Delhi District Court
Sc No.08A/07 Dri vs . Sawarn Singh & Anr. on 20 May, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI M.K.NAGPAL
ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS/SOUTH DISTRICT
SAKET COURT COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Head Quarters, New Delhi
Through Sh Mukesh C. Maheshwari, Intelligence Officer
V E R S U S
1. Sawarn Singh
S/o Sh Bachhan Singh
R/o Village Gumanpur
P.O. Chheharta
District Amritsar, Punjab
Presently lodged in Amritsar Jail
2. Salauddin
S/o Late Sh Feroz Khan
R/o 55, Vishwa Karma Park
Laxmi Nagar
Delhi
Permanent Address:
Flat No. 14, Sayed Manjil
Sahakar Road, Jogeshwari
West Mumbai
Presently lodged in Central Jail
Tihar, New Delhi
SC No.: 08A/07
U/S : 21 & 29 NDPS Act
Computer ID No: 02403R0105122007
Date of institution : 22.02.2007
Date of reserving judgment : 05.05.2014
Date of pronouncement : 20.05.2014
Decision : Both accused acquitted
SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
2
J U D G M E N T
The proceedings of this case have been initiated on a complaint filed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Headquarters, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as DRI) through Sh M. C. Maheshwari, Intelligence Officer (hereinafter referred to as the IO/PW1), against the above accused persons for commission of the offences punishable U/S 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 28.08.2006 at about 10:00 AM, PW18 Sh Kamal Kumar had received a specific information that narcotic drugs would be transported in a silver colour Indica car bearing registration number DL 8C M 2748 and two persons of Indian origin, aged around 35 and 45 years, would be waiting in the said car opposite Mc-Donald Restaurant, Green Park, New Delhi between 12:00 noon to 1:00 PM on that day. The said information was reduced into writing by PW18 as Ex. PW18/A and the same was put up by him before his senior officer/PW19 Sh Pankaj K. Singh, who had called the IO/PW1 Sh Mukesh C. Maheshwari and had directed him to form a team of officers to make the efforts to seize the above contraband goods.
3. It is alleged that a team of the DRI officers led by the IO/PW1 had reached at the above spot well in advance and kept a vigil there. At around 12:20 PM, the officers had noticed a silver colour Indica car bearing SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
3the above registration number arriving there and the said car was occupied by two persons, as described in the above information, and was parked at the above spot. Two public witnesses were made to join the proceedings and the officers of the DRI had further waited there for some more time and kept a discrete vigil on the said car and its occupants. At about 12:30 PM, when the above car was about to move from the spot, they had intercepted the said car, sensing that the suspected persons may not escape, and had introduced themselves and the public witnesses to the occupants of the car. Both the occupants of the car were asked as to if they were carrying any narcotic drugs in their car, but they had replied in negative and on enquiry, the identity of the accused sitting on the driving seat of the said car was revealed as the accused no. 1 Sawarn Singh and the identity of the other person sitting on the seat adjoining to the driver was revealed as the accused no. 2 Salauddin Khan.
4. Thereafter, both the accused persons were apprised by the DRI officers about the above specific information and they were again asked as to if they were carrying any narcotic drugs with them and on their denial of the same, they both were told that in view of the above information, the search of their 'persons' as well as the above car was required to be conducted and since the above place of their interception was a crowded public place and not conducive for conducting the search, they both were requested by the DRI officers to accompany SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
4them, alongwith their above car, to the office of the DRI situated at D-Block, IP Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi, to which both the accused had agreed. The accused were also then escorted to the office of the DRI, alongwith their above car and the two panch witnesses.
5. After reaching there, the IO/PW1 had served separate written notices U/S 50 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C respectively upon both the above accused persons, explaining them that they had a legal right to get their persons and the above car searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, but vide their respective replies given on the above notices itself in their own handwritings, both the accused had refused to exercise their above rights and had offered the search of their persons and the above car to be conducted by any officer of the DRI. Though, nothing incriminating was recovered in the search of their persons conducted subsequently by the DRI officers, except one Identity Card Ex. PW1/G issued in the name of the accused no. 1 as a constable of Punjab Police and some documents of the above car Ex. PW1/H1 to PW1/H5 recovered from the dash board of the said car, but in the back side of the above car, one woofer fitted on a wooden box was found and on suspicion, the above woofer was unscrewed and 15 heat sealed transparent polythene packets containing some substance were found concealed in the above wooden box. For detailed examination, the above woofer box containing the above 15 packets was taken to the 7th floor office of SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
5the DRI situated in the above building, alongwith the panch witnesses.
6. It is also alleged in the complaint that after reaching in the above office of DRI, the detailed examination of the above 15 heat sealed transparent polythene packets was undertaken and all these packets were found containing a cloth packet each, which in turn also contained a heat sealed polythene packet each containing some off white colour granular substance in different packings. The cloths of the above packets were also found to be having two different types of rubber stamp markings and these packets were marked as X-1 to X-10 and X-11 to X-15, as per the above difference in their cloth markings. The above granular substance contained in the said packets was found giving a pungent smell and a small quantity from each of the above packets was tested separately with the help of a Narcotic Drug Detention Kit and the same had answered positive for heroin. The gross weight of above 15 packets was found to be 15.493 KG and the net weight of the heroin contained therein to be 15.059 KG and all the above heroin, alongwith its packing material, the above wooden box and woofer and the above documents recovered from the car as well the identity card of the accused were all seized for violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act.
