Delhi District Court
Sc No.30A/11 State vs . Mahmood Hasan & Anr. on 26 November, 2015
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI A.K.KUHAR
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
S.C. No. 30A/11
FIR No. 216/11
u/s 20 (b)(ii)(B) IPC
PS-Safdarjung Enclave
State
VERSUS
1. Mahmood Hasan
S/o Sh. Jafar Ali
R/o Vill.-Kadalpur, P.O.-Dankaur,
P.S.-Raghupura, Distt.-Gautam Budh Nagar (U.P.)
2. Deepak Kumar
S/o Sh. Sanjay Sharma
R/o Vill.-Kewla, P.O.-Dhabal Bigha,
P.S.-Hulas Ganj, Distt.-Jahanabad.
Computer ID No: 02406R0279832011
Date of institution : 01.11.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 21.11.2015
Date of pronouncement : 26.11.2015
Decision : Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
PROSECUTION CASE 1.0 On 15.08.2011, SI Sanjay Sharma posted at Police Station (P.S.)-Safdarjung Enclave received an information that one person would be coming at Harsukh Marg for supply of Ganja. He noted the information vide DD No. 17-A on 12:30 am and informed the SHO. On the direction of SHO (Station House Officer), PS- Safdarjung Enclave, he formed a raiding party consisting of HC Prem Pal, Ct. Ravi Chauhan and Ct. Bhupender. Alongwith the raiding party and the IO Kit, he reached Harsukh Marg and put a security SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
2picket at Arjun Nagar T-Point on the Harsukh Marg. At about 1:00 pm, he asked 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party, but none agreed. At about 1:10 pm, two persons were seen coming from the side of Gurudwara, Yusuf Sarai carrying a bag each on their shoulders. The informer pointed out towards those two persons and thereafter, the police party apprehended them. They disclosed their names as Mahmood Hasan and Deepak Kumar. SI Sanjay Sharma informed them about the information and served with a notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act, but none of them opted to be searched in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 1.1 SI Sanjay Sharma then checked the bags carried by the accused Mahmood Hassan and Deepak Kumar, which weighed 10 Kg and 11 Kg respectively and was found carrying Ganja. He took half Kg of Ganja from each bag and put the same in two plastic containers and sealed them with doctor's tape. Both the plastic containers were given serial nos. S-1 and S-2 and the remaining Ganja was kept in the respective bags, which were given serial no. A-1 and A-2. All the pulindas were sealed with the seal of SS. The form FSL was filled up alongwith inventory of seized NDPS substance. Seal was handed over to HC Prem Pal. In the meantime, SHO, PS-Safdarjung Enclave, also reached at the spot. He was handed over the samples, FSL form, the inventory of seized NDPS substance, who put his seal of ASR on the pulindas as well as the FSL form. SI Sanjay Sharma then prepared a rukka and sent Ct. Ravi Chauhan to the PS for registration of the FIR. After the registration of the FIR, the investigation was assigned to SI Rajnish, who reached the spot and prepared the site plan at the instance of SI Sanjay Sharma. He gave a notice u/s 52 of the NDPS Act to both the accused and arrested them. SI Rajnish, thereafter, also recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused.
1.2 Accused Deepak disclosed that he brings the narcotic
SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
3
substance from a person named Raja Ram from Bihar and sell it in National Capital Region to different parties and the Ganja, which he brought, was to be sold to one Mahmood Hasan and Jagdish Sharma. But accused Mahmood Hasan disclosed that he alongwith the accused Deepak was going to supply Ganja to one Dinesh when they were apprehended. However, during the investigation, a search was conducted for the said Jagdish Sharma, but he could not be found.
1.3 Regarding the arrest of accused persons and recovery of 'Ganja' report u/s 57 of NDPS Act was sent to the ACP concerned. The case property was deposited with MHC(M) and the samples were sent to the FSL, Rohini for examination. As per the FSL result, the samples were found containing Ganja.
