also lodged DD No.16 & 18 Ex. PW1/C & D regarding commencement and conclusion of FIR.
3.3. It is deposed by HC Yogesh PW7 and Inspt. Palvinder Singh Chahal PW6 that the three sealed parcels, the FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo were handed over to the SHO Inspt. Palvinder Singh Chahal who countersealed all the sealed parcels with his seal of PSC and also applied same specimen seal on FSL Form. Subsequently, the SHO enquired and noted down the FIR number on the parcels and documents and also signed them. Thereafter, the MHC(M) was called and the case property was deposited in the Malkhana vide entry Ex. PW3/A. 3.4. PW7 HC Yogesh also deposed that after getting the case registered he collected the copy of FIR and original rukka and reached Narcotics Cell where he handed over the documents to SI Sunil Jain.
3.5. SI Sunil Jain PW9 deposed that on receiving the copy of FIR and _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 4 of 21 5 original rukka, he left the Narcotics Celle Office at 6.40 PM vide DD No.17 Ex. PW9/A & A1 and reached the spot at 7.30 PM.
3.6. HC Om Prakash, ASI Devender and SI Sunil deposed that when SI Sunil reached the spot, custody of accused and the documents prepared by ASI Devender were handed over to him, whereupon SI Sunil prepared site plan Ex. PW7/A1 and thereafter interrogated and arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex. PW8/A. Personal search of the accused was conducted vide memo Ex. PW8/B, in which carbon copy of notice U/s.50 NDPS Act was recovered. Subsequently, disclosure statement of accused Ex. PW8/C was recorded. Thereafter the police team with accused left the spot and reached PS Crime Branch Malviya Nagar where personal search articles of accused were deposited in the Malkhana. Thereafter, the accused was taken to Narcotics Cell where he was produced before Inspt. Vivek Pathak and, DD No.2 at 1.00 am in the midnight was registered which is proved as Ex. PW9/B & B1.
3.7. SI Sunil Jain also deposed that he prepared a report U/s.57 NDPS Act Ex. PW2/D qua arrest of accused which he signed and submitted to the senior police officers.
3.8. Similarly, ASI Devender deposed that he also prepared a separate report U/s.57 NDPS Act Ex. PW2/C regarding seizure of contraband which he signed and submitted to the senior police _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 5 of 21 6 officers.
3.9. The remaining witnesses are more or less formal in nature.
3.10. PW1 HC Dayanand was the Duty Officer who proved registration of FIR; endorsement on rukka and DD No.16 & 18 respectively as Ex. PW1/A, B, C & D. 3.11. PW2 HC Om Prakash, from the office of ACP, proved receipt of report U/s.42 NDPS Act Ex. PW2/A on 29.10.2012, and also the receipt of two reports U/s.57 NDPS Act Ex. PW2/C & D on 30.10.2012. He proved the entries in the relevant register as Ex. PW2/B & E. 3.12. PW3 HC Jag Narain was the MHC(M) who proved deposition of the three sealed parcels duly sealed with the seals of DS & PSC with FSL Form by the SHO on 29.10.2012, vide entry Ex. PW3/A in register no.19. He also proved deposition of personal search articles of accused by SI Sunil Jain vide entry Ex. PW3/B and the fact that on 02.11.2012 sample parcels Mark A duly sealed, alongwith FSL Form was sent to the FSL Rohini through HC Charan Singh PW4 vide Road Certificate Ex. PW3/C. He also proved receipt of FSL result on 21.12.2012 vide endorsement in register no.19 Ex. PW3/D. HC Charan Singh PW4 deposed that on 02.11.2012 he took sample parcel Mark A duly sealed with FSL Form from the Malkhana and deposited them in the FSL and _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 6 of 21 7 obtained acknowledgment receipt Ex. PW3/C2 which he deposited in the Malkhana on that very day.
3.13. PW5 Inspt. Vivek Pathak corroborated the testimony of ASI Devender to the effect that the informer was produced before him and he informed the ACP on 29.10.2012. He also deposed that accused was produced before him by SI Sunil Jain on 30.10.2012 at 12.45 AM. He also deposed that he had received report U/s.42 NDPS Act as well as the two reports U/s.57 NDPS Act, which he signed and forwarded to the senior police officers.
