Delhi District Court
State vs Shekhar Kumar Verma on 22 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHIRENDRA RANA
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), NORTH
DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS : DELHI
In the matter of:-
(Sessions Case No. 265/2020)
CNR No. DLNT01-006635-2020
FIR No. 315/2020
Police Station S. P. Badli
Charge sheet filed 22/61/85 NDPS Act
Under Section
Charge framed Under 22 NDPS Act
Section
Shekhar Kumar Verma s/o Sh. Dheeraj
State Vs. Kumar Verma r/o Flat No. 261, Block
A, Pocket 3, DDA Flat, Bindapur,
Uttam Nagar, Dwarka, Delhi.
Date of institution 21.10.2020
Arguments concluded on 14.07.2025
Judgment Pronounced on 22.07.2025
Decision Convicted
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS 1.1 The accused Shekhar Kumar Verma has been sent to face trial for committing an offence punishable under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act').
1.2. The facts of the case in brief as per the charge sheet filed by the prosecution are that the FIR in question was registered on 25.04.2020. On the directions of senior officer, vide DD No. 24B dated 05:15 PM, SI Sandeep SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 1 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:07 +0530 alongwith Ct. Vivek were on picket checking duty at Mukraba Chowk, GTK Road where HC Parvesh, ASI Ranvir, Ct. Anuj, HC Lakhvinder, Ct. Anjit and Ct. Yogender were already present. During picket checking at about 06:30 PM, car Honda Civic bearing No. DL-4CAB-9918 was seen coming from Azadpur and signal was given to stop for checking. Inquiries were made from the driver with regard to his presence during lockdown period, however, he failed to give any satisfactory reply. Upon suspicion, said car was checked and two brown colour cartons were found on the rear seat. On inquiry, said person disclosed his name as Shekhar Kumar Verma and disclosed that the said cartons were containing prohibited medicines and same were purchased by him from Sajjad @ Sajid from Dwarka, Delhi.
1.3 SI Sandeep immediately informed ACP concerned and SHO concerned through telephone. No public person was found present at the spot due to lockdown. In the meantime, at about 07:22 PM, ACP/S. P. Badli reached at the spot and thereafter, notice under section 50 NDPS Act was served upon accused. Accused was informed about his legal rights, however, accused refused to exercise his legal rights and gave his refusal in writing on the notice itself as recovery has already been effected from his car. Thereafter, both the cartons were taken out from the car. On checking the cartons, one of the cartons was found containing 70 boxes and another carton was found containing 60 boxes of Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride & Acetaminophen Capsules, SPASMO-PORXYVON® PLUS white colour. On every box "Each hard gelatine capsule contains Dicyclomine Hydrochloride I. P. 10 mg, Tramadol Hydrochloride I.P. 50 mg, Acetaminophen I.P. 325 mg Capsule colour Approved Colours used, Dosage:
As directed by the physician were written. Each box found containing 6 strips SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 2 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:11 +0530 containing 24 capsules in one strip. Total 18720 capsules containing 936 gm Tramadol, were recovered from both cartons. Both cartons were sealed with the seal of SS and seized after marking them as Mark A1 and A2. Seal after use was handed over to HC Parvesh. Car bearing No. DL 4CAB 9918 was also seized. Thereafter, ACP left the spot after giving necessary directions. SI Sandeep prepared tehrir and handed over the same, sealed pullanda and carbon copy of seizure memo to Ct. Vivek, who went to police station and got the FIR registered. Ct. Vivek produced sealed pullanda and carbon copy of seizure memo before SHO.
1.4 After registration of FIR, further investigation was marked to SI Uday and Ct. Vivek handed over the copy of FIR and tehrir to SI Uday. SI Uday reached at the spot and prepared site plan at the instance of Ct. Vivek.
Accused was interrogated and arrested. Personal search of accused was conducted and his disclosure statement was recorded. Compliance u/s 57 of NDPS Act was got done. The samples were sent to FSL and the result was obtained. The result came out to be positive that recovered medicines i.e., Ex. S1 and Ex. S2 were found containing 'Tramadol, 'Acetaminophen' and 'Dicyclomine'. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
CHARGE
2. On the basis of material available on record, vide order dated 21.01.2021, charge u/s 22 NDPS Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
3. Thereafter, prosecution in support of its case have examined 16 SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 3 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:14 +0530 witnesses in all.
4.1 PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana deposed that on 25.04.2020 at about 05:15 PM, he alongwith SI Sandeep Sandhu, ASI Ranvir, HC Parvesh, HC Lakhvinder, Ct. Anuj, Ct. Anjeet and Ct. Yogender reached at Mukarba Chowk Picket where they were checking the vehicles. He further deposed that at about 06:30 PM, one Honda Civic car bearing No. DL-4CAB-9918 came from the side of Azadpur and they gave signal to stop the car. The car was stopped just ahead from the barricade at one side. He further deposed that IO SI Sandeep made inquiries from driver i.e., accused Shekhar Kumar Verma as to where he was going as lockdown was in force, however, the driver did not give any satisfactory reply. He further deposed that two cartons of khaki colour having brown colour tape on them, were kept on the rear seat of the car and on suspicion, they started checking the same and the cartons were found containing some capsule type medicine. He further deposed that during checking, IO SI Sandeep found that the said medicines were used for intoxication purpose. Thereafter, IO SI Sandeep Sandhu informed ACP as well as SHO PS S. P. Badli through telephone.
4.2 He further deposed that IO informed accused about his legal rights i.e., to give his search in presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and he could also take the search of police officials prior to giving his search. He further deposed that accused refused to call any Gazetted officer or Magistrate at the spot. Thereafter, IO SI Sandeep prepared notice under section 50 NDPS Act, carbon copy of the notice is Ex. PW1/A and served the same upon the accused. He further deposed that accused gave his reply to the notice which is Ex. PW1/B. He further deposed that accused was interrogated and he informed that there were prohibited medicines in the cartons.
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 4 of 51
PS S. P. Badli
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:26:19 +0530
4.3 He further deposed that SI Sandeep informed ACP and SHO
concerned regarding apprehension of accused and recovery of two cartons. He further deposed that ACP Manish Jorwal reached at the spot at about 07:22 PM and in presence of ACP both cartons were opened. In one of the cartons there were 70 small boxes and in other cartons there were 60 small boxes and there were 18726 capsules in both the boxes. He further deposed that accused was apprised about his right that he could search raiding team members prior to his search, however, he refused for the same and told that he knew that he was having prohibited drug in his possession.
4.4 He further deposed that the said two cartons containing 18726 capsules were seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/C and thereafter, ACP left the spot after directing IO to proceed further as per law. He further deposed that thereafter, IO handed over tehrir to him alongwith copy of seizure memo and case property in sealed condition and accordingly, he had gone to police station for registration of FIR.
4.5 He further deposed that at about 08:30 PM, he reached at police station and handed over the rukka to duty officer and produced case property in sealed condition before SHO in his room and SHO put his seal of AK on the said parcels. He further deposed that thereafter, he reached at the spot alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to SI Udai, who was present at the spot as further investigation was marked to him. He further deposed that IO SI Sandeep had left the spot after handing over the documents prepared by him and custody of accused to SI Udai. He further deposed that accused disclosed that he had purchased medicines/capsules from Sajjad @ Sajid. Accused was arrested vide arrest memo which is Ex. PW1/D, his personal search was conducted vide personal search memo which is Ex. PW1/E and his disclosure statement was recorded which is Ex. PW1/F. He SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 5 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:23 +0530 further deposed that car bearing No. DL-4CAB-9918 alongwith key was seized vide seizure memo which is Ex. PW1/G. He further deposed that thereafter, he alongwith IO and accused had gone to Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, however, source of supply i.e., accused Sajjad @ Sajid was not found there. 4.6 During cross examination done on behalf of State he admitted that ACP Manish Jorwal reached at the spot at about 07:22 PM and thereafter, SI Sandeep served copy of notice under section 50 NDPS Act upon accused and told him that as per information, he had prohibited drugs in his possession and his search was to be conducted. It was his legal right that his search could be taken in presence of a Gazetted officer or a Magistrate, if he so desire, however, accused refused for the same. He further admitted that accused was also apprised that prior to his search, he could take search of any of the raiding team member and ACP had also apprised the accused about his rights but accused had replied to the notice that he did not want to be searched in presence of Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer as police party already knew that accused was in possession of prohibited drugs.
4.7 He further admitted that he with the help of SI Sandeep took out two cartons from car bearing No. DL-4CAB-9918 Honda Civic and one of the cartons was found containing 70 boxes and each box containing 6 strips. It is further admitted that another box found containing 60 small boxes each containing 6 strips. He further deposed that each strip contained 24 capsules of Dicyclomine Hydrochloride, Tramadol Hydrochloride and Acetaminophen Capsules, Spasmo Proxyvone Plus and on each box "each hard gelatin capsule contains Dicyclomine Hydrochloride I.P.10 mg, Tramadol Hydrochloride I.P. 50 mg, Acetaminophen IP 325 mg capsule colour, approved colours used, dosage, as directed by the physician was written.