2.0 After hearing arguments on the point of charge, my Ld. Predecessor framed the charges against both the accused persons for the offence punishable u/s 20 (b)(ii)(B) of NDPS ACt. Both the accused had pleaded not guilty to the charge and had claimed the trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 3.0 The prosecution to prove its case qua both the accused, has examined following witnesses :
3.1 PW1 is HC Raj Kumar. He was Duty Officer (D.O.) on 15.08.2011. He deposed that at 3:50 pm, Ct. Ravi Chauhan, had brought the rukka, on the basis of which FIR was recorded. He has proved the FIR Ex. PW1/A and his endorsement on the rukka with regard to registration of FIR as Ex. PW1/B. He deposed that after registration of FIR, the investigation was assigned to SI Rajnish. 3.2 PW2 is HC Prem Pal. He was one of the member of raiding party. He has deposed that on 15.08.2011, he was posted as HC at PS-Safdarjung Enclave. He was called by SI Sanjay Singh in his office and informed regarding the secret information. At SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.4
about 12.30 pm, he alongwith SI Sanjay Singh, Ct. Bhupender, Ct. Ravi Chauhan and the secret informer, proceeded towards Harsukh Marg near Arjun Nagar T-Point. They started checking the vehicles and SI Sanjay Sharma asked 4-5 passersby to join the raiding party, but none agreed. He deposed that at 1:10 pm, two persons were seen coming from the side of Yusuf Sarai Gurudwara, who were pointed out by the informer that they may be the persons carrying Ganja. He deposed that those persons, were apprehended who disclosed their names as Mahmood Hasan and Deepak Kumar and he deposed that they were served with the notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act but the accused did not opt to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He deposed that thereafter SI Sanjay Sharma checked the bags carried by the accused, which were found to contain Ganja. SI Sanjay Sharma took a sample of 500 Gms each from both the bags and marked those samples as S-1 and S-2. Remaining Ganja was kept in the plastic bags and sealed with the seal of SS. The seal after use, was handed over to him. He has further deposed about inventory of seized articles and proved it as Ex. PW2/A. He further deposed that SHO, Inspector A.S. Rawat also reached at the spot. SI Sanjay Sharma had prepared a rukka, which was sent to PS through Ct. Ravi Chauhan for registration of the case. He further deposed that after registration of the case, investigation was marked to SI A.S. Rajnish, who arrested both the accused persons at the spot and also recorded their disclosure statements. 3.3 PW3 is HC Raj Kumar, who was working as MHC(M) at PS-Safdarjung Enclave on 15.08.2011. He deposed that Inspector A.S. Rawat had deposited four sealed parcels sealed with seal of SS and ASR alongwith form FSL vide entry no. 331 in Register No. 19 Ex. PW3/A. He deposed that the samples were sent to the FSL by his successor HC Sukhpal and he identified signatures of HC SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
5Sukhpal on Ex. PW3/A regarding sending the samples to the FSL. He also brought the original RC, Road Certificate and the acknowledgement of the case acceptance of the FSL Ex. PW3/B and Ex. PW3/C respectively.
3.4 PW4 is HC Sajjan Singh, who was the Reader of ACP Mohender Singh of PS-Safdarjung Enclage. He deposed that on 16.08.2011, he received information Ex. PW4/A u/s 57 NDPS Act through Dak sent by SI Rajnish. He made entry in the diary register vide entry no. 5344 (Ex. PW4/B).
3.5 PW5 is ACP Mohender Singh. He deposed that on 16.08.11, the information u/s 57 of NDPS Act forwarded by the SHO was put up before him. He made his endorsement. 3.6 PW6 is Ct. Ravi Chauhan. He was the member of the raiding party. His deposition is on the same line as that of PW2 HC Prem Pal.
3.7 PW7 is Inspector Sanjay Sharma. He had received the secret information and has deposed also on the same lines as PW2 HC Prem Pal and PW6 Ct. Ravi Chauhan. He has proved the notice given to the accused as Ex. PW7/A and Ex. PW7/B and their respective reply Ex. PW7/C and Ex. PW7/D. He has also proved the rukka Ex. PW7/E and identified his signatures at point A. 3.8 PW8 is Inspector A.S. Rawat. He was SHO of PS-
Safdarjung Enclave on 15.08.2011. He deposed that SI Sajjan Singh had received the information that some persons would bring Ganja at Arjun Nagar T-Point and directed SI Sanjay Sharma to conduct a raid. He reached T-Point, Arjun Nagar where he met SI Sanjay Singh and other police officials alongwith accused Mahmood and Deepak. He further deposed that he took four sealed pullinda the S-1 and S-2, A-1 and A-2, on which he affixed his seal of ASR and then left the spot with the case property, copy of seizure memo and deposited the pullindas in the Malkhana and SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
6made DD Entry No. 21-A regarding deposit of the case property. On 16.08.11, he forwarded the report u/s 57 of the NDPS Act to the office of ACP.