7. The IO/PW1 had then drawn two representative SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
6samples of 5 Grams each out of each lot of the above 15 packets, i.e. two samples from the lot of packets marked X-1 to X-10 and two samples from the lot of packets marked X-11 to X-15, and these four samples were kept in separate zip lock polythene packets, which were marked as X-1-10-A, X-1-10-B and X-11-15-A & X-11-15-B and the same were further kept in separate yellow colour paper envelopes, which were also correspondingly marked and individually sealed with the seal of DRI 10 over and above a paper slip, which was bearing the dated signatures of both the accused, the panch witnesses and the IO/PW1. The remaining heroin of the above packets was put back in the same packings and these packets were also converted into separate cloth parcels, which were correspondingly marked X-1 to X-10 and X-11 to X-15 and sealed in the similar manner. These packets of remaining heroin were then further kept in a steel trunk, which was wrapped in white cloth, stitched and sealed with the same seal and in the same manner and the above wooden box and woofer were also separately kept in another steel trunk and a separate cloth parcel thereof prepared and sealed in the same manner. The IO/PW1 had also drawn a detailed panchnama Ex. PW1/D regarding the above proceedings and the contents thereof were explained to both the accused and the panch witnesses and they all had also signed the same, besides the IO/PW1 himself, and a facsimile of above seal of DRI was affixed on the panchnama. The photocopies of the above two different types of rubber stamps markings found on the cloths of SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
7the above packets were also made as annexures to the above panchnama and these photocopies as well as documents recovered from the dashboard of the above car were also signed by all the above persons. Test memos in triplicate, including the memos Ex. PW1/Q and Ex. PW1/Q1 were also prepared and a facsimile of the above seal affixed thereon.
8. It is further alleged that thereafter, in response to the summons Ex. PW2/A issued to the accused no. 1 by PW2 Sh Attar Singh, an Intelligence Officer of DRI, the above accused had appeared before him on the same day and had tendered his voluntary statement Ex. PW2/B (Hindi translation thereof is Ex. PW2/C) in his own handwriting in Gurmukhi language. In his above statement, besides disclosing his personal and other family details and admitting his apprehension from the above spot and recovery of the above contraband substance from their above vehicle, the accused no. 1 had disclosed therein that he was recruited as a Constable in Punjab Police in the year 1992 and he had left the above job in the year 2004 due to ill health. He had also disclosed therein that he had met one person named Raju in court at Amritsar and the above Raju had induced him to transport heroin and Raju also told him that he will provide the vehicle and on Raju's instructions he had reached at Green Park, Delhi from Amritsar in the above Indica car with 15 KG of heroin, which was to be delivered to a Thai lady named Leela, SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
8and accused no. 2 had met him on the way at Jalandhar. He had also disclosed that accused no. 2 was known to his father-in-law Sukhdev Singh, who was in jail at that time, and he (accused no. 1) had induced the accused no. 2 to work with him as he was not knowing the English and Hindi languages. He had further disclosed therein that he was to get Rs 75,000/- from the above Raju for the above job and four days prior also, they both, i.e. both the accused persons, had brought into Delhi and delivered to the above Thai lady named Leela 5 KG of heroin. However, he could not disclose any specific details of the above Raju or the Thai lady Leela.
9. Similarly, in response to the summons Ex. PW1/I issued under the above section, the accused no. 2 had also tendered his similar statement Ex. PW1/J before the IO/PW1 on the same day and in his above statement, besides disclosing his personal and other family details and admitting his apprehension from the above spot and the recovery of the above contraband substance from their above vehicle, the accused no. 2 had also disclosed therein, inter-alia, that he had met the accused no. 1 through the father-in-law of accused no. 1 and he was induced into the drug business by the accused no. 1 and he had joined it to assist the accused no. 1 due to the language problem of accused no. 1 in delivery of the above contraband substance as the receiver thereof was a foreigner lady, i.e. a Thai National. He had also disclosed therein, likewise accused no. 1, that SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
9the above 15 packets of heroin were brought at the above spot in the above vehicle by accused no. 1 from Amritsar and he had joined the accused no. 1 on the way at Jalandhar.
10. Since both the accused persons appeared to have committed offences punishable U/S 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, they both were arrested in this case vide memos Ex. PW1/K and PW1/K1, got medically examined from RML Hospital and subsequently remanded to judicial custody. Intimations regarding their arrests were sent to their family members vide telegrams Ex. PW6/D and PW6/E respectively. The IO/PW1 had also submitted one report U/S 57 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/O dated 29.08.2006 to his senior officer. One set of sealed two parcels of batch A was got deposited in CRCL, New Delhi on 29.08.2006, through PW4 Sh K. K. Singh and against receipt Ex. PW1/R of the CRCL, alongwith duplicate test memos and the forwarding letter Ex. PW1/P given by PW3. The two sealed parcels of the case property were also deposited in the Valuable Godown of the New Customs House on the same day by the IO/PW1 vide deposit memo Ex. PW1/S. Investigation was also conducted regarding the ownership of the above Indica car and as per the documents Ex. PW1/H1 to PW1/H5 recovered from the said car, the above car was owned by one Sh Raj Kumar Shukla, a resident of J-1/40 DDA Flats Kalkaji, and the above car was hypothecated to HDFC Bank. However, it was found on investigation that the above named person was not SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
10existing at the given address and even the above car was found to be actually financed by the ICICI Bank, instead of HDFC Bank, through M/S Pahwa Motors/International (Pvt) Ltd, but the above Sh Raj Kumar Shukla could not be traced out during the investigation. The residential house of accused no. 1 in his native village at Amritsar, Punjab and two residential houses of accused no. 2 in Delhi and Mumbai were also got raided, but nothing incriminating was recovered further in the search of the said houses, except some documents which were recovered from the house of accused no. 2 at Delhi, which included one cheque of OBC for Rs 1,25,000/- in favour of 'self', some blank cheques of Bank of Maharashtra and ICICI Bank of different amounts in the name of one Rahul Kumar and the PAN Card and ATM Card of the above accused etc. However, even the given address of above Rahul Kumar was found to be fake and even the drawer of the cheque of Rs 1,25,000/- could not be traced out.
11. Vide the test report of CRCL dated 30.10.2006 Ex. PW5/A, which is per-se admissible in evidence U/S 293 Cr.P.C., both the above samples had tested positive for the presence of diacetylmorphine (heroin) and the percentage thereof in the said samples was opined to be 73.1% in each of the samples. After completing certain other formalities of investigation and the recording of the statements, a complaint for commission of the above said offences was ultimately filed by the IO/PW1 in this SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
11court.