4.8 He further admitted that on calculation, 936 grams Tramadol were
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 6 of 51
PS S. P. Badli
Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:26:27 +0530
found in the said capsules which was prohibited as per law. He further admitted that SI Sandeep Sandhu had kept the said recovered capsules in the said cartons and both cartons were marked as A1 and A2. He further admitted that both the cartons were sealed with the seal of SS and seized the same in the presence of ACP. He further admitted that seal after use was handed over to HC Parvesh, who was called from the nearby picket and thereafter, ACP had left the spot after giving necessary directions to IO. 4.9 He further admitted that prior to handing over rukka to him, IO had directed to produce the rukka to duty officer and case property and carbon copy of the seizure memo to SHO. He took the rukka and sealed parcels to police station. He produced the rukka to duty officer, who registered the FIR and sealed parcels and carbon copy of the seizure memo to SHO, who put his seal of AK on the parcels and had written the FIR number on the parcel and carbon copy of the seizure memo.
4.10 He exhibited carton Mark A1 containing 70 small boxes as Ex. P1 (collectively) and carton Mark A2 containing 60 small boxes as Ex. P2 (collectively).
4.11 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he was made aware in police station that they had to go to spot for picket checking. No written order of senior officer was shown to him by IO SI Sandeep Sandhu for picket checking. He stated that he checked around 10 cars at the picket, however, details of car were not entered in any register. He stated that one police booth was 50 meters distance from the picket and distance of police station from the spot was about 4 km. He stated that no CCTV camera was installed at police booth. He admitted that vehicles were moving and passing through the area at the time when they apprehended the accused. He stated that IO had requested some of the car drivers and passengers to join the SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 7 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:31 +0530 investigation but they refused to join.
4.12 He stated that IO had firstly called ACP and thereafter, he called the SHO. The distance between the office of ACP and the spot was around 10 km. He could not tell as to which of the police official had stopped the car of the accused. He stated that cartons were opened while these were kept in the car and it was found that same were having prohibited medicines. The cartons remained under his supervision alongwith supervision of SI Sandeep, HC Parvesh till the arrival of ACP at the spot. He stated that notice under section 50 NDPS Act was served upon accused on the directions of ACP and ACP was also present at that time. He stated that no finger prints of the accused were lifted from the said cartons. Both the cartons were checked in presence of ACP concerned at the spot and after seizure of the cartons, ACP left the spot. He stated that no videography and photography of the recovered medicines/capsules were prepared at the spot despite having smart phone with him, IO and ACP concerned. He stated that no CCTV camera was installed at the spot. He stated that all the strips in each of the box were checked. He stated that the car and recovered material was checked around 15-20 steps from the police picket on the road leading towards Karnal side. 4.13 He stated that during conducting picket checking, diggi of the car was checked and luggage or any article therein was also checked apart from the person sitting in the vehicle. He stated that goods from the vehicles were also checked during the picket checking. He stated that seal remained with IO after use. He stated that he did not make any arrival entry in the police station. He firstly met with duty officer. He stated that seal after use was kept by SHO with himself. He admitted that no FSL form was filled up in his presence. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 8 of 51
PS S. P. Badli
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:26:35 +0530
5.1 PW2 HC Parvesh Kumar, being the member of team, who
apprehended accused, deposed on the lines of PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana about apprehension of accused.
5.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that his departure entry was made by duty officer but he could not tell the number of that DD entry. He stated that ASI Ranvir, Ct. Anuj, HC Lakhvinder, Ct. Anjit accompanied him on that day and their departure entry was also made by the duty officer but he could not tell the number of that DD entry. He stated that distance between the occurrence place and police station was near about 1½ to 2 km. Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar was at a distance of about 1 km from the spot. There was no government office or shop etc. near the spot. He denied that he did not notice any carton in the car of the accused at that time. He stated that seal was handed over to him by SI Sandeep after ACP left the spot. He admitted that no memo regarding handing over the seal was prepared by the IO in that regard. He stated that he returned the seal to IO on next day but no handing over memo was prepared by the IO. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
6.1 PW3 ASI Pramod, being MHC(M) exhibited serial No. 4459 in register No. 19 as Ex. PW3/A vide which on 25.04.2020, Inspector Akshay Kumar deposited two sealed cartons sealed with the seal of SS and AK in malkhana. He deposed that on 14.10.2020, on the directions of IO, he handed over both sealed parcels to Ct. Satyender for production of the parcels in Rohini Court vide RC No. 250/21 which is Ex. PW3/X. He further deposed that on the same day Ct. Satyender came back to Malkhana and deposited back the said parcels and samples mark S1 and S2 sealed with the seal of NKS. 6.2 He further deposed that on 15.10.2020, on directions of IO, he SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 9 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:39 +0530 handed over parcels Mark S1 and S2 alongwith relevant documents to Ct. Kuldeep vide RC No. 251/21/2020 which is Ex. PW3/B for depositing the same at FSL. After depositing the parcel, Ct. Kuldeep handed over acknowledgment which is Ex. PW3/C to him.
7.1 PW4 ACP Akashay Kumar, deposed that on 25.042020 at about 09:00 PM, Ct. Vivek came to his office and handed over the copy of seizure memo, FSL form and two parcels sealed with the seal of SS. He further deposed that he affixed his seal AK on the said parcels and FSL forms. He further deposed that he called malkhana mohrar to his office and handed over the aforesaid sealed case property and documents to him for depositing the same in malkhana. He further deposed that malkhana Moharar made entry in register No. 19 and he signed the same. He further deposed that he also obtained FIR number on the parcels and documents after obtaining the same from duty officer.
7.2 He further deposed that on the same day, SI Uday Singh and SI Sudeep Singh presented two separate compliance reports under section 57 NDPS Act which are Ex. PW4/A and Ex. PW4/B. 7.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he had not received any information from the spot. He stated that he did not ask about the mode of transport by which Ct. Vivek had brought the case property alongwith copy of seizure memo to PS S. P. Badli. He stated that he had not visited the spot. He admitted that he had gone through the contents of the copy of seizure memo in which seized articles were mentioned as capsules. He stated that he recorded DD entry qua the proceedings conducted by him but he did not recollect the same. He admitted that there is no mention about the FSL form in DD entry No. 54A lodged by him when the case property was SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 10 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:45 +0530 deposited in malkhana.
8. PW5 HC Kuldeep Kumar, took two sealed samples S1 and S2 sealed with the seal of NKS alongwith road certificate, FSL Form from the malkhana mohrar and deposited the same at FSL Rohini. He obtained the receipt from FSL Rohini after depositing the same and handed over the same to MHC(M).
9. PW6 Akshas Khosla deposed that accused Shekhar Kumar Verma is his neighbour and he is having his shop in front of his house. He further deposed that one day prior to his apprehension, accused Shekhar had taken his car bearing No. DL-4CAB-9918 Honda Civic for some work as he told him that he would return his car on the next day. He further deposed that later on, he came to know about seizure of car by the officials of PS S. P. Badli and he got released the same on superdari. He further deposed that when he got the car released on superdari, photographs were clicked which are Ex. PW6/A (colly).
10.1 PW7 SI Sandeep, being first IO, deposed about the investigation carried out by him and on the lines of PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana and PW2 HC Parvesh Kumar during his examination in chief. He exhibited rukka as Ex. PW7/A. 10.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he left the police station S. P. Badli at about 05:00 PM on verbal instructions of senior police officers SHO and ACP were not present in police station at that time. He stated that he himself made departure entry No. 24B while leaving the police station. He admitted that DD No. 24B dated SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 11 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:53 +0530 25.04.2020 bears signature of SHO but the copy thereof supplied to accused did not bear signature of SHO. He admitted that DD No. 24B did not mention the purpose of leaving the police station for the spot. He stated that departure entry of Ct. vivek was also made by him in DD No. 24B.
10.3 He stated that the distance between the police station and spot was about 1½ km and they reached at the spot by his personal car bearing No. HR-10AH-6974. He stated that there was a police booth near the police picket, however, there was no police post near the spot. He stated that accused was stopped at the picket and enquiries were made from him on the roadside after taking him out of the car. He stated that accused was taken to nearby road to 20-25 steps from the picket. He admitted that when the alleged car was being checked, public transport/vehicles were plying on the road. 10.4 He stated that no government office, school, college, MCD office or Jal Board Office were nearby the spot. He stated that vehicles as well as goods were being checked by him and other staff. He stated that he made a phone call from his mobile No. 9990966898 or 9996659570 to ACP Manish Jorwal and informed him regarding the present case. He stated that the distance between the spot and ACP office was around 8-10 km and ACP reached at the spot within 10-12 minutes by his government vehicle/car with his driver. He stated that he had already apprised ACP on phone regarding the recovery of Tramadol medicines from possession of accused.
10.5 He stated that counting of the contraband were made by him as well as Ct. Vivek and HC Parvesh. He had properly checked all the capsules and they were exactly 18726. He stated that he only checked the contents of Tramadol but he did not check the date of manufacturing and date of expiry or name of the pharmaceutical company. He stated that box containing 70 small boxes was given Mark A1 and box containing 60 small boxes was given Mark SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 12 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:26:56 +0530 A2. He admitted that FIR was not registered when boxes were sent to SHO. 10.6 He could not tell how many seals he had affixed on both the boxes. He stated that ACP did not affix any seal on the said boxes. He stated that he did not prepare any handing over of seal to HC Parvesh, however, he had mentioned the same in the rukka. He stated that ACP remained at the spot for 40-50 minutes. He stated that he did not take any photograph or made any video of the alleged recovered articles/medicines before arrival of ACP on the spot. He stated that initially, he prepared seizure memo and thereafter, he prepared rukka. He stated that Ct. Vivek went to police station for registration of FIR on motorcycle. He stated that ACP did not issue any direction to serve notice under section 50 NDPS Act. He stated that there was no CCTV camera installed near the place of incident. He stated that he had not prepared any report under section 57 NDPS Act or sent the same to ACP. He denied all the suggestions put forth on behalf of accused.
