Delhi District Court
State vs Harender Mandel on 2 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF PUNEET PAHWA
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)/NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 326/2018
CNR No. DLNE01-004300-2018
STATE Versus (1). Harender Mandel
S/o Kapileshwar Mandel
R/o Plot No. 945,
Village Ghatkiya,
Khandagiri, Distt. Khordha
Odisha. (Abated)
(2). Praveen Yadav
S/o Dinesh Yadav
R/o A-170, Gali No.1,
Zero Pusta, Sonia Vihar,
Delhi.
(3). Bharat Sharma
S/o Kaushal Sharma
R/o E-393, Gali No.5,
Jagjeet Nagar, 3rd Pusta,
Usmanpur, Delhi.
FIR No. : 125/2018
PS. : Crime Branch
U/s. : 20/25/29 NDPS Act
Chargesheet Filed On : 10.10.2018
Judgment Reserved On : 28.01.2026
Judgment Announced On : 02.02.2026
Decision : Acquittal
JUDGMENT:
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.2018 at about 10:00 AM, one secret informer had informed ASI Ramdev that one person namely Harender Mandel, who is resident of Odisha alongwith his associate namely Praveen Yadav would come near Khajuri Chowk in a car bearing No. OR-02-BF-6450 alongwith huge quantity of Ganja and if raid is conducted, both SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 1 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:01 +0530 of them could be apprehended alongwith the Ganja. The said information was conveyed to Insp. Brijpal Singh, who informed about the said secret information to senior officers i.e. ACP/N&CP Sh. R. K. Ojha telephonically. ASI Ramdev reduced the said secret information into writing, vide DD No.4 and after compliance under Sec. 42 NDPS Act, a raiding team was prepared. On reaching at the spot, at about 11:40 AM, the secret informer pointed out towards a person, as Harender Mandel, who was sitting on the front seat beside the driver seat of the car bearing No. OR-02-BF-6450 (Indigo car). The said Indigo car was got stopped. Driver and the person, who was sitting beside the driver seat were apprehended. On enquiry, the name of the person, who was driving the said car was disclosed as Praveen Yadav and the name of the person, who was sitting beside the driver seat was disclosed as Harender Mandel.
2. ASI Ramdev told about the secret information to both the accused persons and gave notice u/s 50 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ("NDPS Act") to them and informed that their search as well as of their car was to be conducted and told them about their legal rights that they could get themselves and their car searched before the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. They can also take search of the raiding team as well as the police vehicle, prior to get themselves searched. Both the accused persons refused to be searched in presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. On checking their personal search, no contraband was recovered. Thereafter, search of their car was conducted, upon checking the said car, 25 packets/bundles wrapped with brown colour tape were found inside the dickey, under rear seat and inside the cavity of the said SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 2 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:04 +0530 car. On opening the said 25 bundles, Ganja was kept found. The total weight of the recovered Ganja was found to be 50.550 kg. Two samples of 250-250 kg each were taken out from the recovered material. Pullandas were prepared. Thereafter, ASI Ramdev prepared rukka and got the FIR registered. Thereafter, investigation of the present case was carried out by SI Naveen Kumar.
3. ASI Pawan Kumar prepared site plan at the instance of ASI Ramdev. After interrogation, both the accused persons were arrested and personally searched by ASI Pawan Kumar. Disclosure statements of both the accused persons were also recorded and case property was deposited in malkhana. Special reports u/s. 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused persons and recovery of the Ganja was prepared. During investigation, at the instance of accused Harinder Mandel, co-accused Bharat Sharma was arrested in the present case. During investigation, efforts were made to trace out the source of the recovered Ganja, namely, Subhash, Killo, but, he could not be traced out. After completing the investigation, chargesheet u/s. 20/25/29 of NDPS Act was filed against accused Harender Mandel and Praveen Yadav and chargesheet u/s. 29 of NDPS Act was filed against accused Bharat Sharma. Samples were sent to the FSL. Later on, FSL result was received and same was filed on record.