4. On conclusion of prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence was put to the accused in his examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C. The accused claimed that he was not apprehended from the spot and instead was picked up from his house on 28.10.2012 i.e. one day before the date of incident claimed by the prosecution. He claimed that he was picked up from Rajasthan and brought to Delhi on the ground that some enquiries were to be made from him. He stated that he was not told anything as to his rights U/s.50 NDPS Act and no such notice was delivered to him. He claimed that he was forcibly made to write and sign in the office of police under threat. He, however, admitted that the refusal Ex. PW7/A1 is in his own handwriting but claimed that he was forced to write it and other documents. He claimed that no bag or contraband was recovered from him and that the contraband is planted upon him. Accused claimed that he is _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 7 of 21 8 innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The accused, however, did not opt to lead evidence in his defence.
5. I have heard Ld. Prosecutor for the State and Ld. Counsel for the accused. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the accused.
6. In this matter, all the prosecution witnesses have corroborated the testimony of each other, particularly the recovery witnesses PW7 HC Yogesh, PW8 HC Om Prakash and PW10 ASI Devender. In the cross-examination of these three recovery witnesses, nothing material could be brought out on record to impeach the credit- worthiness of the witnesses. All these three witnesses have materially corroborated the version of each other and all three of them consistently deposed, that based on the secret information the accused was apprehended from the spot and 2 kgs of opium was recovered from his possession, after compliance of the provision of Section 50 of NDPS Act. It is also deposed by them that from the case property, two samples each of 50 grams of Afeem were separated and were kept inside separate cloth parcels. The remaining Afeem was kept inside third cloth parcel separately. All the three parcels were duly sealed by PW10 with his seal and FSL Form was also filled up. Thereafter, the case property was taken from the spot to the Police Station Crime Branch Malviya Nagar by HC Yogesh PW7 where the SHO counter-sealed the parcels and the FSL Form and the parcels _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 8 of 21 9 were deposited in the Malkhana. Subsequently, sample was sent to FSL with FSL Form and the result of FSL also confirmed the substance to be opium.
7. The FSL result reads as follows:
"On Chemical, TLC & HPTLC examination, (i) Exhibit 'A' was found to contain morphine, codeine, thebaine, papaverine & narcotine (which are main constituents of Opium). (ii) Exhibit 'A' was found to contain morphine 4.67%."
8. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution did not examine any independent public witness, the search and seizure was conducted in violation of Section 100 Cr.P.C. and no independent person witnessed the seizure memo and also no inventory was given to the accused. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the case of State of Punjab Versus Balbir Singh (1994) 3 Supreme Court Cases 299.
9. In the said case, it was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that Section 100 and Section 165 of Cr.P.C. are applicable in cases under NDPS Act, 1985, but it was also held that mere non- compliance of those provisions would not by itself vitiate the prosecution and it would depend on facts and circumstances of each case. It was held that said non-compliance would only amount to an irregularity and such search would not be per se illegal.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 9 of 21 10
10. Thus, the said case does not help the case of accused, at all. In the present case, prosecution witnesses consistently deposed that on the way to the spot, various independent witnesses were requested to become witness. At the spot also, the independent public persons were requested to become witness but none of them agreed. It is deposed by PW10 that at the spot 5-6 passersby were so requested before apprehension of the accused at about 11.15 AM, but none of them agreed. Thereafter, after apprehension of accused and compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, again 8-10 public persons were requested but none of them agreed. It is a matter of common knowledge that usually public persons do not come forward to become witness particularly in cases of serious nature such as the cases under Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, as ordinary layman does not want to involve himself against the drug lords and drug peddlers. In such circumstances, when there is no reasonable ground for the Court to believe that public witnesses were not deliberately joined, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of police officials. It is not the law that police witnesses can never be believed or that their testimony cannot be acted upon. In law even a police officer is a competent witness, though in such circumstances, the Court normally takes extra care in appreciating and evaluating evidence.