3.9 PW9 is Ct. Bhupender Pandit. He was also a member of the raiding party and his deposition is also on the same line as that of PW2 HC Prem Pal, PW6 Ct. Ravi Chauhan and PW7 Inspector Sanjay Sharma.
3.10 PW10 is SI Rajnish, the investigating officer. He deposed that he reached the spot i.e. Arjun Nagar T-Point, Harsukh Marg, after the investigation was handed over to him. He deposed that he had prepared the site plan Ex. PW7/F at the instance of SI Sanjay Singh. He interrogated both the accused and arrested them. He proved the notice u/s 52 of NDPS Act Ex. PW10/A and Ex. PW10/B. 4.0 All the incriminating evidence on record was put and explained to both the accused persons, when they were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Accused Mahmood Hasan had denied the evidence as false and incorrect. He stated that he was apprehended on 14.08.2011 from Dhankaur town in Gautambudh Nagar at about 3:00 pm, where he had come to purchase some agricultural articles. He was present at a shop when some unknown persons called him and asked his name and occupation. He was taken to a vehicle parked nearby, which was occupied by three more persons. He was asked to sit in the vehicle and to accompany them. He was brought to Delhi and was kept in a room and produced in the Court on 16.08.2011. he said that the was forced to write the reply Ex. PW7/D on 14.08.2011.
5.0 The accused Deepak also denied the evidence against him as false and incorrect and stated that he was picked up from Noida. He said that he was working in Faridabad in Swaraj Mazda factory, which manufactures buses. He said that on 14.08.2011 at SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
7about 11:00 am, he was picked up from near Manjlu Biyani Bus Stand and was brought to Delhi. With regard to his reply to the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, he said that he was forced to write on a blank paper and his signatures were also taken on blank papers. None of the accused preferred to lead evidence in their defence. 6.0 I have heard arguments advanced by Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor (Addl. PP) for the State and the respective counsels for both accused. I have also gone through evidence on the record carefully.
7.0 The case of the prosecution is based exclusively on the statement of official witnesses. As has been observed in the case of Mohd. Masoom vs. State (NCT of Delhi) Crl. Appeal No. 1404/2011 (Date of decision 09.04.2015), there is no rule of law that public witnesses should be joined in every eventuality and no conviction can be based upon the testimonies of police officials. Sometimes it becomes highly difficult for the police officials to associate independent witness for various reasons. At the same time, it is undoubtedly true that joining of the independent witness is not a mere formality. If the evidence tendered by police/official witness is unimpeachable, then failure to associate independent witnesses would not affect the prosecution case. The Ld. counsel for the accused had argued that no public witness has been joined, nor any sincere efforts have been made by the SI Sanjay Sharma (PW7) to join any public witness despite the fact that he received the information while he was in the police station. 8.0 The Ld. Addl. PP has argued that there is no requirement of law that in every case, public witness must be joined. He submitted that there is a general apathy in the public to join police officials in the investigation. There is force in the submissions made by the Ld. Addl. PP, but the reason to emphasize the need of public/ independent witness is that it lend authenticity and credibility to the SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
8search and recovery effected by the police officers. However, it does not mean that the statement of the police officials can not be believed without being corroborated by independent witness. The fact, however, remains that in the absence of any independent witness's support or corroboration, the statement of official witnesses have to be scrutinized more vigilantly. Therefore, the statement of witnesses on the record has to be analyzed and appreciated in view of this position of law.
