Delhi District Court
State vs Mohd. Shehzad on 28 October, 2013
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.K.NAGPAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
State Versus Mohd. Shehzad
S/o Sh. Abdul Razak
R/o Village Seran Dag
PS Haranj, Tehsil and
District Latehar, Jharkhand
2. Mohd. Irfan (sent to face
trial before a Juvenile
Board)
S/o Mohd. Haroon
R/o Village Itke Post
Barikhaf, Tehsil Balumath
District Latehar, Jharkhand
SC No.15A/11
FIR No. 139/11
U/S: 18 NDPS Act
PS:R. K. Puram
Date of institution : 29.07.2011
Date of reserving judgment : 22.10.2013
Date of pronouncement : 28.10.2013
Decision : Acquitted
J U D G M E N T
Both the above accused were sent to face trial by the SHO of PS R. K. Puram on allegations that on 04.06.2011 at about 1.20 PM, on left turn after crossing Sangam Cinema, R. K. Puram, Delhi, within the jurisdiction of PS R. K. Puram, they both were found to be in possession of 1.600 kg and 1.400 kg of opium respectively, which quantities of opium fall within the category of 'medium' or 'intermediate' quantity of the above said substance, SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 2 without any permit or license and in contravention of the provisions of Section 8 of the NDPS Act.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that on the above date at about 11.00 AM, a secret informer had visited the office of AATS/SD and had informed the IO/PW9 ASI Ramesh Kaushik that one Mohd. Shehzad and his associate, both residents of Jharkhand and involved in retail and wholesale selling of opium, would come near Sangam Cinema, R. K. Puram between 1.00 PM to 1.30 PM on that day, to deliver opium to someone and they both can be apprehended on raid. After being satisfied about the veracity of the above information, the IO/PW9 had produced the secret informer before SI Balihar Singh, In-Charge, AATS/SD, and after verifying himself about the correctness of the said information, the above SI had further passed the information to the concerned ACP/PW3 Sh. Kulwant Singh of the Operations Cell, SD who, in-turn, had directed for taking action upon the said information. The IO/PW9 had also lodged a DD entry No. 6 Ex. PW6/A regarding the said information and a copy thereof was also sent to the senior officers for compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act.
3. It is alleged that a raiding team to be led by the above IO/PW9 and consisting of PW1 HC Arvind Kumar, Ct. Yogender and Ct. Umesh Kumar was constituted and they all, alongwith the secret informer and the necessary equipment, had left their office for the spot at around 12.20 PM vide DD entry No. 7 Ex. PW6/B in a government vehicle make Tata SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 3 407, driven by driver Ct. Naresh, and had reached near the Petrol Pump, R. K. Puram at about 12.30 PM and the IO/PW9 had also requested 4/5 public persons at the bus stop there to join the raiding team, but none of them had agreed to join. At about 12.40 PM, the official vehicle was parked in a hiding on a side of the road ahead of the Sangam Cinema and the IO/PW9 had deployed the members of the raiding team at different positions and he himself had taken position opposite the Sangam Cinema, alongwith the secret informer, and had kept a watch there.
4. At about 1.15 PM, one TSR had come and had stopped after crossing the Sangam Cinema and turning towards left side and two persons holding one bag each had got down from the said TSR and the secret informer had pointed out one person of stout built wearing a white shirt and black pant to the above Mohd. Shehzad and the other person of thin built to be his associate. They both were then apprehended by the members of the raiding team and their identities were revealed as accused Mohd. Shehzad and Mohd. Irfan, both residents of District Latehar, Jharkhand.
5. Both the accused persons were then apprised by the IO about the above secret information and they were also told about their legal rights and written notices U/s 50 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/A and Mark A respectively were given to both of them and vide their written replies given on the said notices itself, they both had refused to call any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate at the spot for their search. The reply of accused Mohd. Shehzad is Ex. PW1/B on SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 4 record. Some public persons had also gathered at the spot at that time and 4-5 of them were also requested by the IO/PW9 to join the proceedings, but none again had agreed.