11. Reliance is also placed by accused upon the case of Koluttumottil Razak Vs. State of Kerala (2000) 4 SCC 465, in _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 10 of 21 11 which it was held that non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act would render search and seizure suspicious and in such situation the evidence of police officers would require to be corroborated by independent evidence. In that case, the Investigating Officer did not reduce secret information into writing or inform his superior officers. Thus, there was non-compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act. In that case even corresponding entry in police records was also absent and, therefore, the Court insisted on corroboration of the testimony of police witnesses. The present case is distinguishable as in this case Section 42 NDPS Act indeed has been complied with.
12. Towards non-compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act, it is argued by the counsel for the accused that the ACP has not been examined to prove the report, and that there is no signature of ACP on the register Ex.PW2/E. PW10 deposed that he had reduced the secret information into writing under DD No.10 and he prepared a true copy of said DD Ex. PW2/A which he signed and forwarded to Inspt. Vivek Pathak (PW5). PW5 Inspt. Vivek Pathak also corroborated that he had received true copy of secret information which he signed and forwarded to the Office of ACP. PW2 HC Om Prakash, the Reader of ACP deposed that on the date of incident he had received Ex. PW2/A vide entry in diary register Ex. PW2/B, and that he had put up the said report before the ACP who saw the report and also signed the report at Point A. He identified the signature of ACP stating that he had seen the ACP _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 11 of 21 12 signing during the course of his official duty. Even in the cross examination, PW2 deposed that he had personally put up all the three reports (the other two reports being report U/s.57 NDPS Act) before the ACP and thereafter, ACP saw and signed them. No suggestion was put to PW2, that the report Ex. PW2/A does not bear signatures of ACP or that PW2 was incompetent to identify signatures of ACP. No objection was raised by the accused when Ex. PW2/A was marked as exhibit in the evidence of PW2. If the accused intended to challenge the mode of proof of Ex. PW2/A, the said objection ought to have been raised at the time when this document was being marked as exhibit. By choosing not to challenge the mode of proof at that time, the accused allowed the prosecution to carry an impression that mode of proof of that document was not being challenged. Once the accused himself allowed the document to be exhibited without objection, now the accused cannot be allowed to challenge its exhibition. Because of no objection raised by the accused, the prosecution legitimately carried an impression that the document is not disputed. Had the accused timely objected to the proof of this document, the prosecution would have had an opportunity to call the ACP and prove the document. The accused deprived the prosecution of that fare opportunity and therefore, this contention cannot be now accepted.
13. The argument of accused that Ex. PW2/A i.e. DD No.19 is a forged document as SI Sunil Jain stated during cross-examination _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 12 of 21 13 that he had received a carbon copy of this document from Reader of Inspt. Vivek Pathak, whereas, Inspt. Vivek Pathak denied having retained any such copy. This argument is fallacious. Assuming that the Reader of Inspt. Vivek Pathak did not give carbon copy of DD No.10 and SI Sunil Jain took it from somewhere else, but then this DD No.10 was lodged in a Rojnamcha register and Ex.PW2/A was its true copy. There could not have been any tampering of this document since subsequent DDs were registered after DD No.10 at their relevant times. The photocopy of the DD register was also proved in the evidence of PW10 ASI Devender Singh as Ex. PW10/A. The document Ex. PW2/A is true copy of Ex. PW10/A. Thus, merely because SI Sunil Jain could lay hands on the carbon copy of the true copy of DD No.10 by itself does not give rise to any legitimate inference that Ex. PW2/A was forged.
14. It is next argued on behalf of accused that there is non-
compliance of Section 57 in the present matter. Initial Investigating Officer ASI Devender PW10 deposed that he prepared a report U/s.57 NDPS Act Ex. PW2/C regarding seizure of contraband which he had forwarded to his senior officer Inspt. Vivek Pathak and Inspt. Vivek Pathak signed and forwarded it to the ACP. PW2 HC Om Prakash from the office of ACP proved that even this report Ex. PW2/C was received in the office of ACP on 30.10.2012 i.e. within the prescribed period. This report is challenged on the ground that PW10 ASI Devender in his cross-
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 13 of 21 14 examination admitted that the report was typed not by him, but by HC Yogesh and it is argued that he cannot understand the contents of report.