4. After hearing arguments on charge, on dated 01.11.2018, charge u/s. 29 r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act were framed against accused Harender Mandel, Praveen Yadav and Bharat Sharma, qua recovery of 25.300 kgs Ganja and charge u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act were framed against accused Harender SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 3 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:52 +0530 Mandel and Praveen Yadav, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. During trial, on the request of Ld. Addl. PP for the State, the charges were amended. On dated 09.01.2023, amended charge u/s. 29 r/w. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act were framed against accused Harender Mandel, Praveen Yadav and Bharat Sharma, qua recovery of 50.550 kgs Ganja and amended charge u/s. 20(b)
(ii)(C) of NDPS Act were framed against accused Harender Mandel and Praveen Yadav, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
6. Prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses to prove the charge against all the accused persons, which are as under:-
Srl. No. Name of the witness Crux of deposition PW-1 ASI Rajbir Singh He deposed that on 10.05.2018, he was performing his duty as Duty Officer at PS Crime Branch. He got the present FIR registered U/s. 20/25/29 NDPS Act and proved copy of FIR, as Ex.PW1/A. He made kayami DD No. 18 and endorsement on the rukka, vide Ex.PW1/B. He also issued certificate u/s.
65-B Indian Evidence Act regarding the present FIR and proved the same, as Ex.PW1/C. SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 4 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:59 +0530 He also made DD No. 23 regarding handing over the copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Pawan Kumar and proved copy thereof, as Ex.PW1/D. PW-2 Ct. Hardeep Kumar He deposed that on 11.05.2018, he had joined investigation of this case with IO/ASI Pawan Kumar. He alongwith IO, HC Kuldeep and accused Harender Mandal had left the office in a private car and reached in Gali No.5, 3rd Pushta, Jagjeet Nagar, Usman Pur, Delhi, where, accused Bharat Sharma was apprehended by the IO at the pointing out of accused Harender. After interrogation, accused Bharat Sharma was arrested. He proved the arrest memo (Ex.PW2/A) and personal search memo (Ex.PW2/B) of accused Bharat Sharma. He also proved the disclosure statement of accused Bharat Sharma, as Ex.PW2/C and correctly identified accused Harender Mandal and Bharat SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 5 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:55 +0530 Sharma in the court.
On 14.05.2018, as per
directions of IO, he got
deposited two sealed pullandas at FSL, Rohini, after taking the same from MHC(M) ASI Jag Narayan and obtained the acknowledgment receipt from FSL which he had handed over to the MHC(M), after coming back to the PS. PW-3 ASI Jag Naryan He deposed that on 10.05.2018, he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Crime Branch, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi. On that day, Insp. Satender handed over to him six sealed pullandas and deposited the same in the malkhana and made entry in the malkhana register at serial no. 3042. On 11.05.2018 at about 12:30 am, ASI Pawan had handed over to him personal search articles recovered from the personal search of accused Harinder Mansal and Praveen Yadav. He had also handed over one Indigo CS car bearing no. OR 02BF 6450 alongwith SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 6 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:55 +0530 the personal search memos of aforesaid accused and seizure memo of aforesaid car. He deposited the aforesaid articles in the malkhana vide entry no. 3043.
He further deposed that on the same day, ASI Pawan had also handed over to him the personal search articles recovered from accused Bharat alongwith his personal search memo. He deposited the same in the malkhana vide entry no. 3051.
On 14.05.2018, as per directions of the SHO PS Crime Branch, he had handed over two sealed pullandas bearing Mark A-1 and B-1 alongwith FSL form to Ct. Hardeep to be deposited at FSL, Rohini, vide RC No. 271/21 dt. 14.05.2018. After depositing the same, Ct. Hardeep had handed over to him FSL receipt and copy of RC.
On 04.09.2018, HC Dharmender had handed over to him two sealed pullandas sealed SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 7 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:53 +0530 with the seal of FSL alongwith FSL result. He deposited the same in the malkhana and handed over the FSL result to the IO. He had made entries in the malkhana register on the relevant page.
He proved the photocopies of relevant entries made in the malkhana register vide Ex.PW3/A (colly.). He also proved photocopy of acknowledgment receipt as ExPW3/B and photocopy of RC as Ex.PW3/C. PW-4 Insp. Brij Pal Singh He deposed that on 10.05.2018, at about 10:10 am, ASI Ram Dev produced one secret informer before him and told him about the secret information. After satisfying himself with the secret information, he transmitted the same to ACP Narcotics Cell Sh. R. K. Ojha at his mobile phone.