11.1 PW8 Inspector Udai Singh deposed that on 25.04.2020, further investigation was marked to him and he went to spot i.e., Bus Stand, Mukarba Chowk Road leading towards Singhu Border where he met SI Sandeep Sandhu, HC Parvesh and accused Shekhar Kumar Verma. He further deposed that meanwhile Ct. Vivek also reached there alongwith copy of FIR and original rukka and handed over the same to him. He further deposed that SI Sandeep Sandhu handed over custody of accused, seizure memo and copy of notice under section 50 NDPS Act to him. He further deposed that he prepared site plan which is Ex. PW8/A at the instance of Ct. Vivek. He interrogated accused, arrested him, conducted his personal search and recorded his disclosure statement. He further deposed that notice under section 50 NDPS Act, iphone 10, Aadhar Card, cash of Rs. 3,500/- and black colour wallet were SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 13 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:00 +0530 recovered from personal search of accused.
11.2 He further deposed that on next date i.e., 26.04.2020, he produced accused before Hon'ble Court and obtained his one day PC remand. He further deposed that on the same day, case property was produced before Ld. MM for drawing of sample but same could not be done.
11.3 He further deposed that on 25.04.2020, he sent report to SHO Inspector Akshay Kumar under section 57 NDPS Act in respect of arrest of accused. He further deposed that he again moved an application before Ld. CMM for drawing of samples on 12.10.2020 which is Ex. PW8/B and accordingly, samples were drawn and sent to FSL Rohini. He further deposed that Honda Civic car was released to owner after making panchanama which is Ex. PW8/C. 11.4 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that there was no shop, gas station or any other service in the close proximity of the spot. He stated that he did not fill the FSL form and same was not filled in his presence by SI Sandeep and same was not handed over to him by SI Sandeep. He stated that he checked mobile phone of accused Shekhar but no contact was saved in his phone by the name Sajjad. He stated that sample process got delayed due to Covid-19 situation. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused.
12.1 PW9 ACP Manish Jorwal deposed that on 25.04.2020 at about 07:10 PM, he received an information from IO SI Sandeep Sandhu that a Honda City car had been intercepted with suspicious substance and he requested him to reach the spot i.e., Mukarba Chowk. He further deposed that accordingly, he reached at the spot within ten minutes and met SI Sandeep Sandhu alongwith one or two Constables. He further deposed that SI Sandeep SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 14 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:04 +0530 Sandhu produced accused before him and he was also apprised about the facts and circumstances. He further deposed that IO served notice under section 50 NDPS Act in his presence and search of Honda City car was also conducted and two big cartons were recovered from rear seat of the car. He further deposed that accused was apprised about his legal rights that he could get himself searched from a nearby Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. He was also offered to search the police party prior to his search. He further deposed that he introduced himself to the accused. The said cartons were opened and one of the cartons was found containing 70 boxes of Tramadol hydrochloride capsules and another carton was found containing 60 boxes of Tramadol hydrochloride capsules. The said cartons were seized after giving mark A1 and A2. He further deposed that thereafter, he left the spot.
12.2 He further deposed that on next day i.e., 26.04.2020, two separate reports under section 57 NDPS Act in regard to recovery of case property and arrest of accused were received in his office and he had seen both reports and signed the same.
12.3 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that SI Sandhu was present at the spot alongwith accused near Honda City car which was parked around 10 paces from the police both. He stated that he did not notice any injury on the person of accused and he did not notice any pain from the appearance of accused. He stated that notice under section 50 NDPS Act was served upon accused prior to search and preparation of seizure memo. He stated that cartons were opened by IO SI Sandeep Sandhu and counting was also done by IO.
13.1 PW10 Manohar Lal, being the photographer, deposed that on the request of IO SI Udai Singh, he went to Rohini Courts on 14.10.2020 where he SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 15 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:08 +0530 took seven photographs which are Ex. PW10/A1 to Ex. PW10/A7 with his digital camera make Nikon Model No. D750 of the proceedings conducted before Ld. MM. He exhibited certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW10/B. 13.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he stated that he handed over developed photographs to the police on the next day of taking the same and no documents were prepared by the police official at that time.
14. PW11 Ct. Nitin, exhibited entry at serial No. 2512 as Ex. PW11/A and Serial No. 2513 as Ex. PW11/B with regard to receipt of report under section 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of case property and arrest of accused at ACP office.
15. PW12 ASI Vinesh Kumar, being the duty officer, exhibited FIR as Ex. PW12/A, certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW12/B and DD No. 52A as Ex. PW12/C. 16.1 PW13 Ct. Satender deposed that on 14.10.2020, sampling process was done in the chamber of ld. MM in Room No. 110. He further deposed that ASI Pramod/IO opened two pullandas in presence of Ld. MM and extracted two samples out of those pullandas. He further deposed that samples were kept in a plastic box and same was sealed with the seal of NKS by ASI Pramod. He further deposed that ASI Pramod handed over two pullandas alongwith two samples to him and he deposited the same in malkhana on the same day. 16.2 During cross examination done on behalf of State, he admitted that he had received two pullandas A1 and A2 in brown colour cardboard box SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 16 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:12 +0530 sealed with the seal of SS and AK and produced the same before Ld. MM in Room No. 110. He further admitted that photographer Manohar Lal was also present in the chamber. He admitted that samples extracted by IO were marked as S1 and S2 and after sealing of samples, seal of NKS was handed over to him by ASI Pramod. He further admitted that FSL form was also filled in the chamber and same was handed over to him. He admitted that he deposited four pullandas alongwith FSL form and sample seal in malkhana.
17.1 PW14 SI Upender deposed that he made departure DD entry which is Ex. PW14/A while leaving the police station for vehicle checking. 17.2 During cross examination done on behalf of accused, he admitted that accused was not apprehended in his presence. He stated that SI Sandeep Sandhu, SHO and ACP did not arrive at the spot in his presence. He denied all the suggestions put on behalf of accused.
18. PW15 Kavita Goyal, Assistant Director, Chemistry. deposed that on 15.10.2020, two parcels were received in the office and same were marked to him. She further deposed that he examined the same and found the sample were containing Tarmadol, Acetaminophen and Dicyclomine vide her report which is Ex. PW15/A.
19. PW16 Ms. Niharika Kumar Sharma, the then Ld. MM, deposed that on 17.05.2020, IO had moved an application under section 52A NDPS Act for sampling of contraband and the said application was put up for disposal on 14.10.2020. She further deposed that IO SI Uday Singh alongwith photographer namely Manohar Lal and Ct. Satender on behalf of MHC(M) PS S. P. Badli came to the court. IO had produced case property i.e., two boxes A1 SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 17 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:16 +0530 and A2 weighing 10.75 kg and 9.40 kg respectively. She further deposed that photographer took the photographs of the weighing process. She further deposed that case property was desealed and four strips each were taken as samples and named as S1 and S2. She further deposed that case property of the sample were sealed with the seal of court i.e., NKS and case property alongwith samples were handed over to Ct. Satender vide order which is Ex. PW16/A. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 Cr.P.C 20.1 After closure of PE, statement of accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. on 14.05.2024, wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put to him. He stated that before the date of incident i.e., 24.04.2020, he got a call from his uncle Mr. Natvar Lal about shortage of staff in his laboratory for sample collection and he was called as he was a professional photomologist. He stated that he had to reach Pitampura at about 07:00-07:30 AM in the morning for sample collection. He stayed at Lajpat Nagar and his office and his shop are also in Lajpat Nagar.
20.2 He stated that early morning on 25.04.2020 he started from his house towards Pitampura at about 06:00 AM taking his friend's car. He was carrying a iphone and due to internet problem, the server page to download the Covid pass was not working. He stated that he with his collection kit started from his home through Majnu ka tilla and before Azadpur Flyover, he was stopped by one constable namely Santram and told him to drop at Alipur. He stated that he told him that he had to reach Pitampura for sample collection on time and he could not drop him at Alipur. He stated that on his denial, Ct. Santram asked him for the Covid Pass, however, due to the above mentioned reason he could not generate Covid Pass. On this Ct. Santram opened the car SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 18 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:20 +0530 gate and sat inside. He stated that he was scared as Ct. Santram was a police official and he was wearing khakhi trouser and white shirt at that time and told him to drive towards Sanjay Gandhi Transport where police beat was situated. 20.3 He stated that Ct. Santram forced him to stop at Booth. He did not know what to do at that point of time as he was scared. Thereafter, Ct. Santram went inside the booth. He got down of his car and saw a car standing near his car of Punjab number. He stated that he saw Ct. Santram was arguing with two sikh people (sardar). After the heated arguments between them that the two sikh people left the booth. He stated that thereafter, he went inside and Ct. Santram took his car keys and his mobile from him. He stated that when he asked Ct. Santram about what happened and told Ct. Santram to let him talk to his family, Ct. Santram said he would not leave him.