6. It is also alleged in the charge sheet that thereafter, the IO/PW9 had taken the cursory search of the accused Mohd. Shehzad and also the search of the black and khakhi colour bag held by him in his right hand and though nothing incriminating was recovered from his personal search, but in the search of his above bag one polythene containing some black colour substance was found and the above substance from its appearance and smell was identified as opium and the above accused had also stated it to be opium. The weight of the above opium was taken on an electronic weighing machine and it came to be 1.600 kg and the IO/PW9 had taken out two samples of 50 gms each out of the above opium and these two samples were kept in separate polythenes, which were tied with rubber bands and then put in cloth pieces and converted into separate parcels and marked as Mark A and B. The remaining opium was put back in the same polythene and a separate cloth parcel thereof was also prepared and marked as Mark C and a separate cloth parcel of the above bag was also prepared and marked as mark D and all these four parcels were sealed with the seals of RK. FSL form was also filled up and the same seal affixed thereon and these four parcels and FSL form were the taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW1/C.
7. Similarly, one polythene containing 1.400 kg of SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 5 opium was also recovered from the bag found in possession of accused Mohd. Irfan and similar four cloth parcels of the samples, remaining opium and bag pertaining to him were also prepared and these samples were marked as Mark A1, B1, C1 and D1 and these samples were also sealed with the same seals of RK, one separate FSL form was filled regarding these samples and the same seals of RK was affixed thereon and these samples and FSL form were then taken into possession vide seizure memo Mark B.
8. The IO/PW9 had then prepared a rukka Ex. PW9/A and had handed over the rukka as well as all the above sealed parcels, FSL form and copies of seizure memos to PW1 HC Arvind Kumar and had sent him to PS, with directions to handover the rukka to the Duty Officer for registration of the case and the parcels and other documents to the SHO for compliance the provisions of Section 55 of the NDPS Act. On the basis of the above rukka, the FIR Ex. PW2/A of this case was registered and the above parcels and documents were handed over by PW1 to the SHO/PW5 Inspector Manmohan, who had deposited the above parcels and documents in the malkhana of the PS, after putting the FIR No. etc on the parcels and documents and after affixing his seals of MMR on the parcels and FSL forms, and he had also got recorded one DD No. 20A Ex. PW5/A and had further signed the relevant entry of register No. 19 Ex. PW4/A in this regard.
9. Further investigation of this case was assigned to PW8 ASI Samay Singh, who had also reached at the spot, on receiving a copy of DD entry no. 9 Ex. PW8/D registered SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 6 in this regard, and he was briefed by the IO/PW9 and was also handed over the custody of the accused persons as well as all the relevant documents of the case. He had further made some enquiries from the accused persons and in the meanwhile, PW1 had also reached back at the spot and had handed over to him a copy of the FIR and the original tehrir. PW9 had prepared the site plan Ex. PW8/A at the spot, on the pointing out of the first IO, and had arrested the accused persons vide memos Ex. PW1/D and Mark C, conducted their personal search vide memos Ex. PW1/E and Mark B and also recorded their disclosure statements vide memos Ex. PW1/F and Mark E respectively. In the personal search of accused Mohd. Shehzad, Rs. 310/- in cash, one carbon copy of the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act, one purse and one mobile phone of Lava company were recovered and he has deposited the above personal search articles of accused Mohd. Shehzad as well as of the other accused in the malkhana subsequently and had also recorded the statements of the witnesses.
10. On 05.06.2011, he had also prepared and sent one information U/s 57 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW3/A regarding the above arrest and seizure to the ACP concerned and on 08.06.2011, two sealed parcels of this case, alongwith FSL forms, were also sent by him to FSL, Rohini from the malkhana of the PS, through PW7 Ct. Sombir, vide RC Ex.
PW4/B and the same were deposited there against
acknowledgment Ex. PW4/C issued by the FSL. After
completing some other formalities of investigation and
recording some other statements of witnesses, a charge
SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad
7
sheet for the offence punishable U/s 18 of the NDPS Act was ultimately prepared by him and filed in this court, pending the receipt of the FSL result.