12. A complaint was filed against the accused persons in this court on 22.02.2007 and cognizance of the above offences was taken on the same day. A prima facie case for commission of the above said offences was also found to be made out against both the accused persons vide order dated 04.07.2007 of this court and charges for the said offences were also framed against them on the same day.
13. The prosecution in support of its case has examined on record total 19 witnesses and their names and the purpose of examination is being stated herein below:-
14. PW1 Sh M. C. Maheshwari is the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer of this case and he was heading the above raiding team of DRI, which had apprehended the accused persons from the above spot, recovered the above heroin from their above car and had conducted the entire proceedings regarding the above recovered substance and other articles. He has broadly deposed on the above lines of the prosecution story and has proved the various documents of this case prepared by him in connection with the investigation of the case. He has also identified both the accused as well as the case property.
15. PW2 Sh Attar Singh is also an Intelligence SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
12Officer of DRI and he had only issued the summons Ex. PW2/A U/S 67 of the NDPS Act to accused no. 1 Sawarn Singh and in response to the above summons, the statement Ex. PW2/B of the above accused was tendered before him by the accused in Gurmukhi language. He had also translated the above statement vide Ex. PW2/C.
16. PW3 Sh S. K. Sharma, a Senior Intelligence Officer of DRI, had issued the above seal of DRI to the IO/PW1 on 28.07.2006, i.e. prior to the seizure, vide entry Ex. PW1/V of the seal movement register and subsequently the report U/S 57 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/O regarding the arrest of the accused persons and the seizure of the above heroin was also submitted to him by the IO/PW1 on 29.08.2006. On that day, he had also sent the sample parcels, alongwith the duplicate test memos, to CRCL vide forwarding letter Ex. PW1/P.
17. PW4 Sh K. K. Singh, Lab Assistant of DRI, is the person who had taken the above two sealed sample parcels of this case to CRCL, alongwith the duplicate test memos and the above forwarding letter, on 29.08.2006 and had deposited the same there in intact condition vide receipt Ex. PW1/R issued by the CRCL.
18. PW5 Sh S. K. Mittal was the Assistant Chemical Examiner at CRCL, New Delhi on the above date and after the above samples were received in the CRCL and entrusted to him, he had kept the same in the strong SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
13room on that day. The samples were taken out for analysis by him on 22.09.2006 and the same were concluded vide test report Ex. PW5/A dated 30.10.2006 and both the above samples were found positive for heroin and the percentage thereof was also determined and given in the above report. He has also identified the remnant samples in court.
19. PW6 Sh Alok Aggarwal is the then Assistant Director of DRI, had issued one search authorization Ex. PW6/A for search of the residential house of accused no. 2 Salauddin Khan in Delhi (the name of accused wrongly recorded as Sawarn Singh in his statement), sent the arrest intimations of the accused to their family members and also issued some letters for verification of the documents and particulars of the accused persons. He had also counter-signed the deposit memo Ex. PW1/S dated 29.08.2006 of the case property of this case.
20. PW7 Sh D. P. Saxena, an Intelligence Officer of DRI, had only conducted some enquiry regarding the residence of the above Sh Raj Kumar Shukla, in whose name the documents of the above vehicle were found, and submitted his report Ex. PW7/A regarding his unavailability at the given address.
21. PW8 Sh Ajay Bhasin, an Intelligence Officer of DRI, had also conducted some enquiry regarding the address of the above Sh Rahul Kumar, in whose account SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
14and name some cheques were recovered from the house of accused no. 2 in Delhi, but even the above person could not be traced out in his report Ex. PW1/S2.
22. PW9 Sh Jyothimon Dethan, another Intelligence Officer of DRI, was entrusted the job of execution of the above search authorization Ex. PW6/A of the house of accused no. 2 in Delhi and he had executed the same vide panchnama Ex. PW9/A and had recovered the above documents, i.e. the above self cheque, blank cheques, ATM and PAN Card of the above accused etc, which are Ex. PW9/A1 to PW9/A5 on record, and submitted his report Ex. PW9/B in this regard.
23. PW10 Sh Vipin Mishra is a participant in the above panchnama proceedings conducted by PW9 and a signatory of the above search authorization, panchnama and documents.
24. PW11 Sh D. B. Sharma, was the In-charge of the Valuable Godown of the New Customs House when the above sealed parcels of case property were deposited with him by the IO/PW1 on 29.08.2006 in the Valuable Godown and he had made an endorsement regarding the receiving of the same in intact condition on the deposit memo Ex. PW1/S and had further made an entry Ex. PW11/A in the Valuable Godown register in this regard.
25. PW12 Sh Rajender Kumar Bhagat, is the Manager SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
15of OBC, Malad Branch, Mumbai and he has produced in this court some records pertaining to one account number 181595 of their bank, on which the above 'self' cheque recovered from the house of accused no. 2 was drawn, which was stated to be in the name of one Mr. Kamal Daga and Bharti Daga of Mumbai, who also could not be traced out at their given address during the investigation.
26. PW13 Sh Deepak Gill is the Manager of M/s Pahwa Motors/International (Pvt.) Ltd., Wazirpur, Delhi and he has produced some record pertaining to the sale of the above Indica car in the name of the above Sh Raj Kumar Shukla.
27. PW14 Sh Amitabh Sinha is the then Customer Service In-charge of Loan Section of HDFC Bank, Mumbai and he has also deposed regarding the fact that the above Indica car was not actually financed by or hypothecated to their bank and has also produced some record pertaining to the same.
28. PW15 Ms. Yogita Bhangare, an Intelligence Officer of DRI, Mumbai, had conducted the search of one residential house of accused no. 2 at Mumbai, on the basis of the search authorization Ex. PW15/B and vide panchnama Ex. PW15/A, but nothing incriminating was recovered in the said search, as stated above.
29. PW16 Sh Kapalmeet Singh is an official of the SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
16Punjab Police and he has produced in this court the service record of accused no. 1 regarding his employment as a constable in Punjab Police.
30. PW17 Sh Rahul Aggarwal is an Assistant Manager of ICICI Bank, Dwarka, New Delhi and he has deposed regarding the finance and hypothecation of the above Indica car of Sh Raj Kumar Shukla by their bank and has produced some record pertaining to the above loan transaction.