15. Perusal of testimony of PW10 would reveal that he deposed that he got the report typed through HC Yogesh on computer by dictating him. Emphasis is supplied to the words "by dictating him". He deposed that he can read his report but volunteered that he may miss some of the words whose meanings he may not know and in fact, he dictated the report to HC Yogesh in Hindi and it was translated and typed by HC Yogesh in English. PW10 volunteered that after the report was typed, he read it and then signed it. When the report was dictated by PW10 and it was typed on his dictation, I do not find any irregularity in the matter to term the report as non-compliance. The witness even read the report before signing it. Even otherwise, compliance of Section 57 NDPS Act is not mandatory, but directory.
16. Reliance placed by accused upon the case of Mahinder Kumar Vs. State of Panji, Goa 1995 (Cr Lj.) 2074 is futile as the said case was distinguishable and in that case there was even non- compliance of Section 42 with non-compliance of section 57 NDPS Act.
17. Similarly, reliance placed upon case of Gurbax Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2001 (Cr.Lj.) 1166, is misplaced as in that very case, _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 14 of 21 15 it was held that Section 57 NDPS Act is directory and not mandatory and violation of that provision would not ipso facto vitiate the trial. In any case, in the present case, I do not find any substance in the argument that Section 57 NDPS Act was not complied with.
18. Similarly, the case of Rangi Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2002 (2) RCR 811 laid down that Section 57 NDPS Act is not mandatory.
19. Ld. Counsel for the accused next argued that Section 50 NDPS Act was not complied with.
20. In the present matter, recovery of opium was not effected strictly from the body of accused. Rather, it was recovered from inside one bag which the accused was carrying in his left hand at the time when he came to the spot and was searched. It is now well settled that Section 50 of NDPS Act, 1985 applies only when search of the person of accused is made, and not when contraband is found in bag held by the accused or from vehicle etc. Thus, even this contention of accused is rejected.
21. It is next argued on behalf of the accused that the FIR of this case is apparently ante-timed and ante-dated as HC Dayanand PW1 who registered the FIR did not depose as to on the direction of which senior officer, he noted down in the FIR that further investigation of the case was entrusted to SI Sunil.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 15 of 21 16
22. But then during cross-examination, PW1 HC Dayanand was not even asked about it. Had the accused required that the Duty Officer should disclose the name of senior officer under whose instructions SI Sunil Jain was appointed as further Investigating Officer, it should have been asked from the witness during cross- examination, but it was not asked. It goes without saying that Duty Officer must have done it at the instructions of senior officer only, and merely because he did not himself tell the name of senior officer who appointed SI Sunil Jain as further Investigating Officer, the FIR cannot be termed as forged. Nor it gives rise to any inference that the FIR is ante-timed or ante-dated.
23. It is next argued on behalf of the accused that standing instructions issued by NCB as to how the samples should be drawn and how the samples should be kept, have not been followed, thereby giving rise to a doubt that the samples were tampered with.
24. I do not find any force even in this contention also. The guidelines issued by NCB cannot be termed as mandatory. They are directory in nature and it would have been proper had the Investigating Officer complied with those directions. But merely because those directions were not complied with, cannot result into vitiating the search and seizure.
25. It is argued by the accused that PW6 the SHO in his cross-
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 16 of 21 17 examination stated that the carbon copy of seizure memo was got photocopied later on after the case property and carbon copy were deposited in the Malkhana, and thus, it was possible that even case property was tampered with.
26. Again, even if the carbon copy of the seizure memo was taken out for the purposes of photocopying, that by itself does not mean that the case property was also taken out and tampered with. The MHC(M) PW3 HC Jag Narain as well as PW4 HC Charan Singh who carried the sample parcel to the laboratory, both deposed specifically that nobody tampered with the case property till it remained in their possession. No circumstance was noticed either by the FSL lab people, or by the Court throughout the trial of this case, to suggest any kind of tampering with the case property.