Therefore, ASI Ram Dev reduced the secret information vide DD No.4 at 10:30 am and produced the copy of DD entry SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 8 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02
17:15:58
+0530
before him which he had
forwarded to the ACP.
On the same day, at about 11:30 pm, ASI Pawan produced accused Harender Mandal and Praveen Yadav before him. He verified and found their arrest justified. Thereafter, ASI Ram Dev and ASI Pawan produced their special reports u/s. 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of ganja and arrest of accused persons. After going through the same, he had forwarded the said report to ACP Narcotics Cell.
He further deposed that on 11.05.2018, ASI Pawan Kumar produced accused Bharat Sharma before him. He had verified the fact and found the arrest of accused Bharat Sharma justified. ASI Pawan Kumar produced another special report u/s. 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused Bharat Sharma. After going through the same, he had forwarded it to the ACP SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 9 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:10 +0530 Narcotics Cell.
He proved report u/s. 42 NDPS Act i.e. DD No.4, as Ex.PW4/A; Special report u/s. 57 NDPS Act prepared by ASI Ram Dev regarding seizure of contraband as Ex.PW4/B;
Special report u/s. 57 NDPS Act prepared by ASI Pawan Kumar regarding arrest of accused Harender Mandal and Praveen Yadav as Ex.PW4/C;
Special report u/s. 57 NDPS Act prepared by ASI Pawan Kumar regarding arrest of accused Bharat Sharma as Ex.PW4/D. He correctly identified accused Harender Mandal, Praveen Yadav and Bharat Sharma in the court.
PW-5 Dr. Subhash He was Sr. Scientific Officer Chandra (Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi. He deposed that on 14.05.2018, he had examined two sealed clothes parcels received in his office of FSL from SHO Crime Branch through Ct. Hardeep for SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 10 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:02 +0530 chemical examination. He found Parcel No. A-1 was containing Ex.A1. The Ex.A1 was dried greenish brown coloured fruiting & flowering vegetative material stated to the "Ganja" weight approx. 259.0 gm with polythene and rubber band. He also found Parcel No. B-1 was containing Ex.B-1 i.e. Dried greenish brown coloured fruiting & flowering vegetative material stated to be "Ganja" weight approx. 256.70 gm with polythene and rubber band. After physical microscopic, chemical & TLC examination, Ex.A-1 and B-1 were found to be "Ganja" (Cannabis). He proved his detailed report regarding his aforesaid examination, as Ex.PW5/A. He also identified the case property i.e. Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-2.
PW-6 Ct. Pawan He deposed that on 10.05.2018, he joined investigation of the present case with ASI Ramdev.
He proved the recovery of
SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 11 of 45
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02
17:15:56
+0530
50.550 kgs Ganja from accused Harender Mandel and Praveen Yadav and seizure of the recovered Ganja, vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/A. He correctly identified both the accused persons, namely, Harender Mandel and Praveen Yadav in the court alongwith the case properties i.e. plastic katta Mark A, as Ex. P-3; cloth piece found with plastic katta, as Ex.
P-4; ganja kept in plastic katta, as Ex. P-5; 13 empty packets, as Ex. P-6 (colly.);
plastic katta Mark B, as Ex.
P-7; cloth piece found with plastic katta, as Ex. P-8; ganja kept in plastic katta, as Ex. P-9; 12 empty packets, as Ex. P-10 (colly.);
Sample ganja taken out from Mark A, as Ex. P-11; cloth pullanda (Mark A-2), as Ex.
P-12;
Sample ganja taken out from Mark B-2, as Ex. P-13; cloth pullanda (Mark B-2), as Ex.
P-14;
SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 12 of 45
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02
17:16:07
+0530
Sample ganja taken out from Mark A, as Ex. P-15; and Sample ganja taken out from Mark B-1, as Ex. P-16.
PW-7 Insp. Satender He deposed that on 10.05.2018, Sangwan at about 4:35 pm, Ct. Pawan came to his office and produced six sealed pullandas bearing Mark A, A-1, A-2, B, B-1, and B-2, alongwith FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo.
He called the Duty Officer and obtained FIR number of the present case. He made endorsement on the copy of seizure memo. He also mentioned the details of case FIR No.125/18 on each pullanda, FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo and also put his signatures on all the pullandas and copy of seizure memo. He also got deposited the above pullandas and FSL form through MHC(M) ASI Jag Narayan, who had made relevant entry in the malkhana register which he had signed.