31. PW18 Sh Kamal Kumar, an Intelligence Officer of DRI, is the person who had received the above specific information, reduced into writing as Ex. PW18/A and had put up the same before his senior officer.
32. PW19 Sh Pankaj K. Singh is the above senior officer, working as a Deputy Director of DRI at the relevant time, and after perusing the above information Ex. PW18/A, he had directed the IO/PW1 to form a raiding team and to act upon the same.
33. After the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, all the incriminating evidence brought on record by the prosecution was put to the accused persons in their statements recorded U/S 313 Cr.P.C. and the same was denied by both of them to be incorrect. The accused no. 1 has claimed that he was picked up from his house in village Ghumanpura, Punjab by DRI officers on SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
1727.08.2006 and thereafter he was brought in their office in Delhi and was physically as well as mentally tortured there and he had also sustained various injurious on his person and his both knees were wounded due to the brutal torture given to him. The accused no. 2 has claimed that nothing incriminating was recovered from his possession or at his instance and he has nothing to do with the above vehicle and he was also illegally confined in the DRI office and kept without food and water and his family history was also obtained under pressure, threats and coercion etc and further on a promise to be let away, he was also made to write a dictated statement. Both of them have also claimed that their signatures were obtained on various blank, semi written and written documents, including some blank paper slips, under such mental and physical torture. They both have also chosen to lead evidence in their defence.
34. Total four witnesses have been examined in defence of the accused persons and all of them have been examined by the accused no. 1 Sawarn Singh and no defence evidence was actually led by the other accused. The details of the above defence witnesses are as under:
35. DW1 Sh Tulsi Ram is a warder of Tihar Jail, who has produced on record the medical record of accused no. 1 as Ex. DW1/X (collectively), on the date of his admission in jail on 29.08.2006.
SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
1836. DW2 Dr. Manoj Teotia is the Medical Officer of the Tihar Jail and he has deposed about the medical examination report of the above accused as Ex. DW2/A, i.e. CR No. 8027 dated 29.08.2006, at the time of his admission in jail on the above date.
37. DW3 Sh Kartar Singh and DW4 Sh Parminder Singh are the residents of the above native village of the accused no. 1 in Punjab and they both have tried to corroborate the claim of the accused regarding his being picked up from his house on 27.08.2006 by some persons in plain cloths.
38. The first ground on which the defence has challenged the prosecution case is its veracity regarding the very constitution of the raiding team of DRI officers which had allegedly apprehended the accused persons from the above spot and with the above contraband substance and it is the argument of defence that the evidence led by the prosecution on this aspect does not even prove the constitution of the above raiding team, what to say of apprehension of the accused from the said spot and with the above contraband substance. In this regard, it is observed that out of the 19 witnesses examined by the prosecution on record, only the IO/PW1 is found to be a witness of apprehension of the accused from the above spot and he was heading the above raiding team of DRI and no other official witness of DRI examined on record has claimed himself to SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
19a member of the said team or to have visited the above spot. However, when the depositions made by the IO/PW1 and the other documentary evidence led by the prosecution in this regard is scrutinized, it is observed that there are serious doubts in the prosecution story regarding the very constitution of the above raiding team or the members included in the said team and the depositions made by the IO/PW1 regarding the members of the said team are not found to be corroborated by any satisfactory evidence.
39. In his examination in chief, the IO/PW1 is silent regarding the members of the above raiding team and has only stated that he had visited the above spot alongwith the team of DRI officers and even in his cross examination conducted on 30.01.2010, on behalf of accused no. 1, he has stated specifically that he cannot tell the names of the other officers who had visited the above spot, alongwith him. In his above cross examination, he has also stated that the other officers had remained at the spot with him only for about 10 minutes and he himself had remained there till about 12:30 PM. As per his depositions, he had reached at the spot at around 11:00 AM and the vehicle of the accused persons was noticed by them at around 12:20 PM and the accused persons were actually intercepted by them sometime thereafter as prior to that, he had also joined two public witnesses from the spot and he has further stated the time of their arrival back in their office to SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
20be around 12:40/12:45 PM. There is no explanation furnished by him on record as to at which particular time, the other officers of DRI were with him at the spot for 10 minutes only and there is also no claim made by him as to at which particular time and for what reasons, the other officers of DRI had left the spot. His depositions do not even suggest specifically as to whether the other DRI officers had returned back to their office with him or separately and except using the word 'we' he has also nowhere stated specifically as to whether the other DRI officers were with him or not when they had left their office and who were these other officers.
40. However, in his subsequent cross examination conducted on the same day after lunch session, i.e. on 30.04.2010, he (the IO/PW1) was again asked by Ld counsel for the above accused as to whether, after seeing the list of witnesses, he can tell the names of the other officers of DRI who had joined the proceedings of this case on the day of seizure, and the IO/PW1 had replied in positive. He was also shown the list of witnesses of this case filed by him, alongwith the complaint, and after seeing the list, he has stated that Sh D. P. Saxena, Sh Jyothimon and Sh Ajay Bhasin are the persons who had accompanied him to the spot on that day. He has also stated specifically that the above three officers of DRI had remained with him throughout the proceedings of this case conducted on that day, i.e. on SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
2128.08.2006, which is the date of apprehension of the accused persons from the above spot.