9.0 There is no dispute with the preposition that the onus to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt is alway upon the prosecution and in a case under an enactment like NDPS Act, which lays down severe punishment, this onus becomes more high in degree and a higher degree of assurance is required for conviction of an accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court gave a word of caution in the case Mausam Singh Roy vs. State of West Bengal (2003) 12 SCC 377, when it observed, "it is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious offence is, the stricter is the degree of proof, since a higher degree assurance is required to convict the accused."
10.0 Coming to the present case, the perusal of the statement of prosecution witnesses raised serious doubt about recovery of contraband substance from the possession of the accused. The witnesses lack consistency in their statements. Two of the recovery witnesses i.e. PW6 Ct. Ravi Chauhan and PW9 Ct. Bhupender Pandit have been declared hostile by the prosecution. It is not the law that statement of a hostile witness is washed off the record as that part of the statement of hostile witness, which receives support and corroboration from that evidence, can be accepted. But when two material witnesses of prosecution turned hostile, the Court has to be more careful in appreciating evidence. PW6 and PW9 when declared hostile, gave a parrot like statement in SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
9the cross-examination by the Additional Public Prosecutor, accepting all the suggestions given by the prosecution.
11.0 As per the case of the prosecution, SI Sanjay Sharma (PW7) had received an information that "one person" would be bringing Ganja on Harsukh Mark within the jurisdiction of PS- Safdarjung Enclave. He made a DD entry in this regard. Although, the said DD entry has not been proved on the record, but it finds mention in the rukka Ex. PW7/E that the information was with regard to 'one person' bringing Ganja. However, when the police party had reached the spot they had found two persons carrying bags on their shoulders, which allegedly found containing Ganja. PW7 SI Sanjay Sharma in his examination-in-chief stated that at about 12:30 pm, he was present in the PS when one informer came and informed that two boys are coming with Ganja in their possession and they would come from Yusuf Sarai in the area of Green Park. Now this statement is contrary to the prosecution case. SI Sanjay Sharma (PW7) had prepared the rukka and the deposition of PW7 in the Court is contrary to the contents of rukka with regard to the secret information. There was no attempt on behalf of prosecution to seek any clarification from PW7 with regard to the secret information on this account. Inspector A.S. Rawat (PW8) was the SHO. He also deposed that at about 12:30 pm, SI Sanjay Sharma has received an information that "some persons" would bring Ganja at Arjun Nagar T-Point. He deposed that a DD entry was lodged regarding the information. This statement of PW8 is also against the record i.e. the rukka Ex. PW7/E. Inspector A.S. Rawat when cross-examined by the Ld. counsel for accused Mahmood Hasan stated that in his statement (u/s 161 Cr.P.C.), he had said that an information was regarding some persons would bring Ganja. However, this statement was found contrary to his statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. Ex. PW8/DA.
SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
10
12.0 So, the two material witnesses i.e. PW7 SI Sanjay
Sharma and PW8 Inspector A.S. Rawat have given statement contrary to the record.
13.0 PW7 SI Sanjay Sharma had sent the rukka Ex. PW7/E to the police station through PW6 Ct. Ravi Chauhan. As per the the statement of PW7, the rukka was not prepared by him. In his examination-in-chief, he deposed that he had prepared a Tehrir Ex. PW7/E, which bear his signature at point A. In the cross- examination by the Ld. counsel for accused Mahmood Hasan, he deposed that the rukka was not in his handwriting, but it was written by his associate under his dictation. He has not explained as to who had written the rukka. He deposed that he signed the rukka when he found it has been written correctly as dictated by him. He was accompanied by PW2 HC Prem Pal (PW6) Ct. Ravi Chauhan, PW9 Ct. Bhupender Pandit at the time of raid. The proceedings with regard to apprehension of accused, recovery and seizure of contraband, preparation of rukka, were conducted in their presence. If SI Sanjay Sharma had not written the rukka Ex. PW7/E in his handwriting, then either of these three witnesses might have written it, but none of them has said that rukka was written by any one of them. Rather PW6 Ct. Ravi Chauhan deposed that the rukka was prepared by SI Sanjay Singh in his own handwriting. Similarly PW9 Ct. Bhupender Pandit also deposed that the rukka was prepared by SI Sanjay Singh in his own handwriting. The witnesses are, therefore, not consistent on the drawing up of proceedings at the spot and the preparation of very vital document of the case. 14.0 As per the prosecution case, there were four persons in the police party headed by PW7 SI Sanjay Sharma. The information was received by SI Sanjay Sharma in the police station and after forming a raiding party, he alongwith the police officials came to the spot. It is material to know, how they came to the spot. PW6 Ct.
SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
11Ravi Chauhan in his statement has been very categorical that they had came to the spot on foot. PW2 HC Prem Pal also deposed in his cross-examination that they left police station for the spot on foot. PW7, however, has deposed to the contrary and deposed that they reached at the T-Point on Harsukh Mark in a private vehicle at about 12.45 pm, but he was unable to recollect the make of the vehicle. He further deposed that the vehicle was being driven by him. He does not know, who was the owner of the vehicle and it was a private vehicle of the staff member of the police station. PW9 HC Bhupender Pandit had deposed that they had gone to the spot in the private vehicle of SI Sanjay Sharma. He deposed that the distance from the police station to the spot was about 2½ Kms and SI Sanjay Sharma parked the vehicle opposite to the road. On reaching the spot, they also put some barricades. So, out of the four witnesses of recovery and seizure, who started together from the police station for the raid, two witnesses, PW6 and PW12 deposed that they had gone to the spot on foot while other two witnesses PW7 and PW9 deposed that they had gone to the spot in a car. SI Sanjay Sharma is not aware, who is the owner of the car. PW9 HC Bhupender Pandit says that the car belonged to SI Sanjay Sharma. Which of the witness is speaking truth, nobody knows. 15.0 Admittedly, the members of the raiding team were in uniform. They had put a barricade. The prosecution witness PW9 deposed that informer pointed out towards the accused persons when they were at a distance of 15-20 steps. In his further cross- examination, he deposed that the accused persons after seeing the police party, had started going back. He further deposed that one could see police standing at the spot from the distance of 200 meters. If the police party was visible from the distance of 200 meters, then one fails to understand, why the accused would come so close to the police party and would retract their steps just at a SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
12distance of 10-15 steps. This version of the prosecution is highly improbable.
16.0 The another important aspect of this case is the sending of FSL form to the FSL, Rohini. There is no cogent evidence coming on the record to prove that the FSL form was filled up at the spot and specimen seal of the seizing officer (PW7), was also put on the FSL form. There is no cogent evidence that the FSL form was also sent to FSL, Rohini, or it was deposited in the Malkhana and was sent to FSL, Rohini. PW7 Inspector Sanjay Sharma in his examination chief has deposed that he had sealed all the parcels of the sample as well as remaining Ganja and then sealed with the seal of SS and he also filled up the FSL form, but he deposed that he does not remember if he had affixed the seal on the FSL Form or not. The Ld. Special PP with the permission of Court, put a leading question to the PW7 with regard to the affixation of seal by him on the FSL form, but the witness again deposed that he might have affixed it, but he does not remember it. PW7 also did not depose to whom he handed over the seal of SS after the use. Again the Additional PP put a leading question to him in this regard, then PW7 accepted as correct that he handed over the seal to HC Prem Pal (PW2).
17.0 PW8 Inspector A.S. Rawat, SHO of PS-Safdarjung Enclave, deposed that he reached T-Point, Arjun Nagar at 2:50 pm where he met SI Sanjay Sharma. He deposed that SI Sanjay Sharma had produced to him four sealed pulinda Mark S-1, S-2, A-1 and A-2. He also affixed his seal of ASR on all these pulindas. He further deposed that after making inquiry from the accused persons, he left the spot with the case property, copy of seizure memo and reached at the PS. He further deposed that he deposited all the pulindas in the Malkhana and inquired the FIR number from the Duty Officer and wrote the same on the pulindas. This witness again nowhere SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
13said that SI Sanjay Sharma also handed over to him FSL form, nor he deposed that he had deposited the FSL form in the Malkhana or has put his seal on the FSL form. The Ld. Additional PP again sought permission to put a leading question to this witness as well. In response to the leading question, PW8 admitted that SI Sanjay Sharma had given him FSL form, on which he affixed his seal and deposited in the Malkhana. Now to verify the truth of his statement with regard to deposit of FSL form, we may refer to the Malkhana Register Ex. PW3/A. It does not mention anywhere that the FSL form was also deposited in the Malkhana.