He also made DD No. 19 in
SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 13 of 45
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02
17:16:00
+0530
register of the PS regarding aforesaid compliance of Sec. 55 NDPS Act by him.
He also proved the attested copy of DD No. 19 as Ex.PW7/A; Photocopy of the relevant entries no. 3043 as Ex.PW7/B (colly.). He correctly identified the case property in the court.
PW-8 Sh. R. K. Ojha On 10.05.208, he was posted as ACP, Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch. He deposed that at about 10:20 AM, Insp. Brijpal Singh had telephonically informed him about the secret information regarding supply of Ganja by one Harender Mandel and his associate Praveen Yadav. After satisfying himself, he directed Insp. Brijpal Singh to take necessary legal action.
He also deposed that in his office, his reader produced copy of relevant DD entry in terms of Sec. 42 NDPS Act before him and proved DD entry, as Ex.PW4/A. He also proved the reports u/s. 57 NDPS Act, as SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 14 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:58 +0530 Ex.PW4/B & Ex.PW4/C. He further deposed that on 12.05.2018, his reader produced report u/s. 57 NDPS Act prepared by ASI Pawan and proved the same, as Ex.PW4/D. He admitted the DD NO.4 with regard to the secret information recorded at 10:30 AM in rojnamcha.
PW-9 ASI Ram Dev He deposed that on 10.05.2018, when he was present in his office, one secret informer came to him and told him about the secret information. After that he had produced the secret informer before Insp. Brijpal Singh, Narcotics Cell.
Thereafter, as per the directions of the ACP, a raiding party was organized. At about 10:30 am, he lodged DD No. 4 regarding receiving of secret information and after making departure entry vide DD No. 5, the raiding team had left from the office alongwith the secret informer.
He further deposed that at about SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 15 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:04 +0530 11:40 am, on the pointing out of the secret informer, one car of white colour bearing no.
OR-02BF-6450 Indigo was stopped. The driver as well as another person who was sitting beside the driver seat were apprehended. On enquiry, the person who was on the driver seat, disclosed his name as Praveen Yadav and the person who was sitting beside the driver seat, disclosed his name as Harender Mandal. Both the accused were disclosed about secret information and also informed about their legal rights prior to their search. He served separate notices u/s. 50 NDPS Act upon both the accused persons. The contents of the notices were also read over to them. Both the accused had refused to avail their aforesaid legal rights and recorded their refusals on the carbon copies of their notices. They had also signed their refusal on the carbon copy of SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 16 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:54 +0530 notices.
He has further deposed that thereafter search of both the accused persons were conducted, but no contraband was recovered from their person. After that search of car of the accused persons was got conducted. From the Dickey of the car and beneath the back side seat and from the cavity of back side seat, total 25 packets which were found wrapped with khakhi colour tape. On smelling and physical appearance, it was found to be Ganja. The weight of each packet was found to be 2 kg. All the 25 packets were given serial no. 1 to 25. The ganja recovered from packets bearing serial no. 1 to 13 were kept in a white colour plastic katta alongwith khakhi colour tape and was given Mark A. The ganja recovered from packets bearing serial no. 14 to 25 were kept in a separate white colour plastic katta alongwith khakhi SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 17 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:58 +0530 colour tape and was given Mark B. The total weight of the ganja was found to be 50.550 kg. Samples were taken and same were sealed.
He further deposed that
thereafter, all the sealed
pullandas and FSL form were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A. After preparing seizure memo of the recovered ganja, he had prepared a rukka and got the present FIR registered. Sealed pullandas were got deposited in the malkhana.
He further deposed that on 11.05.2018, he had prepared report u/s. 57 NDPS Act regarding recovery of contraband from the Indigo car and forwarded the same to Insp.