41. The above three officers of DRI namely Sh D. P. Saxena, Sh Jyothimon and Sh Ajay Bhasin have also been incidently examined by the prosecution on record during this trial and they are PW7, PW9 and PW8 respectively. However, none of the above three witnesses of the prosecution has claimed himself to be a part of the above raiding team of DRI or to have been present at the time of interception of the accused persons from the above spot or at the time of the subsequent search and seizure of the above contraband substance. They all are the officers of the rank of Intelligence Officer and are equal in rank to the IO/PW1 and being the responsible officers of DRI, they must have deposed on record regarding their participation in the above raid and other proceedings of seizure if they were actually the members of the above raiding team. It is observed that PW7 has only claimed to have conducted some enquiry regarding the above address of J-1/40, DDA Flat, Kalkaji, which was the address of the above Sh Raj Kumar Shukla, the owner of the above Indica car, PW8 Sh Ajay Bhasin had only taken the summons of the above Sh Rahul Kumar for service, in whose name one self-cheque and some blank cheques were recovered from the residence of accused no. 2 and PW9 had only conducted some search proceedings of the house of accused no. 2 and none of them has made any depositions at all regarding their SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
22participation in the above raid. Had they been the members of the above raiding team of DRI which had visited the spot, they were bound to depose on record regarding the same and this was not something which was to be forgotten by them or to slip out of their mind at the time when they had stepped into the witness box. Their names are also not found to be included in any of the documents of this case, including the panchnama Ex. PW1/D and the complaint Ex. PW1/A as members of the above team and even the said panchnama or any other document like notices U/S 50 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C or the documents recovered from the above car or made as annexures to the said panchnama are found to be bearing their signatures. The above is a material contradiction and lacunae in the story of the prosecution and since no depositions have been made by either PW7, PW8 or PW9 regarding their participation in the above raid, the only inference which could be drawn therefrom is that the IO/PW1 is not speaking the truth when he is stating about them to be members of the above raiding team and this may also be the reason as to why the names or signatures of none of them appear on any of the documents prepared in connection with or at around the time of the above seizure. This contradiction and discrepancy in the story of the prosecution gives a serious blow to the credibility of the prosecution case as a whole and to the depositions of the IO/PW1 in particular, who is the sole witness of recovery examined by the prosecution on record.
SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
23
42. Again, there are certain other factors
connected with the constitution of the above raiding
team and their alleged visit at the above spot, which also raise serious doubts regarding the credibility of the prosecution story and the depositions of the IO/PW1. As per the depositions made by the IO/PW1, they had gone to the above spot in government vehicles, but he was not able to remember the number of the vehicles used by them or the registration numbers etc of the said vehicles. He also could not remember as to whether they had used one or two vehicles or the other details of the vehicles used by them. He was further not able to remember as to which officers had travelled with him in the said vehicles and the names or the ranks of the persons/drivers who had driven the said vehicles. In his cross examination, though he has stated that he had returned back to their office in the above Indica car recovered from the accused persons, but he was also not able to remember as to who had driven the said car from the spot to their office or the sitting arrangements in the said car. The sitting arrangements of the above Indica car on their way back to the office, as stated by him, is also made doubtful by his depositions as he has stated that he was sitting on the rear seat of the car; no other officer of DRI was in the said car; there were total five persons in the Indica car and one witness was sitting with the accused on the rear seat and one witness was sitting with the driver also, but how it could have been possible for the IO/PW1 and also one SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
24witness to sit with both the accused persons on the rear seat of the car and one driver and one witness to sit on the front seat when there were total five persons only, who had travelled in the said car from the spot to their office. No logbook or other documentary evidence of the alleged visit of the members of DRI in any official vehicle/vehicles to the above spot is also brought in evidence by the prosecution and though the same is always not necessary, but it could have certainly corroborated the depositions of the IO/PW1 and the other evidence led on record to some extent, which is otherwise found to be lacking confidence and reliability. Thus, the oral depositions made by the IO/PW1 and the other evidence led by the prosecution on record is also not sufficient to establish the credibility of the claim being made by the IO/PW1 regarding their visit to the above spot.
43. The next material challenge put by the Ld defence counsels to the prosecution case is on the ground of non examination of the two public witnesses allegedly joined in the raid and also the credibility of the prosecution case regarding the very joining of the said witnesses. It is the contention of both the Ld defence counsels that no public witness was ever joined in the alleged raid nor there was any question of joining them as no such raid was ever conducted and the DRI had only cited some assumed and fake names as public witnesses in their list, while manipulating some SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
25signatures etc. in their names on the documents of this case and no such witnesses ever existed in reality.
44. In this regard, it has already been discussed above that none of the two public witnesses namely Sh Rajesh Kumar and Sh Aamir Raza allegedly joined by the IO/PW1 in the above raid could be examined by the prosecution on record as both the above witnesses were reported to be not traceable or existing at their given addresses and they were dropped by the prosecution for the above reason. However, it is now well settled that the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown away and their evidence cannot be discarded simply by reason of non examination of such public witnesses as though the joining of such witnesses may be in the hands of an Investigating Officer, but their production in the court is never in his hands and the prosecution cannot be faulted or cannot be assumed to have withheld such witnesses simply by the reason that such witnesses could not be subsequently produced on record for making statements during the trial, for no fault on their part. However, this is subject to the condition that the remaining evidence of the prosecution should be inspiring confidence and should be sufficient to prove their case beyond reasonable doubts and the court should be convinced that such witnesses were in-fact joined in the seizure proceedings because otherwise the veracity of the prosecution case and evidence will stand seriously affected and the same may not form the basis SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
26of conviction of an accused.
45. When the evidence led by the prosecution on record is appreciated in the light of the above legal position, this court has serious doubts regarding the joining of any such public witnesses at alleged time of apprehension of the accused persons from the above spot. In his examination in chief, the IO/PW1 has stated that on 28.08.2006, he was called by his Deputy Director at about 10:30 AM and was informed about the above information and the expected time of arrival of the accused persons at the above spot was between 12:00 Noon to 1:00 PM on that day. He has also specifically stated in his examination in chief itself that they had reached there at around 11:00 AM and at around 12:20 PM, they had seen the above car of the accused persons and they had noticed that the description of the above car and of the two persons sitting in the said car was found to be matching with the contents of the above information and hence, he had called the two panch witnesses from the vicinity and told them about the above information and requested them to witness the proceedings, to which they had agreed. He has also stated that he waited further for a few minutes and when they had felt that the above car was about to move from that place, they had intercepted the above car.