11. The charge sheet was filed in this court on 29.07.2011 and cognizance of the above offence was taken. However, the accused Mohd. Irfan had moved an application seeking his trial by a Juvenile Board and after a detailed inquiry the above application was allowed and he was directed to be tried by a Juvenile Board vide order dated 17.08.2011 of this court and the trial in this court was directed to be proceeded only against the accused Mohd. Shehzad.
12. The FSL report dated 12.08.2011 regarding the above two samples was also subsequently received in this court and it was opined in the said report that both the samples Mark A and A1 tested in the FSL had been found positive for opium and the said report was tendered on record as Ex. PW8/C, which is per-se admissible in evidence U/s 293 Cr.P.C., during the statement of the second IO/PW8.
13. A prime facie case for commission of the offence punishable U/s 18(c) of the NDPS Act was found to be made out against the accused vide order dated 09.11.2011 of this court and a charge for the above said offence was also framed against the accused on the same day as the above quantity of 1.600 kg of opium recovered from the accused falls withing the category of 'medium' or 'intermediate' quantity as under the NDPS Act, 25 gms of opium is SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 8 prescribed to be a small quantity and 2.5 kg of opium is prescribed as commercial quantity.
14. The prosecution in support of its case has examined on record total 9 witnesses and their names and the purpose of examination is being stated herein below:-
15. PW1 HC Arvind Kumar and PW9 ASI Ramesh Kaushik are both the members of the above raiding team of police which had apprehended the accused persons from the above spot and had recovered the above contraband substance. They both have deposed in detail on the above lines of the prosecution story and have proved the relevant documents prepared at the spot, in connection with the investigation of this case. The have also identified the accused as well as the case property.
16. PW2 SI Abhimanyu is the Duty Officer of the above PS on the relevant date and he had got recorded the FIR Ex. PW2/A of this case through the computer operator and had also made his endorsement Ex. PW2/B in this regard on the original rukka.
17. PW3 ACP Kulwant Singh was posted in the Operations Cell of the above District South at the relevant time and on 04.06.2011, he was informed by SI Balihar Singh about the above secret information and had directed the taking of necessary action on the said information. On 05.06.2011, he had also received and perused one information U/s 57 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW3/A of this case SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 9 from the IO concerned and it was also entered at serial No. 654 in the dak register of his office and the above relevant entry is also brought on record as Ex. PW3/B.
18. PW4 HC Jai Singh was working as MHC(M) of the malkhana of the above PS at the relevant time when the case property as well as the personal search articles of the accused persons were deposited in the malkhana on 04.06.2011. He had also sent two sealed sample parcels of this case to the FSL on 08.06.2011 and has proved on record the relevant entry of register No. 19 regarding the deposit and movement of the above case property as Ex. PW4/A, a copy of the road certificate vide which the sample parcels were sent to FSL as Ex. PW4/B and has further brought on record the acknowledgment receipt of FSL for the said samples as Ex. PW4/C.
19. PW5 Inspector Manmohan was the SHO of the above PS at the relevant time and he has deposed regarding the deposit of the above case property by him in the PS, after he had affixed his seals on the above parcels and FSL forms, and the signing of the relevant entry Ex. PW4/A of the malkhana register and the lodging of DD No. 22A Ex. PW5/A.
20. PW6 HC Jashraj Singh is the Duty Officer who had recorded the above DD No. 6 Ex. PW6/A regarding the receipt of the secret information and the directions for taking action thereon and also the other DD No. 7 Ex. PW6/B regarding the departure of the members of the raiding team SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 10 for the spot.
21. PW7 Ct. Sombir is the person who had taken the two sealed sample parcels of this case, alongwith the FSL form, to the FSL vide RC Ex. PW4/B and had deposited the same there vide receipt Ex. PW4/C in intact condition.
22. PW8 ASI Samay Singh is the second IO of this case and he has also deposed in detail regarding his arrival at the spot, on being assigned the investigation of the case, and the arrest etc of the accused persons and the preparation of the relevant documents about their arrest and sending of sample parcels to FSL and report U/s 57 of the NDPS Act to the ACP concerned.