20.4 He stated that Ct. Santram called somebody and then Ct. Vivek Rana came there with one another person, who was wearing jeans, T-shirt and cap and was having curly hairs. He stated that Vivek Rana and the other person started beating him due to which he was unable to understand what was happening with him. He stated that he requested them to leave him but they did not and were beating him continuously. He stated that Ct. Santram said, "beta, tujhe kharcha karna padega." He stated that when he asked him how much on that Vivek Rana showed gestures of two fingers. He stated that he asked him what that does that two fingers signifies upon which Vivek Rana said Rs. 2 lakhs. He stated that he said that he did not have that much. Thereafter, Vivek Rana angrily slapped him and said " iphone 10x le raha hai aur paise nahi hai." On this Ct. Santram started checking his phone and asked him for the password, he gave him the password and he checked the digital money transactions sites Paytm, Google pay and Phonepe. Google Pay was connected with his HDFC Bank Account. He stated that Ct. Santram saw and SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 19 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:23 +0530 update/notification of Rs. 30,000/- in his account. 20.5 He stated that he got to know that the curly hair person/boy was the driver of SHO and he took him to ATM near Sanjay Gandhi Transport. He stated that he went inside the ATM with him and told him to withdraw money from his account in lot of Rs. 10,000/- each. He stated that he took out Rs. 30,000/- in three transactions and thereafter, he alongwith that person came back to the booth. He stated that in the middle of the way, that person said, " tu pehela banda hai jo bina kute ja raha hai".
20.6 He stated that he was thoroughly checked including his purse and his card holder by Ct. Santram and during search, Ct. Santram got visiting cards of his shop in Lajpat Nagar. He stated that by looking at visiting cards, Ct. Santram said "bhai mota murga to ab phasa hai". He stated that he got scared as he was under apprehension that now they would call his father and would ask for ransom money. He stated that after showing him visiting cards, Ct. Santram asked him about number of his father.
20.7 He stated that when he took his card in his hands, Vivek Rana from behind said, "dekh dekh ye card apne muh me naa dal le ". He stated that he was not intending to do so but when Vivek Rana said, he did it to which Vivek Rana said "ab to tu phas gaya". He stated that that Curly hair boy called somebody and then SHO Akshay Kumar came at the booth. SHO Akshay Kumar while entering said, "tu muslim hai kya" (I was having long beard because of Covid), however, he denied the same. He stated that SHO checked all his identity cards including his Aadhar card and said that they all are fake and started beating him.
20.8 He stated that at around 07:30 AM, Ct. Sandeep Sandhu came at the booth and he saw that the Punjab number car was not there outside the booth now. He stated that he saw two cartons were there at booth which are SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 20 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:28 +0530 mentioned in his charge sheet. He saw one police official put those cartons in his car. SHO Akshay Kumar said " beta tujhe 10 saal se phele chhutne nahi dunga". He stated that this happened because he thought SHO being a higher police ranked official and he would help him so he told SHO that how he was forced to withdraw Rs. 30,000/- from his account from the said ATM but in turn the SHO was in hands in gloves with other police officials. 20.9 He stated that he was beaten with lathis because of covid. He was left with Ct. Vivek Rana at the booth and rest of them left. He stated that he heard one of the police official was saying that he has to go Rohini court at about 01:00 PM. He stated that he requested them to let him talk to his father but they did not allow him. He stated that he was in the booth for the whole time from morning to evening and at about 07:30 PM, he saw that his father and uncle were in front of the booth. He stated that he got to know that somebody called them and at that time, police officials came and took him to police station S. P. Badli where he was locked in the lock up and saw that his dad was also kept behind bars. He stated that he started shouting that why his dad was being taken behind bars as he had not done anything. He stated that in the morning, they released his father, MLC was done and he was produced before Ld. MM in Rohini Court from here he was taken to Duty MM from where one day PC was granted and next day after getting MLC done, he was sent to Tihar. He stated that from Tihar, the authority allowed him to talk to his family and he got to know that a case under NDPS Act has been registered against him.
He opted to lead defence evidence.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
21.1 DW-1 HC Amardeep Deswal has proved the copy of roznamcha
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 21 of 51
PS S. P. Badli
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:27:36 +0530
dated 24.04.2020 and 25.04.2020 as Ex. DW-1/A (colly) and Ex. DW-1/B (colly). He has also proved the copy of the duty staff roster dated 24.04.2020 and 25.04.2020 as Ex. DW-1/C (colly) and Ex. DW-1/D (colly). 21.2 During his cross examination done on behalf of State, he stated that Ex. DW-1/A is not the complete record for the abovesaid period and as per the record, DD no. 7 to 9, 16 to 22, 31 to 35, 43 to 49, 53 to 59, 66, 70 to 77, 86 to 88 are missing as the complete document could not be downloaded from CCTNS. He further stated that Ex. DW-1/B is not the complete record for the abovesaid period and as per record, DD no. 7 to 13, 20 to 25, 31 to 37, 44 to 50 are missing as the complete document could not be downloaded from CCTNS. He stated that he was not working at the police station and that is why he could not tell about the details of duty police officials of PS SP Badli on 24.04.2020 and 25.04.2020. He admitted that the particulars regarding leave and other details of the officials have not been filled up in the column by the Chitha Munshi on the abovesaid dates. He also admitted that certificate u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act is not enclosed with the documents i.e. Ex. DW-1/A and Ex. DW-1/B. 22.1 DW-2 HC Amit Kumar is the MHC (M) who has brought mobile phone of accused which was seized by the IO at the time of his arrest and was deposited in the malkhana.
22.2 During his examination, the history of call record was checked which revealed that on 25.04.2020, there were ten missed calls from one Baby having mobile number 9871440058 from 11.00 am till 11.50 am on the number of accused. Also there were missed calls from one number 8920875844 at 10.20 am. There were missed calls at 9.57 am and 10.12 am from one Akshat from mobile number 8929048399. The call history of accused also showed SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 22 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:27:41 +0530 missed call at 10.08 am from one person Rangila having number 8368023802. Accused had also received one missed call from number 7651883410 at 9.22 am. Accused also received missed call from number 8825080352 at 7.40 am. Accused has also received one missed call from one person namely Pawan Uncle from his mobile number 9811222827 at 7.36 am. The history also shows six cancelled calls received from mobile number 9810003892 from one Haryana Bhagirath in between 11.08 am to 11.18 am on 25.04.2020. On 25.04.2020, the last attended call received on the mobile number of accused is of 9.25 am from mobile number 7651883410 for 15 seconds. The said call log was proved as Ex. DW-2/A.
23. DW3 HC Amit, working in RTI Cell, Outer North District, deposed that one application was received under RTI Act filed by person namely Sadakat and same was received in the RTI cell on 29.11.2023 and same was received vide entry No. 1753. He stated that the information was sought from the concerned police station and vide report dated 08.12.2023 necessary information was sent to the RTI cell. He further deposed that reply dated 18.12.2023 was sent to the applicant containing information about deposition of exhibits in FSL from 27.04.2020 till October 2020. He has proved the copy of said reply as Ex. DW-3/A.
24. DW-4 Abhishek Thakur from Axis Bank, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, deposed that the branch ID of Axis Bank, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar is 1361 and Axis Bank ATM which comes under the jurisdiction of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar is having onsite ATM ID BPRH136101 located at Axis Bank Ltd. Ground Floor, AG 96, Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar, New Delhi-92 and DPRH136103.
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 23 of 51
PS S. P. Badli
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:27:52 +0530
25.1 DW5 Praveen Pal from HDFC Bank, Netaji Subhash Palace,
deposed that the account bearing no. 50100098047182 being maintained in HDFC Bank, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi-110024 is registered in the name of accused Shekhar Kumar Verma. He has brought statement regarding withdrawal from the said account through ATM on 25.04.2020 reflecting time and place of withdrawal of money from the above mentioned account and proved the said statement as Ex. DW5/A. He has also proved the bank account statement as Ex. DW5/B. He has proved the certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act and certificate under section 2A of Bankers Act furnished in this regard as Ex. DW5/C (colly). 25.2 During his cross examination done on behalf of State, he admitted that the account statement placed on record by him was not printed from his personal computer and same is being given from the computer under the control of Sh. Aman Trehan. He admitted that Sh. Aman Trehan is still working as a Manager in Amar Colony Branch. He also admitted that certificate under section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is being furnished by Sh. Aman Trehan. He also admitted that it could not be stated that by whom the amount was withdrawn from the account of accused on 25.04.2020. He admitted that the the amount was withdrawn from an Axis bank ATM.
26.1 DW-6 Shekhar Kumar Verma is the accused himself. 26.2 During his cross examination done on behalf of State, he denied that two cartons kept on the rear seat of Honda Civic car bearing no. DL-4CAB-9918 were recovered at the time of his apprehension on 25.04.2020. He also denied that on checking, one of the carton was found containing 60 small boxes and each box was found containing 6 strips of capsules and another carton was found containing 70 small boxes and each of the small box SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 24 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:00 +0530 was found containing 6 strips of capsules and each strip was found containing 24 capsules, spasm proxyban plus was written on the strip of the capsules. 26.3 He stated that he did not move any application before the court to preserve the CCTV footage of PS Badli, police booth and ATM. He denied that he did not move any such application as he was apprehended by the police official with contraband and no such amount was withdrawn by the police officials. He denied that he handed over his ATM to someone else with the reason that if he would be apprehended by the police with contraband then in such situation, he could create evidence in his defence. He stated that he did not file any complaint before any higher police official / court against the police official as he knew that he was apprehended by the police official with contraband. He also denied that he intentionally brought the car of his friend and intentionally did not use his car on 25.04.2020 as he had an apprehension that in case he would be apprehended, his car would be confiscated. He further denied that he intentionally refused to get searched in presence of nearest Gazetted officer / Magistrate because he knew that he was apprehended by the police officials and contraband was recovered from his possession. He denied that in case, he was innocent, he would have get searched himself in presence of nearest Gazetted officer / Magistrate.