46. In his cross examination dated 30.04.2010, he has also stated the time of leaving of the spot by them SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
27to be around 12:30 PM and of reaching at their office to be around 12:40/12:45 PM. Further, in his cross examination dated 30.01.2010, the he has also stated that both the above public witnesses joined by him from the spot were visitors to the above market and they were called after about one hour of the arrival of the raiding team at the spot. He has further stated in his above cross examination that he himself had called the above two public witnesses and they both were standing together at the above relevant time, but he had not seen them talking to each other and has also stated that he requested only two persons, i.e. both the above witnesses, to join the proceedings of this case and they both had agreed. Though, he has also initially stated in his above cross examination that after the date of incident he had seen the above two panch witnesses only once when he recorded their statements, but subsequently, he has also volunteered that the statement U/S 67 of the NDPS Act of only one witness was recorded by him and the statement of the other witness could not be recorded during the investigation. He has also admitted that neither he had made any attempts to verify the addresses given by the above two witnesses nor he had taken any proof of their identities on record. It has also transpired during his above cross examination that the statement Ex. PW1/U1 of only one of the above public witnesses, i.e. Sh Aamir Raza, is found to have been recorded under the above provisions, by the IO/PW1, in response to the summons Ex. PW1/U served upon the SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
28said witness, but neither any summons given in the name of the other public witness Sh Rajesh Kumar could be traced out in the judicial file nor any statement of the said witness recorded under the above Section is a part of the record.
47. On this aspect, the explanation furnished by the IO/PW1 was that though the summons to the public witness Sh Aamir Raza were served by him on the day of incident itself, but the summons to the other witness could not be served on that day as by the time he had issued the summons, the witness had already left the office of the DRI. However, even no summons issued in his name could be traced out by the IO/PW1 from the record, despite his specific claim that the same were prepared by him and were to be given to the witness. This was also despite the fact that he has claimed that the above two witnesses had remained with him for about 6-7 hours on that day.
48. In almost every case where the case of the prosecution is that the public or independent witnesses could not be joined despite making some specific requests, the courts have been drawing an inference about the reluctance on the part of such public persons to join the complicated and vexatious police investigations. However, here is a case in which the IO/PW1 was able to join the public persons just within a short span of about five minutes only as he has SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
29specifically stated that the car of the accused was first noticed at around 12:20 PM and when their descriptions were found to matching with the contents of the information, the request to the above two witnesses was made by him and they had agreed to join the proceedings, after they were told about the contents of the said information. This appears to be one of the most doubtful parts of the prosecution story as he had requested only two persons to join the proceedings and both of them had agreed to join and just within about five minutes he was able to pursue them to join the proceedings, and that too after explaining the details of the information. The depositions made by the IO/PW1 further suggest as if he was very sure to make the two public witnesses join the proceedings of this case at his will and convenience, though in the peculiar circumstances prevailing in our society no such witness readily agrees to join such proceedings. Though, he has come to know about the secret information at around 10:30 AM, while he was still present in his office, no efforts or attempts were made by him to join any public or independent witnesses from near his office complex or even on their way from the office at IP Bhawan, IP Estate, New Delhi to the above Green Park Market, New Delhi, which is situated at a considerable distance from their office, which may be around 8/10 kms. Again, according to him, they had reached at the spot at around 11:00 AM and had started waiting there for the arrival of the accused persons and the above car of the accused SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
30was seen at around 12:20 PM only, but even during this long span of 1 hour and about 20 minutes, he did not make any attempt to join any such independent witness. He also did not request any local shopkeeper of the above place to join the above raid proceedings and his above conduct and depositions raise serious doubts regarding his credibility and also the credibility of the prosecution story as a whole.
49. Again, there are certain other factors also which make the above claim of the IO/PW1 regarding the joining of the above public witnesses to be doubtful. Ld defence counsel for accused no. 2 has pointed out that the alleged address of the public witness Sh Rajesh Kumar as given in the panchnama Ex. PW1/D is incomplete and even the address of the other witness Sh Aamir Raza mentioned in the above document is doubtful because he has stated himself to be a resident of Bara Hindu Rao and this place to be located near Paharganj, Delhi, whereas the above two places are separate places situated at a considerable distance. It is a submission made by Ld counsel for accused no. 2 that such an address of accused should not have been taken on record by a seasoned officer like the IO/PW1, who was a responsible officer of DRI and was also posted and residing in Delhi for a considerably long period of about 7-8 years, as stated by the IO/PW1 himself. This is coupled with the fact that the IO/PW1 has admittedly not taken or even asked for any proof of the above SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
31addresses or of the identities of the above two witnesses nor he even made any attempt to verify their addresses. Though, the IO/PW1 has vaguely stated on record that some official was sent at the given address of the public witness Sh Rajesh Kumar during the investigation and the said witness was found to be existing at the given address, but there is no documentary evidence on record even to corroborate the above claim of the IO/PW1 and admittedly he had also not initiated any action against the above witness for leaving their office premises without his consent. It is also strange as to how such a material witness of the prosecution story was permitted to leave their office premises without serving any summons upon him for the recording of his statement subsequently. Further, Ld defence counsel for accused no. 2 has also pointed out that as per the alleged statement Ex. PW1/U1 of the public witness Sh Aamir Raza tendered before the IO/PW1 during the investigation, the above witness was working in one 'Sedi' (or Sethi) hotel in Paharganj, but no attempt was ever made to get his summons served at his official address or to trace him on that address and these witnesses were casually dropped by the prosecution, as if they were aware regarding their non existence from the very beginning. In the absence of non examination of the above public witness Aamir Raza, his alleged statement Ex. PW1/U1 recorded U/S 67 of the NDPS Act is also of no use and cannot be given any weight or consideration.
SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
3250. Thus, on the basis of the above circumstances and lapses of the part of the IO/PW1, Ld defence counsels appear to be right in raising an argument that the joining of the above two public witnesses in the alleged raid and other proceedings is highly doubtful and the possibility cannot be ruled out that no such witnesses ever existed at the above addresses or participated in any such proceedings. Ld defence counsels have also rightly relied upon the judgment dated 08.11.2013 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case CRL. Appeal No. 783/2012 titled Mohd Irfan Vs. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, which was a case pertaining to this very court, where their Lordship had set aside a judgment of conviction of this court in a similar matter where not only the very existence of two public witnesses allegedly joined by the DRI officers in the raid was considered to be highly doubtful by the Hon'ble High Court in similar circumstances, but the remaining evidence of the prosecution was also doubted and disbelieved as the sole statement of the IO of that case was considered to be not inspiring any confidence, as is also in the present case.