18.0 PW3 HC Raj Kumar, however, has said that Inspector A.S. Rawat had deposited four sealed parcels duly sealed with the seal of SS and ASR alongwith the form FSL. The oral testimony of PW3 HC Raj Kumar is contrary to the documentary evidence in the form of Ex. PW3/A. There is no explanation by PW3 HC Raj Kumar as to why he has not mentioned about the deposit of FSL form in the Malkhana. It is also not mentioned in the register no. 19 that the FSL form was ever sent to FSL, Rohini. SI Rajnish (PW10) had deposed that on 20.09.11, he had taken the sample parcels from Malkhana and deposited at FSL, Rohini. He has also not deposed that he had taken the form FSL as well to the FSL, Rohini. The statement of PW3 that the form FSL was deposited in the Malkhana, is not supported or corroborated by any documentary or oral evidence. His oral testimony with regard to deposit of FSL form, which is contrary to the documentary record, cannot be accepted. In case of Satender Singh vs. State-1997 VI AD (Delhi) 576, it was held that oral testimony, which is contrary to the documentary evidence, i.e. register of Malkhana and the Road Certificate cannot be preferred unless evidence is led proving reasons for omissions in the documents.
19.0 I would hasten to add here that even the road certificate
SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
14
Ex. PW3/B does not say that FSL form was given to SI Rajnish alongwith the sample parcels for depositing at FSL, Rohini. It may be stated that the FSL form contain the specimen seal/seals of seizing officers. The Public Analyst tallied the seal on the FSL form with the seal found on the parcels containing samples. Therefore, preparation of the FSL form with the specimen seal there on and sending the same to the FSL with the sample, is a valuable safeguard to the accused to ensure that no tampering has been done during intervening period. Therefore, the evidence with regard to preparation and dispatch of the FSL form is crucial for ensuring that sealed samples were kept intact in the Malkhana. 20.0 In the present case, however, neither there is any evidence that the FSL form was deposited in the Malkhana or that alongwith sample parcel, it was sent to the FSL. The seizing officer, PW7 is not even sure whether he has put his seal on the FSL form. 21.0 Another aspect, which make the prosecution case doubtful, is that no effort has been made to ascertain about the source and recipient of the contraband substance from the accused. PW6 Ct. Ravi Chauhan had deposed that the accused Mahmood had told that he was doing the business of contraband with one Jagdish Sharma and he also told the mobile number of Jagdish Sharma. However, in the disclosure statement o the accused Mahmood, the said mobile number of Jagdish Sharma is not mentioned. Whether it was deliberately concealed to avoid a fair and proper investigation or to conceal the involvement of some other person in the incident ? When accused have been found in possession of mobile phone, it was but natural for the Investigating Officers to trace Jagdish Sharma when as per PW6, his mobile number was disclosed by accused Mahmood. In the absence of this investigation a serious doubt is created on the bonafide and recovery of contraband from the accused.
SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.
15
22.0 Therefore, in the face of the evidence coming on the
record where two recovery witnesses i.e. PW6 and PW9 are hostile; where SHO of PS is silent about the material part of the investigation and had to be put leading question, when Investigating Officer is conspicuously silent on the preparation of material documents i.e. FSL form, it is difficult to believe the prosecution version of recovery of Ganja from the possession of the accused persons. Although there is no allegations of any enmity or prejudice to the prosecution witness, but the absence of such an allegation does not absolve the prosecution to prove its case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of above discussion, I hereby acquit both the accused persons of the charge u/s u/s 20 (b) (ii) (B) of the NDPS Act. There personal bond and surety bond cancelled. Sureties discharged. 23.0 Both accused have already furnished personal bonds with a surety each in terms of Section 437A Cr.P.C. alongwith their photographs, which are now also discharged.
24.0 File be consigned to Record Room after necessary compliance.
Announced in the open Court on (Ajay Kumar Kuhar)
26th November, 2015 Special Judge (NDPS)
South District: Saket
SC No.30A/11 State Vs. Mahmood Hasan & Anr.