Narcotics Cell and proved the same vide Ex.PW4/B. He also proved the carbon copy of notice u/s. 50 NDPS Act served upon accused Harender Mandal as PW9/J as well as his refusal as Ex.PW9/K and the carbon SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 18 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:08 +0530 copy of notice u/s. 50 NDPS Act served upon accused Praveen Yadav as Ex.PW9/L as well as his refusal as Ex.PW9/M. He correctly identified both the accused persons in court as well as the case properties i.e. recovered Ganja, samples of Ganja, original notices u/s. 50 NDPS Act which were served upon accused Harender Mandal and accused Praveen Yadav as Ex.PW9/N & Ex.PW9/O respectively and the car bearing no. OR-02 BF-6450 as Ex.PW9 /Article-1 and photographs of the said car as Ex.PW9 /Article-2.
PW-10 Soumya Ranjan He was Jr. Clerk, RTO, Priyadarshan Bhubaneshwar-II, Odisha. He proved the record i.e. RC pertaining to vehicle i.e. Saloon Mint White Indigo CS LS car bearing registration no. OR-02 BF-6450. As per record, the said car which was previously owned by Sasmita Jena, was transferred in the name of SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 19 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:03 +0530 Harendeer Mandal on 18.11.0216. She proved the attested copy of Form No. 24, lying on judicial record, as Ex.PW10/A as well as the photocopy of aforesaid RC as Ex.PW10/B. PW-11 Sh. Surender He was the Nodal Officer, Kumar. Bharti Airtel Ltd. He proved the certified copy of CDR of mobile phone no. 9870425276 for the period of 01.01.2018 to 10.05.2018 running into 181 pages, as collectively Ex.PW11/A; the attested copy of e-KYC of Customer Application Form (CAF) in respect of abovesaid mobile phone number, in the name of Bharat Sharma S/o Kaushal Sharma as Ex.PW11/B and certificate u/s 65-B Indian Evidence Act pertaining to the abovesaid CDR, as Ex.PW11/C. PW-12 ASI Mahesh Chand In the year 2017, he was working as MCH(M) in Narcotic Cell, Crime Branch.
He deposed that on 03.02.2017, SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 20 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:55 +0530 he had issued seal of '3B P.S./NB Delhi' to ASI Ramdev, vide entry at Srl. No.15 in the relevant register. He proved the photocopy containing relevant entry, as Ex.PW12/A. He further deposed that on 10.05.2018, he had issued Electronic Weighing Machine to ASI Ramdev, vide entry at Srl. No.25 in the relevant register. The said weighing machine was returned back to him on 11.05.2018. He also made relevant endorsement in this regard. He proved the photocopy containing relevant entry made by HC Vikas, as Ex.PW9/B. PW-13 HC Sunil Kumar On 10.05.2018, he had joined investigation of the present case with IO/ASI Ramdev. He deposed on the similar lines of investigation, as deposed by ASI Ramdev. Apart from it, he also proved the non-recovery memo prepared by ASI Ramdev regarding formal search of both the accused SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 21 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:53 +0530 persons, as Ex.PW13/A and Ex.PW13/B. He also correctly identified both the accused persons as well as the case properties in the court.
PW-14 ASI Pawan Kumar He was the 2nd IO of the present
case. He deposed that on
10.05.2018, further
investigation of the present case was assigned to him. Ct. Pawan had handed over to him the copy of FIR and original rukka. Thereafter, he lodged DD No.
13 and proved true copy of the same, as Ex.PW14/A. He further deposed that thereafter, he had reached at the spot, where, ASI Ramdev had handed over the custody of accused Harender Mandel and Parveen Yadav to him alongwith relevant documents.