27. Thereafter, matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
28. I have heard Dr. Raj Rani, Ld. Addl. PP for State and Sh. Manish Kumar Singh, Ld. Counsel for accused.
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 25 of 51
PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:28:05 +0530
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE
29.1 The Ld. Addl PP for the State argued that testimonies of the
recovery witnesses i.e PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana, PW2 HC Parvesh and PW7 SI Sandeep are clear and unambiguous against the accused that he was found in possession of prohibited medicines i.e., 18720 capsules containing 936 grams Tramadol and case beyond reasonable doubt has been proved by the prosecution. Compliance of section 50, 52A, 55 and 57 NDPS Act have been done by the IO leaving no scope of confusion that accused has not committed an offence under section 22(C) of NDPS Act.
29.2 Ld. Addl. PP for the State has relied upon Surinder Kumar Babbar & Ors. Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. Crl. A. 284 and382/2013 decided on 10.07.2015, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raghubir Singh & Ors. Criminal Appeal No. 2567/2024 and Criminal Appeal No. 2568/2024 decided on 15.05.2024 and Prahlad Vs. The State (NCT of Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 749 of 2014 decided on 27.05.2016 to fortify her arguments.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF ACCUSED 30.1 Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the mandatory provisions of section 50, 52(A) and 57 NDPS Act in the present case have not been complied with properly and on these grounds, the accused is liable to be acquitted. Prosecution has failed to exhibit the original notice under section 50 NDPS Act before the court during the trial. There are serious contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana, PW2 HC Parvesh Kumar, PW4 ACP Akshay Kumar, PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu and PW9 ACP Manish Ladla with regard to the proceedings allegedly conducted at the spot. IO did not verify the source of the contraband and no efforts were made to apprehend alleged source namely Sajjad. There is no investigation as to where and by which company SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 26 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:08 +0530 the recovered capsules were manufactured despite the fact that batch number and other relevant details were duly mentioned on the small boxes as well as capsule strips. No document was prepared while handing over and taking over the seal by any of the police official. There is no explanation as to why sampling was got done after a long duration which is in utter violation of section 52 NDPS Act. Police officials have failed to explain as to why no public person was joined in the alleged recovery proceedings. 30.2 It is argued that accused was apprehended around 07:00 am on 25.04.2020 at Mukarba Chowk and he had an altercation with police officials and thereafter, the case property was planted upon him. Police officials also forced him to withdraw Rs. 30,000/- from his account from an ATM located at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. When the accused could not meet their illegal money demand, false documentation was done in the evening and accused was falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that considering the serious lacunas in the case of the prosecution, accused is liable to be acquitted.
31. I have heard the arguments and perused the material available on record as well as case laws cited by the parties. I have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of accused in support of his oral submission.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
32. Section 22 of NDPS Act is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"22. Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances-Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State or uses any psychotropic substance shall be punishable,--
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2[one year], or with SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 27 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:12 +0530 fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine.
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees."
Perusal of Section 22(c) of NDPS Act would reveal that 'possession' of commercial quantity i.e., above 250 grams of Tramadol (a psychotropic substance) is an offence.
APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE:
33.1 Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again reaffirmed as to how courts need to appreciate the evidence adduced by the parties. In 'Bhagwan Tana Patil Vs. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 21' , the apex court ordained that the function of the court is to disengage the truth from the falsehood and to accept what it finds the truth and reject the rest. It is only where the truth and falsehood are inextricably mixed up, polluted beyond refinement down the core, the entire fabric of the narration given by a witness then the court might be justified in rejecting the same. This legal position was further elaborated in 'State of UP Vs. Shankar, AIR 1981 SC 897' , wherein the Apex court observed that mere fact that the witness has not told the truth in regard to a peripheral matter would not justify whole sole rejection of his evidence. In this country, it is rare to come across the testimony of a witness which does not have a fringe or an embroidery of untruth although his evidence may be true in the main. It SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 28 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:16 +0530 is only where the testimony is tainted to the core, the falsehood and the truth being inextricably intertwined, that the court should discard the evidence. Therefore, the duty is cast over this court to dispassionately disengage the truth from the falsehood and accept the truth and reject the same. This court is not meant to reject the testimony of a witness on slightest deflection, however has a bounden duty to search the truth.
33.2 In "Dalbir Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 1328", it was held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down about the appreciation of evidence and every case has to be judged on the basis of its own facts. While appreciating the evidence of the witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole, appears to have ring of truth or not. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly, necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly, keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole, and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of evidence given by the witness as to render it unworthy of belief. 33.3 The Hon'ble Apex court reiterated the manner of appreciation of evidence in case titled "Gangadhar Behera & Ors. Vs. State of Orissa (2002) 8 SCC 381", held that the principle falsus in uno falsus in omnimus is not applicable in India and it is only a rule of caution. Even if major portion of the evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, the conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from chaff. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of UP Vs. M.K. Anthony 1985 (1) SCC 505 held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinize the evidence more SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 29 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:20 +0530 particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Further, Hon'ble Apex court in 'Smt. Shamim Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No. 56/2016 dated 19.09.2018', in para 12 observed:
"while appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole inspires confidence. Once that impression is formed. It is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error without going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a shortcoming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof.......".
33.4 As far as the defective and illegal investigation is concerned, apex court held that if investigation is illegal or suspicious, the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independent of faulty investigation otherwise criminal trial SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 30 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:24 +0530 descend to the IO ruling the roost. Yet if the court is convinced that the evidence of eye witnesses is true, it is free to act upon such evidence though the role of the IO in the case is suspicious ( Abu Thakir, AIR 2010 SC 2119). Mere defective investigation cannot vitiate the trial (Paramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab AIR 2008 SC 441). The lapses or the irregularities in the investigation could be ignored only if despite their existence, the evidence on record bears out the case of the prosecution and evidence is of sterling quality. If the lapses or irregularities do not go the root of the matter, if they do not dislodge the substratum of the prosecution case, they can be ignored (Sunil Kundu & Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013(4) SCC 422). 33.5 Evidently, the binding judicial pronouncements casts a duty upon the Trial Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence available on record. To sum up, while appreciating evidence on record the duty of the court is to separate credible and incredible part of evidence. 33.6 Having noted the general principles of appreciation of evidence, let us now examine the material available on record to seek an answer to determine the issue of guilt of accused.
COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 50 NDPS ACT 34.1 Ld. Defence Counsel has forcefully argued that the notice was served upon the accused after the allegedly recovery of contraband but the notice in original has not been proved during the trial and therefore, it has to be presumed that there is non compliance of section 50 NDPS Act. Compliance of section 50 NDPS Act is mandatory in nature and in case IO fails to comply the same, benefit of the same must go to the accused.
34.2 In my considered opinion, the law merely requires the accused to be informed of his right under Section 50 NDPS Act but the information may SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 31 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:28 +0530 not be necessarily in writing. I am fortified in my opinion by the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Vijaysinh Chanduba Jadeja Vs State of Gujarat: Crl Appeal No. 943 of 2005 with Crl Appeal No. 974 of 2003 and Crl Appeal No.1809 of 2009 date of judgment 29.10.2010 wherein it has been observed herein as under:-
"17. In the above background, we shall now advert to the controversy at hand. For this purpose, it would be necessary to recapitulate the conclusions, arrived at by the Constitution Bench in Baldev Singh's Case(Supra). We are concerned with the following conclusions: "57. (1) That when an empowered officer or a duly authorised officer acting on prior information is about to search a person, it is imperative for him to inform the person concerned of his right under Sub-Section (1) of Section 50 of being taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or the nearest Magistrate for making the search. However, such information may not necessarily be in writing." (Emphasis supplied).
34.3 In the present case, accused was apprehended by PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana, PW2 HC Parvesh Kumar and PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu when they were checking the vehicle while performing their picket duty. There was no secret information with these officials that accused is involved in transportation of contraband. The car of the accused was stopped and he was asked as to how come he was travelling as it was complete lock down on account of Covid 19 situation on 25.04.2020.When accused could not give any satisfactory reply and police officials recovered two cardboard boxes containing Tramadol capsules from his car without any documentary proof to retain the same, he was apprehended by the police. Therefore, it is a case of chance recovery and prior to recovery of contraband, police officials had no knowledge that accused was carrying any contraband.