51. One other material aspect on which the prosecution evidence is found to be lacking in confidence and which gives rise to an inference regarding the manipulation of the facts and some documents is the service of the alleged notices Ex. PW1/B and PW1/C by the IO/PW1 upon the accused persons, SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
33though the above notices were not even required to be given in this case as the recovery of the contraband substance has not been effected from the 'persons' of the accused, but has been effected from the above car. Admittedly, the alleged notices were not served upon the accused persons at the spot of their apprehension and the same were served in the parking area on the ground floor of the building in which the office of the DRI is located. Though, no adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the prosecution for not serving the above notices at the spot of apprehension itself, as argued by Ld defence counsels, but even the evidence led on record regarding the service of the said notices at the parking area of the office of the DRI is highly doubtful and it is not inspiring any confidence at all.
52. It is observed by the court, as well as pointed out by Ld defence counsels, that both the above notices given to the accused persons are typed notices on a computer. The above notices could not have been prepared prior to the apprehension of the accused persons from the above spot as the complete details of the accused persons, as recorded in the said notices, were not available in the above secret information reduced into writing as Ex. PW18/A. The same could also not have been prepared at the spot of their apprehension, unless there is some evidence to show that the facility of a computer or a typewriter and printer was available with the IO/PW1 at the relevant time, SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
34which is also not the case of the prosecution. The above notices could also not have been prepared in the parking area on the ground floor of the said building in which the office of DRI is located as even at that place, the facility of a computer or an electronic typewriter or printer was not available and the same could have been available and the notices prepared only at the 7th floor office of the DRI in the said building, where the above contraband substance recovered subsequently from the said car of the accused persons was taken for further proceedings, alongwith both the accused and the two panch witnesses.
53. However, from the entire depositions made by the IO/PW1, it is not clear as to who had prepared the above two notices and where the same were prepared. During his cross examination, though at one stage, he has stated that he does not now remember if he had any communication with the DRI office during the period he was present at the spot, but subsequently, he has also stated specifically that he did not talk to any officer of DRI in the DRI office from the spot during the said period and he was also not able to remember if any phone was received by him during that time. In view of the above depositions, the personal details of the accused, like their parentage and addresses etc, could not have been communicated by him from the spot to the DRI office to enable someone to prepare or type the said notices. He has also specifically stated that they had stayed at SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
35the ground floor area of their office for about 25 minutes, but he does not now remember if anybody had left the above place or came there during the said period. He has further stated on record that the above notices were served upon the accused persons within about 5 minutes of their arrival at the above place and even he himself did not leave the said place for any purposes. He has also stated specifically that the search of the car had started at around 12:50 PM. If his above depositions are believed, it could not have been possible to prepare or type the above notices within this short span of about 5 minutes when there is also no claim or evidence provided on record to show the possibility of preparation of these documents within the above time. Hence, the only inference which appears to be possible from the above evidence is that the above documents have not been prepared at the above spot and there is every possibility of their preparation and manipulation at a subsequent time and stage and this fact also makes the depositions of the IO/PW1 and the prosecution evidence as a whole to be unworthy acceptance. Ld defence counsels have rightly relied upon the judgment dated 23.01.2014 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Vs. Manjinder Singh, CRL. L. P. 310/2013, wherein their lordship had upheld the acquittal of an accused by this court in similar circumstances where the typed notice U/S 50 of the NDPS Act allegedly served upon the accused at the place of his apprehension was doubted by this SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
36court to be a document manipulated subsequently and the rest of the evidence led by the prosecution was also considered to be not trustworthy.
54. The next challenge to the prosecution case is on the ground that the above Indica car No. DL 8C M 2748, from which the accused persons were intercepted and the above heroin seized, was not owned by any of the above two accused persons or could not even be connected with any of them. In this regard, it is observed that from the documents Ex. PW1/H1 to PW1/H5 recovered from the said car, it was revealed that the above car was purchased in the name of one Sh Raj Kumar Shukla from M/s Pawha Motors International Pvt. Ltd, Wazirpur, Delhi and the same was on finance from HDFC Bank. The evidence led on record reflects that in response to the letters Ex. PW3/E and Ex. PW3/F written by PW3 Sh S. K. Sharma, it was intimated by PW14 Sh Amitabh Sinha of HDFC Bank that no loan account in the name of above person could be traced out in their bank and PW14 has also deposed in the court in this regard. However, on further enquiries about the above Sh Raj Kumar Shukla conducted during the investigation, it was revealed that no such person was existing at his given address of J-1/40, DDA Flats, Kalkaji and PW7 Sh D. P. Saxena had also recorded the statement of one Sh Mrinmoy Dutta Ex. PW7/A and further the statement of one Sh Girdhar Singh Aswal Ex. PW1/T1 was also recorded by the IO/PW1 in this regard. However, the above Sh Mrinmoy Dutta and Sh SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
37Girdhar Singh Aswal were subsequently reported to be not existing at their given addresses, when they were summoned as witnesses by the court and had to be dropped.
55. Further, when PW14 of M/s Pawha Motors International Pvt. Ltd, Wazirpur, Delhi had stepped into the witness box, he has also deposed that during enquiries conducted from the Transport Department, it was revealed that the above vehicle was not financed by their bank, but the same was financed by and hypothecated to ICICI Bank. Subsequently, on the request on behalf of DRI, this court had also summoned the relevant record from the ICICI Bank and PW17 Sh Rahul Aggarwal has deposed that the above vehicle was in-fact financed by their bank to the above Raj Kumar Shukla and he has also placed on record some documents in this regard. However, as already stated above, the above Raj Kumar Shukla could not earlier be traced out at his given address and hence, it had remained a mystery as to who was the actual owner of the above said vehicle or who had transferred or handed over the possession of the said vehicle to the accused persons or from whom the said vehicle was procured by the accused persons for the alleged transportation of the contraband substance. It is also observed on this aspect that the IO/PW1 had not even taken care to make any enquiry from the concerned office of the Transport Department of Delhi regarding the ownership of the said vehicle or genuinely to trace SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
38out the above registered owner of the vehicle, from the record or documents available in the Transport Department. Hence, the above lapse of the IO/PW1 and lacunae in the prosecution story also go against their case and add to their miseries, in proving the charges framed against the accused persons.