He prepared site plan at the instance of ASI Ramdev and proved the same, as Ex.PW9/A. Thereafter, he interrogated accused Harender Mandel and arrested him in the present case, SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 22 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:08 +0530 vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/B. He personally searched accused Harender Mandel and prepared his personal search memo Ex.PW9/C. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Harender Mandel, vide Ex.PW9/D. He further deposed that thereafter, he interrogated accused Praveen Yadav and arrested him in the present case, vide arrest memo Ex.PW9/E. He personally searched accused Praveen Yadav and prepared his personal search memo Ex.PW9/F. He also recorded disclosure statement of accused Praveen Yadav, vide Ex.PW9/G. He had also taken into possession the Indigo Car bearing registration No. OR-02BF-6450, vide seizure memo Ex.PW9/H. He had prepared a special report u/s. 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest of the accused persons and proved the same, as Ex.PW4/C. He further deposed that during SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 23 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:03 +0530 course of investigation, accused Harender Mandel led the police team to the house of accused Bharat Sharma to whom, he used to supply Ganja and the recovered Ganja was also to be delivered to him. He prepared a pointing out memo of the house of accused Bharat Sharma, vide Ex.PW14/B1. The said house of accused Bharat Sharma was got searched, but, no incriminating substance was recovered from there. He prepared Fard Khana Talashi, vide Ex.PW14/B. After interrogation, accused Bharat Sharma was arrested in the present case, vide arrest memo Ex.PW2/A, his personal search was got conducted, vide personal search memo Ex.PW2/B and his disclosure statement was also got recorded, vide Ex.PW2/C. He also proved a special report u/s. 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused Bharat Sharma, as Ex.PW4/D. He further deposed that during SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 24 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:00 +0530 further course of investigation, on 17.05.2018, accused Bharat Sharma took the police team to the house of accused Subhash, Killo, but Subhash Killo could not be found. He prepared a notice u/s. 67 NDPS Act and same was given to Ms. Shanti Khillo. He proved the said notice as Ex.PW14/C. He further deposed that on 18.05.2018, accused Bharat Sharma took the police team to the rented premises of accused Subhash, but Subhash could not be found. He prepared a notice u/s. 67 NDPS Act and same was given to the landlord of the said rented premises, namely, Bhagwan Chaudhary. He proved the said notice as Ex.PW14/D. After completing the investigation, he had prepared chargesheet and filed the same before the concerned Court on 10.10.2018. He correctly identified the accused persons namely Praveen Yadav and Rahul @ Bharat Sharma in SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 25 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:52 +0530 the court. Identity of the accused Harender Mandel was not disputed by Ld. Defence counsel. He also correctly identified the case properties in the court.
7. The following exhibits were proved by the following witnesses examined by the prosecution, which are as under:-
Exhibit No. Description of the exhibit Proved by/Attested by Ex.PW1/A Copy of FIR. PW-1 ASI Rajbir Ex.PW1/B Kayami DD No. 18 and Singh endorsement on the rukka. Ex.PW1/C Certificate u/s. 65-B Indian Evidence Act regarding the present FIR.
Ex.PW1/D DD No. 23 regarding handing over the copy of FIR and original rukka to ASI Pawan Kumar.
Ex.PW2/A Arrest Memo of accused PW-2 Ct.
Bharat Sharma. Hardeep Kumar Ex.PW2/B Personal Search Memo of accused Bharat Sharma.
Ex.PW2/C Disclosure statement of accused Bharat Sharma.
SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 26 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2026.02.02 17:15:51 +0530 Ex.PW3/A Photocopies of entries made PW-3 ASI Jag (colly.) in malkhana register. Naraian Ex.PW3/B Photocopy of acknowledgment receipt. Ex.PW3/C Photocopy of RC Ex.PW4/A Report u/s. 42 NDPS Act PW-4 Insp. Brij i.e. DD No.4. Pal Singh Ex.PW4/B Special Report u/s. 57
NDPS Act regarding seizure of contraband.
Ex.PW4/C Special Report u/s. 57
NDPS Act regarding arrest
of accused Harender
Mandel and Praveen Yadav.
Ex.PW4/D Special Report u/s. 57
NDPS Act regarding arrest
of accused Bharat Sharma.
Ex.PW5/A Detailed report regarding PW-5 Dr.
examination of the Subhash Chandra
contraband.
Ex.PW6/A Seizure memo of sealed PW-6 Ct. Pawan
pullandas and FSL form.
Ex. P-3 Plastic katta Mark A.
Ex. P-4 Cloth piece found with
plastic katta.
Ex. P-5 Ganja kept in plastic katta.
Ex. P-6 (colly.) 13 empty packets.
Ex. P-7 Plastic katta Mark B.
SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 27 of 45
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02
17:16:06
+0530
Ex. P-8 Cloth piece found with
plastic katta.
Ex. P-9 Ganja kept in plastic katta.
Ex. P-10 12 empty packets.
(colly.) Sample ganja taken out
Ex. P-11 from Mark A.
Cloth pullanda (Mark A-2).
Ex. P-12 Sample ganja taken out Ex. P-13 from Mark B-2.
Cloth pullanda (Mark B-2).