34.4 IO PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu informed the accused about his legal rights that his further search was to be conducted and prior to that search, he had the option to get himself searched in presence of Gazetted officer or a SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 32 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:32 +0530 Magistrate. Notice under section 50 was prepared and was duly served upon the accused. Accused opted not to get himself searched before a Gazetted Officer and gave his refusal on the carbon copy of the notice itself in his own handwriting. He also signed his reply. The carbon copy of the notice with original refusal of the accused has been exhibited during trial as Ex. PW1/A. Thereafter, personal search of the accused was conducted by the IO but no further contraband was recovered. Therefore, in the present case significant compliance has been done by the IO by serving notice under section 50 NDPS Act that too in writing. Moreover, notice was served upon the accused in the presence of ACP Manish Ladla and his personal search was also conducted in his presence. The carbon copy of the notice which is Ex. PW1/A on which accused had received the notice is duly signed by Ct. Vivek Rana. 34.5 Ideally, prosecution should have proved the original notice under section 50 NDPS Act which was recovered during personal search of accused. Now, the question under consideration as what would be the impact of not proving the original notice during trial. First of all, no objection was taken by the defence during the testimony of PW1 when the carbon copy of the notice was exhibited as Ex. PW1/A. The objection ought to have been taken at that juncture only qua the mode of proof and if that was not objected at that time then it has to be presumed that this fact stands admitted by the defence that notice was served upon the accused. It is worth mentioning that during the cross examination of PW1 it is suggested that reply to the notice under section 50 NDPS Act was written by the accused after he was tortured by the IO to do the same. This suggestion is again a reflection that there is no dispute from the side of the accused that notice was not served upon him under section 50 NDPS Act. Though, original notice is not on judicial file but original reply of the accused on the carbon copy of the notice is duly proved. Therefore, the SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 33 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date:
2025.07.22 14:28:37 +0530 carbon copy of the notice stands converted into an original document as it contains the original handwritten reply of the accused. Therefore, I do not any find merit in the argument that non exhibition of original notice under section 50 NDPS Act has to be treated as a non compliance of section 50 NDPS Act by the prosecution.
NON-COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 52A OF NDPS ACT:-
35.1 It is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that accused deserves to be acquitted for non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. It is contended that it was mandatory for the investigating officer to get done the sampling process within 72 hours of recovery whereas the case property was produced before Ld. MM on 14.10.2020. There is no explanation as to why sampling was not done within 72 hours. It is submitted that accused got filed an RTI application from another jail inmate namely Sadakat to enquire about the status of case properties being sent to FSL from PS S. P. Badli from 27.04.2020 to October 2020. As per the reply total 84 case properties were sent to FSL from PS S. P. Badli. If that was the case then the delay in the sampling process has become detrimental to the case of the prosecution. 35.2 It is a matter of record that accused was arrested on 25.04.2020 and the sampling process was done by Ld. MM on 14.10.2020. The samples were sent to FSL on 15.10.2020. Meaning thereby, there was no delay on the part of SHO/IO to sent the samples to FSL after the sampling process. It is a point worth consideration that sampling process ought to have been done within 72 hours of the seizure but the court cannot turn a blind eye towards the extraordinary circumstances prevailing in the entire country at the relevant time. On 24.03.2020, first lockdown was announced by Government of India and there were complete restrictions on the movement so that there was less SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 34 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:28:44 +0530 physical interaction between the human beings. The sole purpose of the lock down was to check the out spread of Covid 19 for the well being of the society at large. The courts were also working through video conferencing and there was a complete shut down in the court complexes also. The delay in the sampling process is directly related to the lock down and outspread of Covid pandemic. Therefore, considering the unprecedented extraordinary circumstances, the existence of lock down and the fact that courts were not working physically, the delay in the sampling process was beyond the control of the IO and hence,this delay has no bearing on the merits of this case.
AUTHENTICITY OF FSL RESULT:
36.1 Sh. Manish Kumar Singh, Ld. Defence counsel has vehemently argued that FSL report which is Ex. PW15/A is an unreliable document as Ms. Kavita Goel has not mentioned in her report about the actual contents of Tramadol, Acetaminophen and Dicyclomine. If she had checked the samples then she could have easily clarified about the contents of these three components in the contraband. She only checked few samples out of 96 capsules contained in one pullanda which goes to show the negligent manner in which alleged test was performed.
36.2 This argument has become redundant in the light of notification issued by Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) dated 18.11.2009 vide which it was clarified that the quantities shown in column 5 and 6 of the table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or any one or more narcotic drugs of pyshotrophic substance of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content. By issuance of this notification, it has been clarified SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 35 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:03 +0530 that the quantities i.e., smaller, intermediate or commercial in respect of a drug, shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution. It is immaterial as to what extent of concentration is available of any substance in a particular contraband. In view of this notification, PW15 Ms. Kavita Goel, was not under an obligation to note down the actual contents of Tramadol, Acetaminophen and Dicyclomine in her report. Except the absence of contents, there is no reason to discard the FSL result. Moreover, the contents are categorically mentioned on each strip and hence, I do not find any merit in this argument also put forth on behalf of accused.
ABSENCE OF PUBLIC WITNESS 37.1 It is argued on behalf of accused that the whole proceedings and documentation work were done in the police station itself and that is why no public witness was joined in the proceedings. It is submitted that in the rukka itself, PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu had mentioned that there was no public person whereas while deposing before the court he had admitted that he did check several vehicles and had requested public persons to join the proceedings but they refused to do so. The contradictory version of PW7 in this regard smacks manipulation on the part of police officials and there is no corroboration of the police officials from any independent witness.
37.2 The issue of absence of public witness during investigation has been deliberated over many a times by higher courts. In State Vs. Sunil and Anr. (2001) 1 SCC 652, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It need hardly be said that in order to lend assurance that the investigation has been proceeding in fair and honest manner, it would be necessary for the Investigating Officer to take independent witnesses to the discovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act; and without taking independent witnesses and taking highly interested persons and the police officers as the witnesses to the discovery would render the SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 36 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:09 +0530 discovery, at least, not free from doubt.
In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 100(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find out a thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea where the thing or document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter-skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code. This Court has indicated the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & anr. vs. S. Sardar Ali & ors. (1983 SC 1225). Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J. can be used to support the said legal proposition: Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part of the vehicle itself.
Hence it is a fallacious impression that when recovery is effected pursuant to any statement made by the accused the document prepared by the Investigating Officer contemporaneous with such recovery must necessarily be attested by independent witnesses. Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the signature of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery. But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable. The court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth.
We feel that it is an archaic notion that actions of the police officer should be SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 37 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:13 +0530 approached with initial distrust. We are aware that such a notion was lavishly entertained during British period and policemen also knew about it. Its hang over persisted during post-independent years but it is time now to start placing at least initial trust on the actions and the documents made by the police. At any rate, the court cannot start with the presumption that the police records are untrustworthy. As a proposition of law the presumption should be the other way around. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature. Hence when a police officer gives evidence in court that a certain article was recovered by him on the strength of the statement made by the accused it is open to the court to believe the version to be correct if it is not otherwise shown to be unreliable. It is for the accused, through cross-examination of witnesses or through any other materials, to show that the evidence of the police officer is either unreliable or at least unsafe to be acted upon in a particular case. If the court has any good reason to suspect the truthfulness of such records of the police the court could certainly take into account the fact that no other independent person was present at the time of recovery. But it is not a legally approvable procedure to presume the police action as unreliable to start with, nor to jettison such action merely for the reason that police did not collect signatures of independent persons in the documents made contemporaneous with such actions.
37.3 In Rizwan Khan Vs. The State Of Chhattisgarh AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 4297, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"It is settled law that the testimony of the official witnesses cannot be rejected on the ground of non-corroboration by independent witness. As observed and held by this Court in catena of decisions, examination of independent witnesses is not an indispensable requirement and such non-examination is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, [see "Pardeep Kumar (supra)].
In the recent decision in the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Punjab, (2020) 2 SCC 563, while considering somewhat similar submission of non-examination of independent witnesses, while dealing with the offence under the NDPS Act, in paragraphs 15 and 16, this Court observed and held as under:
"15. The judgment in Jarnail Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 521, relied on by the counsel for the respondent State also supports the case of the prosecution. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has held that merely because prosecution did not examine any independent witness, would not necessarily lead to conclusion that the accused was falsely implicated. The evidence of official witnesses cannot be distrusted and disbelieved, merely on account of their official status.
As a proposition of law, the presumption should be the other way round. That official acts of the police have been regularly performed is a wise principle of presumption and recognised even by the legislature."
37.4 Applying the ratio of Sunil Kumar's case (discussed supra) and SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 38 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:17 +0530 Rizwan's case (discussed supra) to the present case, the absence of public witness during the recovery proceedings is not detrimental to the case on its merits. At the cost of repetition, it was complete lock down in those days and every body was trying to have less interaction with other person. The roads were virtually vacant and only the vehicles performing emergency duties or persons having special pass for movement were allowed to commute on the road. Meaning thereby, the chances of availability of public person was very remote. As PW7 and other police officials have deposed that public persons were asked to join the proceedings but they didn't. The court can understand the mentality of public as they could have been exposed to covid, if they had opted to join the proceedings. Therefore, the absence of public witness in the recovery proceedings is duly explained by the prosecution and the circumstances were such that nobody from the public would have like to invite trouble for himself. Hence, this argument is again inconsequential as far as this case is concerned.