23. After the conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating evidence brought on record was put to the accused in his statement recorded U/s 313 Cr.P.C. and the same was denied by the accused to be false. He has claimed himself to be innocent and to have been falsely implicated in this case. It is his case that he is a native of Jharkhand State and he is residing there with his father and other family members and his mother has already expired. He claims to have come to Delhi from Jharkhand, alongwith his co-accused Mohd. Irfan, who is the real brother-in-law of his real brother Mohd. Zasim, just two days prior to their apprehension in this case from the house of his cousin Mohd. Bilal in Pulprahalad Pur. He has stated that they both had gone to see Qutub Minar and just got down from a TSR when they were stopped SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 11 by some persons in plain cloths near the Qutub Minar and they were forcibly taken to PS in some official vehicle on the pretext that they will be let off after verification of their identities, but even after seeing their identity documents, they were not allowed to go and were detained by the above persons and were falsely implicated in this case. It has also been specifically stated by him that no opium was recovered from his possession or the possession of his co-accused Mohd. Irfan, who already stands acquitted by a juvenile court of the false case registered against him. Though, the accused has also opted to lead evidence in his defence, but he has subsequently not produced any evidence in his defence and his defence evidence was ultimately on the requests of the accused and his counsel vide order dated 16.08.2013 of this court.
24. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ms. Alka Goel and Sh. Irfan Ahmed, Ld Addl PPs for the State and Sh. D. C. Gautam, Ld counsel for the accused. I have also perused the evidence led and the other record of the case.
25. The case of the prosecution is full of material contradictions, inconsistencies and discrepancies and the statements of the witnesses on record lack corroboration and reliability and the evidence led on record is not found to be sufficient to entail the conviction of the accused in a case like the present one under the NDPS Act, which contains stringent punishments.
26. It is well settled that the onus of proving its SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 12 case beyond reasonable doubts is always upon the prosecution and in a case under any enactment like the NDPS Act laying down severe punishments, this onus becomes more high in degree and the duty of the court is to ensure that the provisions of such an enactment are complied with strictly and a higher degree of assurance is required for convicting the accused. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgment in case of State of Punjab Vs Baldev Singh 1999 Drugs Cases 150 : (1999) 3 SCC 977, wherein it was held that:-
"It must be born in mind that severer the punishment, greater has to be the care taken to see that all the safeguards provided in a statute are scrupulously followed".
27. Reference can also be made to the case of Mausam Singh Roy Vs State of WB (2003) 12 SCC 377 wherein also it was held that it is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the more serious the offence is, the stricter is the degree of proof, since a higher degree of assurance is required to convict the accused.
28. As per the prosecution case, the secret information received by the IO/PW9 was first conveyed by him to SI Balihar Singh, who was the In-charge of AATS, South at the relevant time and the above SI had further brought it to the knowledge of the ACP concerned of the Operations Cell. However, though PW1 has stated on record that the information was conveyed and the informer was SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 13 produced by the IO/PW9 before SI Balihar Singh, but he nowhere states that the above secret information was further passed by the IO/PW9 to SI Balihar Singh, either personally or telephonically, as claimed by the IO/PW9 himself. Strangely enough, the above SI Balihar Singh has not been examined on record as a witness and even his name is not found to be cited in the list of witnesses of the prosecution, for the reasons not known to this court. Due to his non examination on record as a witness, the above vital link in the story of the prosecution is found to be missing.
29. Again, according to the IO/PW9 as well as PW1, the above information was also reduced into writing in the DD register of the PS vide DD number 6, which has been proved on record as Ex. PW6/A. As per the contents of the above document as well as the complaint, the above document was created for compliance of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, which, though, was not applicable in the instant case as the above secret information received in this case was not regarding the transportation etc of the above contraband substance in any vehicle or its concealment etc in any building or a closed place.