Ex. P-14 Sample ganja taken out
Ex. P-15 from Mark A.
Sample ganja taken out
Ex. P-16 from Mark B-1.
Ex.PW7/A Attested copy of DD No. 19 PW-7 Insp.
regarding compliance of Satender
Sec. 55 NDPS Act. Sangwan
Ex.PW7/B Photocopy of relevant entry
no. 3043.
Ex.PW9/A Site plan of the spot. PW-9 ASI Ram
Ex.PW9/B Arrest memo of accused Dev
Harender Mandel.
Ex.PW9/C Personal search memo of
accused Harender Mandel.
Ex.PW9/D Disclosure statement of
accused Harender Mandel.
Ex.PW9/E Arrest memo of accused
Praveen Yadav.
Ex.PW9/F Personal search memo of
SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 28 of 45
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02
17:16:01
+0530
accused Praveen Yadav.
Ex.PW9/G Disclosure statement of
accused Praveen Yadav.
Ex.PW9/H Seizure memo of car
bearing No.
Ex.PW9/J OR-02BF-6450.
Carbon copy of notice u/s.
50 NDPS Act served upon
Ex.PW9/K accused Harender Mandel.
Refusal of accused
Ex.PW9/L Harender Mandel.
Carbon copy of notice u/s.
50 NDPS Act served upon
Ex.PW9/M accused Praveen Yadav.
Refusal of accused Praveen Yadav.
Ex.PW10/A Attested copy of Form No. PW-10 Soumya Ex.PW10/B 24. Ranjan Photocopy of RC. Priyadarshan Ex.PW11/A Certified copy of CDR of PW-11 Surender mobile no. 9870425276. Kumar, Nodal Ex.PW11/B Attested copy of e-KYC of Officer Ex.PW11/C CAF.
Certificate u/s.65-B Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.PW12/A Photocopy of register PW-12 ASI containing relevant entry at Mahesh Chand Sl. No. 15 regarding Ex.PW12/B issuance of seal.
SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 29 of 45
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02
17:16:05
+0530
Photocopy of register
containing relevant entry at Sl. No. 25 regarding issuance of electronic weighing machine.
Ex.PW13/A Non-recovery memo of PW-13 HC Sunil accused Harender Mandel. Kumar Ex.PW13/B Non-recovery memo of accused Praveen Yadav.
Ex.PW14/A True copy of DD No. 13. PW-14 ASI Ex.PW14/B1 Pointing out memo of the Pawan Kumar house of accused Bharat Sharma.
Ex.PW14/B The Fard Khana Talashi. Ex.PW14/C Carbon copy of notice u/s.
67 NDPS Act given to Ms. Shanti Khillo.
Ex.PW14/D Carbon copy of notice u/s.
67 NDPS Act given to Sh.
Bhagwan Chaudhary.
8. During trial, when the matter was fixed for recording of statements of accused persons u/s. 313 CrPC, vide order dated 12.01.2026, after considering the verification report regarding death of accused Harender Mandal, the proceedings against the accused Harender Mandel were abated.
9. Statement of accused persons, namely, Bharat Sharma and Praveen Yadav u/s. 313 CrPC were recorded SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 30 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:57 +0530 separately. Both the accused persons denied all the incriminating circumstances and stated that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated in the present case. Both the accused did not wish to lead evidence in their defence.
10. I have heard Sh. F. M. Ansari, learned Addl. PP for the State and Sh. C. S. Tyagi, learned Counsel for both the accused persons.
11. Sh. F. M. Ansari, Ld. Additional PP for the State has submitted that the prosecution has proved the recovery of contraband from the accused persons. He has submitted that all the provisions under the NDPS Act were duly complied with in the present case and the charges have been proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, both the accused persons may be convicted in the present case.
12. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has further argued that the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of the alleged 50.550 kgs Ganja from the joint possession of accused Harender Mandel (since deceased) and Praveen Yadav. Therefore, the presumptions u/s. 35 & 54 of NDPS Act squarely apply in this case and accused Praveen Yadav is liable to be convicted for committing the offences u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C) & Sec. 29 r/w. Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act and accused Bharat Sharma is liable to be convicted U/s. 29 r/w. Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, as he was equally involved in the criminal conspiracy of committing the offence of illegal supply of the said recovered Ganja.