NO INVESTIGATION QUA BATCH NUMBER 38.1 It is vehemently argued by Ld. Counsel for accused that there is a complete lull in the investigation as to from where and by which company the recovered medicines were dispatched. Batch number was duly written on each and every strip and it was very easy for the IO to investigate the matter on this aspect. Another glaring lacuna in the investigation is that accused Shekhar allegedly procured medicines from person namely Sajjad @ Sajid and he was going to delivery the medicines to Sajjad at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar when he was apprehended by the police. There is no effort to apprehend this fictitious person Sajjad during the investigation. It is also stressed upon that accused is running his chemist shop at Lajpat Nagar but it is being projected SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 39 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:21 +0530 that accused was having a shop at Dwarka. IO portrayed this picture on the basis of information mentioned on Aadhar card of the accused without verifying this fact. There are glaring lacunas in the investigation process which are sufficient enough to dismantle the story of the prosecution. 38.2 I am in agreement with ld. Defence counsel that IO could have easily verified the source of contraband i.e., the manufacturing company through its batch number which is clearly mentioned on each and every strip of the medicine. But if that is no done by the IO then accused cannot take benefit out of it. The point under adjudication before this court is whether or not accused was found in possession of 18720 Tramadol capsules when he was apprehended by the police. Law is settled that the entire case of the prosecution cannot be brushed aside if there are some lacunas in the investigation. 38.3 This point has been deliberated over by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Dhanaj Singh @ Shera And Ors vs State Of Punjab Appeal (Crl.) 941 of 2003 decided on 10.03.2004 wherein it is held as under:
"5. In the case of a defective investigation the Court has to be circumspect in evaluating the evidence. But it would not be right in acquitting an accused person solely on account of the defect; to do so would tantamount to playing into the hands of the investigating officer if the investigation is designedly defective. (See Karnel Singh vs State of M.P. : 1995CriLJ4173 ).
6. In Paras Yadav and Ors. V. State of Bihar: 1999CriLJ1122 it was held that if the lapse or omission is committed by the investigating agency or because of negligence the prosecution evidence is required to be examined dehors such omissions to find out whether the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of officials should not stand on the way of evaluating the evidence by the courts; otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and justice would be denied to the complainant party.
7. As was observed in Ram Bihari Yadav V. State of Bihar and Ors. :
1998CriLJ2515 if primacy is given to such designed or negligent investigation, to the omission or lapses by perfunctory investigation or omissions, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the Law enforcing agency but also in the administration of justice. The view as again re-iterated in Amar SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 40 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:26 +0530 Singh V. Balwinder Singh and Ors., : 2003CriLJ1282 . As noted in Amar Singh's case (supra) it would have been certainly better if the fire arms were sent to the forensic test laboratory for comparison. But the report of the ballistic expert would be in the nature of an expert opinion without any conclusiveness attached to it. When the direct testimony of the eye-witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence fully establishes the prosecution version failure or omission of negligence on part of the IO cannot affect credibility of the prosecution version."
38.4 Applying the ratio of Dhanaj Singh's case (discussed supra) to the present set of facts, it is apparent that there are some irregularities in the investigation process. It would have been an excellent scenario, if IO had procured the entire record of the contraband from the company but if the charge sheet is silent on this aspect then no benefit can be given to the accused by the court. As far as running a shop at Lajpat Nagar is concerned, defence has not cross examined PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu and PW8 Inspector Udai Singh that they deliberately concealed this fact in the charge sheet. It is important to note that accused himself stated before the court at the time of recording his statement under section 313 CrPC and while deposing as DW6 that his address is flat No. A-261, Block A-, Pocket-3, DDA Flat, Bindapur, Uttam Nagar, Dwarka. Similar address is mentioned in the arrest memo, personal search memo as well as his disclosure statement. Meaning thereby, whatever address was stated by the accused to the police official, was noted by them and there is no scope of fault finding in the investigation process on this issue. As far as non apprehension of person namely Sajjad is concerned, his address or his phone number could not be traced and that is how investigation could not go further in this direction. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I am not in agreement with ld. Defence counsel that despite some lacunas in the investigation, accused is entitled to be benefited from it.
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 41 of 51
PS S. P. Badli
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:29:30 +0530
PRESENCE OF SI SANDEEP SANDHU AT THE SPOT
39.1 Ld. Defence counsel has also argued that SI Sandeep Sandhu and
PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana were never deployed at the picket duty as per the duty roaster which has been proved by the accused in his defence as Ex. DW1/D. If they were not deployed at Mukarba Chowk Picket Duty then it is highly doubtful that they were present at the said spot at 06:30 PM when accused was allegedly apprehended by them. It is further pointed out by ld. Counsel that SI Sandeep Sandhu has relied upon DD No. 24B dated 24.04.2020 to prove the fact that he alongwith PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana had proceeded to picket duty on the instructions of senior officer. Interestingly, DD No. 24B has not been proved during prosecution evidence and it remained unproved. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the presence of both these material witnesses at the spot.
39.2 It is correct that in the duty roaster which has been called by the accused in his defence from PS Samay Pur Badli, there is no mention that PW7 SI Sandeep and PW1 Ct. Vivek were deputed at picket duty on 25.04.2020. It is also correct that DD No. 24B has not been proved by the prosecution but interestingly, Ld. Defence counsel has cross examined PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu on the contents of DD No. 24B. It has been clarified by PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu that he had lodged DD No. 24B while leaving the police station alongwith Ct. Vivek. This witness has been cross examined at length on this aspect and it is not the case of the accused that this DD entry is forged and fabricated. Meaning thereby, the genuineness and authenticity of this DD entry is not under challenge. Basically, witness had been cross examined that it is nowhere mentioned in this DD entry was to which senior officer had directed both these police officials and it is also not mentioned that they had gone to perform picket duty. There is not even a single suggestion that this DD entry is SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 42 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:34 +0530 a manipulated one or it was not recorded by SI Sandeep Sandhu. A document or a fact which is not in dispute need not to be proved by the other party. It would have been a different case altogether if accused has claimed that DD entry is a forged document. In that case, prosecution would have been under an obligation to prove it during the trial. As stated above, the focus of the defence is on the contents of the DD entry and therefore, its formal exhibition during prosecution evidence has no impact on the merits of this case.
CONTRADICTIONS 40.1 It is argued that all other prosecution witnesses have deposed that Inspector Akshay Kumar reached at the spot alongwith ACP Manish Ladla after they were being informed by SI Sandeep Sandhu but surprisingly, Inspector Akshay Kumar is silent in this aspect in his evidence. PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana has stated that SHO was not present at the spot whereas PW2 HC Parvesh Kumar has deposed that SHO alongwith ACP came at the spot. These three witnesses have deposed contradictory to each other. Another contradiction is that PW4 Inspector Akshay Kumar has deposed that Ct. Vivek had handed over FSL form to him alongwith case property, however, no such FSL form was prepared at the spot by PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu. It is further pointed out that it is not clarified as to how the case property was taken to the police station and by which vehicle. It is further argued that as per testimony of PW12 duty officer ASI Vinesh Kumar, he received the rukka at 08:45 PM and in the FIR it is mentioned that FIR was registered at 08:54 PM. It is argued that it is virtually impossible to type a lengthy FIR within a time span of 9 minutes. It is argued that these contradictions are enough to disbelieve the story of the prosecution as to how the proceedings were carried out in this case. 40.2 All the above mentioned points raised by ld. Defence counsel Sh.
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 43 of 51
PS S. P. Badli
Digitally signed
by DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:29:38 +0530
Manish Kumar Singh relates to contradictions occurred in the testimonies of PWs. This issue has been deliberated over on multiple occasion by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana 2000 (40) ACC 34 (SC) and in Sukhdev Yadav and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar 2001 SCC (Crl.) 1416 it was observed that there would hardly be a witness whose evidence does not contain some amount of exaggerations or embellishment. Some times there is a deliberate attempts to offer the exaggerated evidence and sometime the witness in their over anxiety to do better from the witness box, detail out an exaggerated account. Minor variation in the prosecution evidence are of no value if the evidence in it entity appears to be trustworthy. 40.3 In State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kanda Gopaludu 2005 (53) ACC 772 (SC) it was observed that every discrepancy in statement of witness cannot be treated as fatal. In State of U. P. Vs. Krishna Master 2010 CrlJ. 3889 SC it has been held that discrepancies normally exist. They are due to errors of observation, mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of incident. Unless they go to the root of matter, such discrepancy do not make evidence unreliable. In Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajashtan AIR 2012 SC 2986, it was held that if variation in statement of witnesses is not material to affect the prosecution's case then it has to be ignored.
40.4 No person is supposed to have a mirror image like memory and there would be impact on the memory of one person due to the passage of time, health condition and other circumstances. The court is duty bound to see whether the contradiction present in the testimony of the witness falls in the category of major contradiction or it is a minor one. If the contradiction is such that it tends to shake the credibility of the witness then such contradiction has to be treated as a major one otherwise minor contradictions need to be ignored provided the testimony inspires confidence of the court to be truthful, reliable SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 44 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:42 +0530 and of impeachable quality.