30. However, it is observed that the copy of the above DD brought on record as Ex. PW6/A is not the DD which was sent by the IO/PW9 to his senior officers, but it is a true copy of the above DD which was filed in the court subsequently as part of the charge sheet, after SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 14 having been attested by the ACP concerned. According to the contents of the above document, the above DD was forwarded by the IO/PW9 for the information of the In- charge, AATS, SD only, who was SI Balihar Singh. However, since SI Balihar Singh is not examined on record, the veracity of the above claim of the IO/PW9 could not be verified and even the original of the above DD allegedly forwarded to SI Balihar Singh has not been produced or brought on record. In any case, the above DD was not forwarded to the ACP concerned as the ACP/PW3 Sh. Balwant Singh is not examined on record had only produced the record of an information U/s 57 of the NDPS Act forwarded to his office and not of any such information sent in compliance of the provisions of Section 42 NDPS Act. In the absence of the above original document being proved on record, the authenticity of the above claim of receipt of the secret information and its reduction in writing could not be established.
31. Again, the evidence led on record is also contradictory as to in whose writing the above DD Ex. PW6/A was written in the concerned DD register as according to the depositions of PW1 HC Arvind Kumar made in his examination in chief, the above DD was reduced into writing by the IO/PW9 ASI Ramesh Kaushik, whereas during his cross examination, he has stated that the same was recorded in his handwriting. Even the IO/PW9 went on to admit that the above document was in the handwriting of PW1 and not in his handwriting.
SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad
15
32. It is also observed that according to the
depositions made by PW1 during his chief examination, the
accused persons were holding the above bags in their
hands, but during his cross examination he has stated on record that both the accused persons were carrying the bags on their left shoulders. Though, the accused persons had allegedly reached at the spot in a TSR, but strangely enough neither PW1 or the IO/PW9 nor the other two members of the raiding team, who have not been examined on record, was able to see and note the registration number of the above TSR, though all the members of the raiding team had reached at the spot well in advance, i.e. about 40 minutes prior to the arrival of the accused persons, and had taken positions there at different places. Since even the number of the above TSR could not be noted down, there was no question of joining of the TSR driver as a witness in this case. The above lapse or drawback of the prosecution story gives a serious jolt to its credibility.
33. Again, though the joining of the public witnesses in all the cases is not always necessary, but it cannot be ignored that in this case, a prior information was available with the IO/PW9 regarding the coming of the accused persons at the spot and that too in a busy place and on the main road near the Sangam Cinema, but even then no public witness could be joined by the IO/PW9 either prior to or at the time or after the alleged apprehension of the accused persons with the above contraband substance and that too when they had already reached there about 40 minutes prior to the reaching of the accused persons. The SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 16 vague and general depositions made by the witnesses regarding the making of requests to some passersby or the public persons on the way to the above spot for joining the proceedings do not inspire much confidence.
34. As per PW1, he had taken the rukka from the spot to the PS at about 3.40 PM and had returned back to the spot at 5.00 PM. Even according to the SHO/PW5, PW1 had come to him at about 3.50 PM and had remained there for about 30 minutes, in connection with the handing over of the sealed parcels and documents to him and the deposit thereof. The second IO/PW8 ASI Samay Singh claims to have reached at the spot at around 3.40./3.45 PM, which was almost impossible in this case as the above time is the time of taking of the rukka from the spot. Though the case of the prosecution is that the FIR was registered subsequently and PW8 had reached at the spot on being assigned one DD number 9 Ex. PW8/D regarding the further investigation of the case to be conducted by him, but it is found on perusal of the above DD that it is based on a telephonic information conveyed by the IO/PW9 from the spot to the PS regarding the apprehension of the accused persons with the above contraband substance. However, the IO/PW9 has not made any claim in this regard, about the passing of the said information by him from the spot to the PS.
35. Again, as stated above, the time of his reaching back at the spot is stated by PW1 to be around 5.00 PM and he also claims that after reaching at the spot he had SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 17 handed over the copy of FIR and original rukka to the second IO/PW8 ASI Samay Singh. Even PW8 had made depositions in this regard. However, PW1 also claims that ASI Ramesh Kaushik, i.e. the first IO, had handed over both the accused persons as well as the case file and documents to the second IO and then the accused persons were arrested by the second IO in his presence. He has also proved on record the relevant documents of arrest of the accused Shehzad, i.e. the arrest memo Ex. PW1/D (inadvertently typed as Ex. PW1/E in his statement), his personal search memo Ex. PW1/E and the disclosure statement Ex. PW1/F etc, which all are found bearing his signatures also.