27. Merely because the Investigating Officer had not sent the seal alongwith the pullandas to the SHO, and that the seal of IO or SHO was not deposited in the Malkhana, again does not give rise to any inference that the case property was tampered with. The Investigating Officer gave his seal after use to HC Om Prakash, whereas, the case property was taken by HC Yogesh from the spot to the police station. This fact was enough to ensure that the seal and the case property does not remain with the same person.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 17 of 21 18
28. The next argument of the accused is that PW4 HC Charan Singh deposed that the acknowledgment receipt Ex. PW3/C2 does not find mention that any document was deposited with the sample parcel in the lab. By that argument, accused intends to claim that FSL Form was not deposited in the laboratory.
29. But PW4 specifically deposed in his evidence that he had also taken the FSL Form with the sample parcel. Similarly, PW3 MHC(M) deposed that FSL Form was also sent with the sample parcel. The FSL result Ex. PW9/C clearly mentions that the seal on the sample parcel was found intact and was also tallied with the specimen seal forwarded by the authority. Thus, I do not find any substance in the argument that FSL Form was not deposited in the lab with the sample.
30. It is lastly argued by the accused that there are contradictions in the statement of recovery witnesses as to the colour in which the sample tested on the field testing kit turned, at the spot. PW7 stated that it turned into dark pink colour. PW8 deposed that it turned into dark brown colour. Whereas PW10 deposed that it turned into violet colour. Similarly, there are some minor contradictions as to which person signed the notice first of all and which person signed the notice U/s.50 NDPS Act lastly or as to where the notice was prepared and who was standing where at the time of preparation of notice. It is also argued that the time at which the police team and accused reached PS Crime Branch _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 18 of 21 19 Malviya Nagar has been deposed differently with a margin of 45 minutes.
31. None of these contradictions can be termed as material contradictions. All these contradictions are trivial in nature and does not go to the root of the matter. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the recovery witnesses were examined around 10 months after the date of occurrence. In such circumstances, there are bound to be minor contradictions occurring in the testimony of witnesses. No two witness can depose verbatim. Those small contradictions cannot be given any unnecessary weightage.
32. Regarding the fact of receipt of secret information, formation of raiding party, reaching the spot, taking position, arrival of the accused at the spot, his apprehension, his search and recovery, there is absolutely no contradiction in the testimony of recovery witnesses. There is also no contradiction on the point of drawing of samples, sealing the case property, seizing the case property and conducting other proceedings at the spot. Thus, the witnesses rather materially support and corroborate the testimony of each other.
33. Reliance placed by the accused upon the case of State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, 1999 Drugs Cases 150: (1999) 3 SCC 977 and upon the case of Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2008 _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 19 of 21 20 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 352 does not help the case of accused. In these two judgments, it was held that severer the punishment is, greater has to be the care taken by the Court in appreciating evidence and compliance of procedure. There is no dispute with the law laid down in these two judgments. But then in the present case all the necessary compliance was indeed made by the investigating agency, and I do not see as to why the testimony of police officials cannot be believed and acted upon. The accused in his statement did not come up with any explanation as to why he would be falsely implicated. He simply claimed that he was picked up by certain police officials from Rajasthan and was brought to Delhi and was implicated falsely. The accused admitted his signature on the documents prepared at the spot, particularly the seizure memo, notice U/s.50 NDPS Act, the arrest memo and personal search memo. The accused even failed to answer whether ASI Devender was also there in the team which lifted the accused from Rajasthan, if at all. When he was questioned as to why witnesses have deposed against him, he stated that he does not know. When he was questioned as to why this case against him, he stated that he does not know. If the accused claimed that he has been implicated falsely, it was the accused who should have come forward and give explanation as to why he would be falsely implicated in the case. Offering no explanation, but claiming that the case has been planted, does not go down well, and I do not find anything to disbelieve the case of prosecution.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 20 of 21 21
34. The long and short of the matter is that, the accused is found guilty, and is convicted for the offences punishable U/s.18 of NDPS Act.
Announced in open Court on 16th December, 2013.
Dig Vinay Singh ASJ/Spl. Judge:NDPS(NW) Rohini/Delhi _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ SC No. 03/13 FIR No. 257/12 Dtd: 16.12. 2013 Pg. 21 of 21