40.5 The silence of PW4 Inspector Akshay Kumar on the aspect that he had gone to the spot is a minor contradiction which does not go roots of this case. PW2 HC Parvesh Kumar, PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu and PW9 ACP Manish Ladla have deposed that SHO Akshay was present at the spot. The testimony of other prosecution witnesses cannot be ignored, if PW4 Inspector Akshay Kumar has deposed negligently before the court. His negligence is again visible when he stated that PW1 Ct. Vivek had given FSL form to him. It is matter of record that no sampling was done at the spot and SI Sandeep Sandhu had no reason to fill the FSL form. When no form was fill at the spot then it could not have been handed over by Ct. Vivek to SHO. Therefore, PW4 Inspector Akshay Kumar has deposed about those facts which were not even in existence and that is a sheer negligence on this part while deposing before the court. The court has to separate chaff from the grain while evaluating a testimony and the entire testimony of the witness cannot be discarded as a whole. The relevant portion of testimony of PW4 Inspector Akshay shall be read against the accused and contradictory statement given by him is out of negligence and accused cannot be allowed to take benefit of such negligence. 40.6 As far as time consumed in registering the FIR is concerned, no question has been put to PW12 during his cross examination as to how come he completed the typing of an FIR within 9 minutes. The court is not inclined to enter into the domain of speculation about the typing speed of a duty officer and the time consumed in registering the FIR. If this issue was so serious then defence could have easily cross examine the duty officer and there might be some explanation by this witness in this regard. Therefore, I do not find any strength in this arguments and same stands rejected accordingly. As far as transportation of contraband from spot to the police station is concerned, it has SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 45 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:45 +0530 been clarified by PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana in his cross examination that he had gone to the police station with rukka and case property in a car, however, this fact has not been mentioned in his statement. Therefore, PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana has clarified as to how he took the case property to the police station. 40.7 Admittedly, it was desirable for the prosecution to prove on record the seal handing over/taking over memo. However, once it is established on record that the purity of the process has not been compromised then the defence cannot claim to have earn some brownie points on account of the lapses of the investigating officer. Reliance is placed upon C. Muniappan & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2010 (10) SCC 567 and Sardul Singh Vs. State of Haryana in (2002) 8 SCC 372. Therefore, all these contradictions pointed out by Ld. Defence counsel are covered under the category of 'minor' head and do not go to the roots of this case.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE.
41.1 The defence of the accused is based upon a theory that accused was apprehended by the police officials around 07:00 AM on 25.04.2020. He had an altercation with the police officials and thereafter he was beaten by them. I would deal with this defence theory in parts. First of all, accused was admittedly apprehended with the car registered in the name of PW6 Akshas Khosla. This witness had deposed before the court that accused had taken his car for some work with an assurance that he would return the same on next day. It is not the case that accused was not having his own car and if that was the case then what was the reason or occasion for the accused to borrow the car of PW6. While deposing as DW6, accused has pleaded that his car was having some mechanical issue and needed servicing. It seems that this clarification has cropped up into the mind of the accused at a belated stage because no such SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 46 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:50 +0530 suggestion is being given to PW6 to the effect that accused had clarified about the reason to PW6 at the time of borrowing his car. Accused has not in fact, disclosed make and registration number of his car and the alleged mechanical issue, it was having on that day.
41.2 Secondly, accused has projected that he was coming to Pitampura as his uncle Mr. Natwarlal had asked him to collect the laboratory sample due to shortage of staff. This aspect of his defence is again apparently hollow. Accused did not disclose when he received any call from his uncle on 24.04.2020. It is not clarified whether his uncle was running any diagnostic lab/medical facility or not and if so, what was the name of the lab. In fact, address of Pitampura has not been disclosed by the accused. Accused has examined six defence witnesses but he did not examine his uncle Mr. Natwarlal, who could have corroborated the version of the accused with regard to the reason of his visit to Pitampura.
41.3 Thirdly, accused has pleaded that he was forced to withdraw Rs. 30,000/- from his ATM located at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and those Rs. 30,000/- were taken by the police officials. To prove these transactions accused has examined, DW4 Abhishek Thakur and DW5 Parveen Pal. This defence is again lacking substance in it. DW5 has proved the place of withdrawal of money as Ex. DW5/A and the bank account statement as Ex. DW5/B. He also placed on record certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act signed by Sh. Aman Trehan. All these documents ought to have been proved by the person, who had generated this bank account statement and had certified the correctness of the same and not by DW5 Parveen Pal. DW5 admitted that the account statement was not printed by him from his personal computer. Therefore, these documents have not been proved by the right witness. It is not the case that Aman Trehan is not traceable and that is why SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 47 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:29:54 +0530 DW5 Parveen Pal had exhibited these documents on his behalf. 41.4 Even if these documents are treated to be proved even then it is not clarified by whom the transactions were done. If accused so serious about this defence then he could have got preserved the CCTV footage of the ATM by moving an application under section 91 CrPC. If accused was having his debit card with him at the time of arrest then it should have been recovered in his personal search. If police officials had snatched his debit card or destroyed the same, accused could have stated so.
41.5 Fourthly, accused has put up an entirely different story while deposing as DW6 which was never in existence at the time of cross examination of prosecution witnesses namely PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana, PW4 Inspector Akshay Kumar and PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu. He introduced a fictitious person namely Ct. Santram,who met him at Azadpur Flyover and asked the accused to drop him at Alipur. When the accused refused for the same, Ct. Santram asked for the Covid pass and forcibly sat down in the car. He took the car to police booth Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar and took out the keys and his mobile phone and went inside the police booth. One Punjab registration number car was also stationed near the car of the accused and two sikh people were arguing with Ct. Santram. He also deposed about the statements of these police officials in vernacular language i.e., Ct. Santram said, "karcha karna padega", driver of SHO, "tu pehla banda hai jo bina kutte ja raha hai", Ct. Santram, "mota murga to ab phansa hai", Ct. Vivek said, "dekh kahin card muh me naa daal le, Inspector Akshay, "tu muslim hai kya", "beta tujhe 10 saal se pehle nikalne nahi dunga" . All these facts were never put to these witnesses during their cross examinations. 41.6 Accused has also proved the call history of his phone on the pretext that his phone was with PW8 SI Udai and the call history reflects that SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 48 of 51 PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA RANA Date: 2025.07.22 14:30:02 +0530 there were six cancelled calls and ten missed calls on his number on 25.04.2020. If accused was apprehended at 06:30 PM on that day then there was no occasion of having so much missed calls and cancelled calls in his phone. At the cost of repetition, this evidence is again inconsequential in favour of the accused. If accused had any iota of truth in his story then he could have easily cross examined PW8 SI Udai on this issue. There is complete silence in his cross examination on this aspect. There may be 'N' number of reasons on account of which a person may not attend his incoming calls for a particular period of time and there is no abnormality of existence of missed call in the phone of the accused. If accused had some strength in his defence then he could have proved his presence at Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar in morning hours through his google history. When he proved his call recording defence, there is no explanation as to why he did not prove his location through google history. Interestingly, it is being pleaded that he was called at Pitampura by his uncle Natwar Lal. If he had been detained by police official around 07:00 AM and did not reach at his destination then Sh. Natwarlal should have called him and his call would have been registered as a missed call in the call history. There is no such entry in the call history which is again reflective of false cooked up defence by the accused. 41.7 If such events had occurred then accused cannot forgot the same by not putting all these important and material facts to these witnesses. Meaning thereby, the defence which is being projected by the accused was never in existence at the time of cross examination of prosecution witnesses and therefore, I do not find any strength in the defence witness and it is completely unreliable piece of evidence. Law is settled that a defence which is not put to the prosecution witnesses during their cross examination, cannot be termed as a reliable one.
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 49 of 51
PS S. P. Badli
Digitally signed
DHIRENDRA by DHIRENDRA
RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:31:08 +0530
CONCLUSION
42.1 The testimony of PW1 Ct. Vivek Rana, PW2 HC Parvesh Kumar,
PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu coupled with the unimpeached FSL Result conclusively establishes on record that on 25.04.2020, accused was found in possession of commercial quantity of prohibited psychotropic drugs i.e., 18720 capsules of Tramadol. Necessary compliance under section 50 NDPS Act was done by PW7 SI Sandeep Sandhu by serving a notice upon the accused. After seizure of case property, same were sent to PW4 Inspector Akshay Kumar. PW4 Inspector Akshay Kumar sealed the two pullandas of the case property in compliance of section 55 NDPS Act. After registration of FIR, accused was arrested and PW8 Udai Singh sent a report to the SHO in compliance of section 57 NDPS Act. The samples as well as the remaining case property have been duly proved during the trial. The chain of sequence of events is complete and there is no visible defect in the investigation pointed out by the defence. Needless to say, presumption under section 35 NDPS Act is in force against the accused and it was his duty to rebut the same but he has failed to do so. The onus was on the accused to discharge the burden by way of preponderance of probability. Accused has put up a defence but not sooner than the recording of his statement under section 313 CrPC and thereafter, defence evidence. His defence is such that it ought to have been put to the material prosecution witnesses as their conduct has been described by the accused. If they had been cross examined on behalf of accused then the court would have been in a position to evaluate the defence of the accused in the light of answers of these material witnesses. Hence, defence theory is apparently an afterthought which was never in existence at the time of prosecution evidence and found to be unreliable. Therefore, accused has failed to rebut the presumption against him by virtue of section 35 NDPS Act.
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 50 of 51
PS S. P. Badli Digitally signed by
DHIRENDRA
DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:31:13 +0530
42.2 Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High
Court in the matter of Kanwar Pal @ Mama Vs State: 2017 CrLJ 2124(Del). 42.3 In the given facts and circumstances and considering the evidence, accused Shekhar Kumar Verma is held guilty and is convicted for the offence punishable under section 22(c) of the NDPS Act. Ordered accordingly.
Digitally signed by DHIRENDRA DHIRENDRA RANA
RANA Date: 2025.07.22
14:31:16 +0530
Announced in the open court (Dhirendra Rana)
on 22.07.2025 ASJ / Special Judge (NDPS)
(running in 51 pages) North:Rohini:Delhi
SC No. 265/2020 FIR No. 315/2020 State Vs. Shekhar Kumar Verma Page No. 51 of 51
PS S. P. Badli