36. However, it is also observed that the time of recording of the above DD Ex. PW8/D is 3.20 PM and if the depositions of the second IO/PW8 are believed that he had reached at the spot at around 3.40/3.45 PM, then it is highly doubtful that the above arrest documents could have been prepared by him after the arrival of PW1 at the spot at around 5.00 PM as except the above documents he had only prepared one site plan at the spot, on the pointing out of the first IO. Moreover, according to the first IO/PW9, he cannot say as to when PW1 Ct. Arvind had reached at the spot as he claims to have already left the spot prior to the arrival of PW1 and if his these depositions are to be believed, then certainly PW1 is telling a lie when he is claiming to be present and deposing about the handing over of the custody of the accused and the documents of this case by PW9 to PW8 at SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 18 the spot.
37. Further, it is also observed from the record that though according to the prosecution story, the sealed parcels of the case property and FSL form etc were handed over by PW1 in the PS to the SHO/PW5 for depositing the same in the malkhana and the same were also deposited in the malkhana by PW5/SHO himself, but strangely enough, the MHC(M)/ PW4 went on to state on record during his examination in chief that the parcels of this case were deposited in the malkhana by Ct. Sombir and the two sample parcels were also subsequently taken to the FSL for examination by the above Ct. Sombir, who has been examined on record as PW7. However, PW7 has not made any claim regarding the deposit of the case property in the malkhana by him and the above depositions of the MHC(M)/PW4 are also in contradiction and contrast to the case of the prosecution and the other oral and documentary evidence led on record.
38. PW4 was also subsequently got declared hostile by Ld Addl. PP on the above aspect and though during his cross examination conducted by the Ld Addl. PP, he went on to admit that at the relevant time he was called by the SHO in his room for deposit of the above case property and the case property was also deposited by the SHO with him and not by Ct. Sombir, but the damage to the prosecution case had already been done by him by that time and the credibility of his subsequent depositions made during his such cross examination has come under serious clouds SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 19 because of the above material contradiction in the prosecution case. Further, during his examination in chief, he has also stated that only one sealed sample parcel was sent to FSL on 08.06.2011 through Ct. Sombir and further the entry Ex. PW4/A of the register number 19 made by him is also found to be regarding one parcel only, but he was got declared hostile and cross examined by Ld Addl. PP on this aspect also and though during in such cross examination, he has stated that in-fact two sample parcels were sent to FSL for testing and his above endorsement made in the entry regarding the sending of one parcel was due to some mistake on his part, but again his above depositions during his such cross examination also cannot be believed and given any weightage.
39. Further, though, PW1 HC Arvind was admittedly present at the time when the original notice U/s 50 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/A was given to the accused at the spot and the above notice is also found to be bearing his signature at point A thereon, but it is strange that on the reply Ex. PW1/B given on the said notice though his name is appearing at point X thereon, but his signatures are found to be missing. The chances of manipulation of the above document are also apparent from the fact that in the carbon copy of the said notice Ex. P5 allegedly recovered in the personal search of the accused also, only the name of PW1 is found to be written and his signatures are not there even on this document. Again, the above arrest documents of the accused are also not in the handwriting of either PW1 or of the second IO/PW8 himself SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad 20 and none of them has been able to say on record as to in whose writing the said documents were prepared.
40. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the evidence led on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to entail the conviction of the accused in a serious case like the present one punishable U/s 18(c) of the NDPS Act, which carries a punishment of RI extending upto 10 years and a fine extending upto Rs. 1 lac. The accused is therefore, acquitted of the above charge giving benefit of doubt. He has already furnished a fresh bond U/s 437A Cr.P.C. and hence, the previous personal bond as well as surety bond furnished by him shall stand discharged.
41. The case property be confiscated and disposed of as per law, after the expiry of the period of limitation for filing of the appeal or subject to the outcome of the appeal to be filed against this judgment, if any, or the orders of the appellant court, as the case may be.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open
court on 28.10.2013 (M.K.NAGPAL)
ASJ/Spl. Judge, NDPS
South District
Saket Court Complex
New Delhi
SC No. 15A/11 State Vs. Mohd. Shehzad