56. Besides the above, the alleged voluntary statements of the accused persons recorded U/S 67 of the NDPS Act are also been assailed by both the Ld defence counsels while saying that the same were forcibly extracted from the accused persons, under physical as well as mental torture given to them, and the same cannot be termed to be voluntary in any manner. It is also argued that there is no corroboration of any of the contents of the said statements by the DRI from any independent source and only the personal details of the accused persons were extracted from them and incorporated in the said statements, to give a voluntary look to these statements.
57. In this regard, it is observed that the statements U/S 67 of the NDPS Act allegedly tendered by the accused no. 1 voluntarily is Ex. PW2/B on record and the same is found to be recorded in Punjabi language and the same has been reduced into writing by PW2 Sh Attar Singh, allegedly on the dictation of the accused, and the translated version thereof in Hindi language is Ex. PW2/C on record. The above statement was tendered in SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
39response to the summons Ex. PW2/A issued by the IO/PW1. In the above statement, the accused had disclosed his educational standard and personal and family details etc and further that he had met one Raju in court and the above vehicle and 15 KG of heroin recovered from their possession belonged to the above Raju and was brought from Amritsar to Delhi on the instructions of the said Raju and accused no. 2 had joined him on the way at Jalandhar. He is also alleged to have stated therein that the accused no. 2 was known to him through his father in law who was running in jail and 4 days prior to the above incident also they both, i.e. both the accused, had delivered 5 KG of heroin to one lady named Leela in Delhi, on the instructions of the above Raju.
58. However, except the above contents of his alleged statement Ex. PW2/B, there is nothing on record to corroborate any other fact or circumstance found stated in his above statement. Neither the IO/PW1 had tried to confirm the factum of confinement of the father in law of the accused in jail nor the above Raju or Leela could be traced out during the investigation and thus the sources of procurement and supply of the above substance could not be traced out, as already discussed above. Even, the above vehicle could not be connected with any of the accused persons and no efforts were also made to corroborate the alleged disclosures made by the accused regarding the previous delivery of the contraband substance by them.
SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
40
59. During his defence evidence, some medical
record of the above accused has also been produced in this court and though technically, the said record or medical report, for the gravity and nature of the injuries suffered by the above accused no. 1 as on the date of his admission in jail, does not stand proved as per the provisions of the Evidence Act as the doctor concerned has not been examined in this court, but at least the factum of there being some fresh injuries present on his person on the date when he was admitted in the above jail stands proved on record from the depositions of DW2 Dr. Manoj Teotia, who is also a competent witness being a medical expert. The presence of the above injuries on the body of accused no. 1 is a circumstance to strengthen the submission being made on behalf of the above accused that he might have been given physical torture by the DRI officers to make him sign some documents, while he was in their custody in the DRI office, and the above evidence is also in contrast to the claim of the DRI that there were no injuries present on his person on that day when he was got examined from RML Hospital. Further, the MLC of the accused dated 29.08.2006 of RML Hospital is only Mark D on record and has not been proved by the DRI during the evidence, so as to rule out the presence of any such injuries on the body of the accused at the time of his above medical examination from RML Hospital. Moreover, the above statement also already stands retracted by the accused vide his retraction application Mark A dated SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
4112.09.2006 on record, which was filed just on the next appearance of the accused in court, after he was first produced in the court on 29.08.2006 after his arrest in this case. Hence, in view of the above, the retraction of his alleged statement and further since there is no independent corroboration of the contents of his alleged statement Ex. PW2/B, the above statement cannot be considered to be of much use for the case of the prosecution and it cannot provide any kind of corroboration to their other evidence led on record, which in itself is under serious challenge and doubts. Though, technically such a statement made by an accused is admissible in evidence and can also be considered by this court for conviction of an accused if it is found corroborated by some independent evidence as the same is recorded before the formal arrest of the accused.
60. Now coming to the statement Ex. PW1/J of the accused no. 2, which was recorded in pursuance of the summons Ex. PW1/I served upon him, this statement is also alleged to be the voluntary statement of the above accused as it is in his own handwriting and in English language which was well known to the above accused. However, this statement was also subsequently retracted by the above accused vide application Mark DY on record, which is also dated 12.09.2006, i.e. the date on which the other accused no. 1 had retracted his statement. Just like the statement of accused no. 1, no independent corroboration of any of the incriminating facts recorded SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
42in this statement is also there on record nor any document or material could be collected to show that the accused persons were even acquainted with each other prior to this case, what to say of them being involved in any previous transaction of delivery of narcotic drugs or being privy or part of any criminal conspiracy to export the above contraband substance from Punjab to Delhi or to possess the same. Hence, this statement of accused no. 2 also cannot be given any weight, in view of the facts and legal position, as discussed above.
61. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts, for the above said offences punishable U/S 21(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act, for which charges were framed against them, as the evidence led on record lacks corroboration, consistency and reliability. This is also coupled with the possibility of manipulation of some material facts and documents of the case. The above offences carry a very severe punishments of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each extending up to 20 years each and also a fine of not less than Rs 1 Lac and extending up to Rs 2 Lac each and it will not be safe for this court to rely upon the above evidence and to convict the accused persons for the said offences. Therefore, both the accused persons are hereby acquitted in this case giving benefit of doubt and be directed to be released from custody in this case. Their bonds U/S 437A Cr.P.C.
SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.
43
have already been furnished on record, though some
factual verification report of the sureties has been
called and is yet to be received. The case file be
consigned to record room after completion of the above formality.
62. 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.
Announced in the open
court on 20.05.2014 (M.K.NAGPAL)
ASJ/Special Judge NDPS
South District
Saket Court Complex
New Delhi
SC No.08A/07 DRI Vs. Sawarn Singh & Anr.