13. Sh. C. S. Tyagi, Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted to the contrary. He has submitted that in the present SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 31 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:07 +0530 case, accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case as no contraband was recovered from any of the accused persons and the alleged contraband has been planted upon the accused persons. It has been argued that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses and also submitted that neither any public witness was joined during the recovery proceedings, nor those proceedings were videographed /photographed, which raises doubts in the entire recovery proceedings.
14. Ld. Counsel for the accused has argued that there are glaring contradictions in the case of the prosecution, as the necessary guidelines regarding seizure and sampling of the alleged recovered contraband was not properly followed. There was no reference regarding compliance of Sec. 42 & 57 of the NDPS Act and there was total non-compliance of Sec. 52-A of the NDPS Act. Section 50 of the NDPS Act was also not properly complied with, as there was no option in the said notice regarding calling of the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate at the spot.
15. Lastly, it was argued that there is no evidence regarding involvement of accused Bharat Sharma in the alleged criminal conspiracy, as, mere CDR connectivity between him and other accused persons is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused Bharat Sharma and hence, it has been argued that both the accused persons, namely, Praveen Yadav and Bharat Sharma are entitled to be acquitted.
16. I have considered the rival submissions, put forth by both the sides.
17. From the submissions of the learned Counsel, the SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 32 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:56 +0530 following point for determination arise in the present case:
a). Whether the recovery of 50.550 kgs Ganja was affected from the car being driven by accused Praveen Yadav?
b). Whether accused Praveen Yadav, Bharat Sharma and Harender Mandel (since deceased) were involved or parties to a criminal conspiracy to commit the offence of supplying 50.550 kgs of Ganja, allegedly recovered from accused Praveen Yadav and Harender Mandel (since deceased).
18. Before a person can be held liable for commission of any offence, the prosecution has to establish his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
19. I shall now delve into the appraisal of material available on record.
20. As per the case of the prosecution, accused Praveen Yadav was found driving a car bearing No. OR-02-BF-6450, wherein, 50.550 kgs Ganja was found inside the dickey, under rear seat and inside the cavity of the said car. Co-accused Harender Mandel (since expired) was also found sitting at the seat beside the driver seat. The said car was owned by accused Harender Mandel (since deceased). Admittedly, neither any public person was joined during recovery proceedings, nor any public person/independent witness has been examined during trial. All the witnesses examined by the prosecution, are either police officials or formal witnesses.
21. It is not in doubt that while the testimony of the SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 33 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:51 +0530 police witnesses in absence of independent witnesses may be sufficient to secure conviction, if the same inspires confidence during the trial, however, lack of independent witness in certain cases can cast a doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution's case. It is not disputed that the investigating agency had sufficient time to prepare before the raid was conducted.
22. As per the version of PWs, the public persons were asked to join the investigation, but, none of them agreed and went away without disclosing their names and addresses. Further, the IO has not produced any notice u/s. 160 of the CrPC which ought to have been served upon those available independent witnesses who allegedly refused to join the investigation.
23. While the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away merely because of the fact that no public witnesses were examined, however, their testimonies have to be scrutinized in more detail. If it is found that the police officials during the course of investigation did not even make endeavor to ask the public witnesses to join the investigation, did not even ask their names and details, etc. then it would cast a very serious doubt on the testimonies of the police officials.
24. The requirement of the police officials to make endeavour to ask the public witnesses to join the proceedings was discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 2417, wherein it interalia held the following:
"In a given case it may so happen that no such person is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a party to such search. It may also SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 34 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:04 +0530 be that after joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile. In any of these eventualities the evidence of the police officers who conducted the search cannot be disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent and respectable witness was examined to prove the search but if it is found as in the present case that no attempt was even made by the concerned police officer to join with him some persons of the locality who were admittedly available to witness the recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of the Police Officer, though not its admissibility."
25. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned law, it becomes clear that while the testimony of the police officials cannot be discarded away altogether in the absence of any public witnesses, however, it would be prudent to examine or scrutinize their testimonies more closely and should preferably be corroborated.
26. Admittedly, no photography of case property and videography of the recovery proceedings were carried out by the investigating agency. Also, the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is completely silent upon the aspect of the photography of the case property and videography of the recovery proceedings. Thus, not finding any public witness and lack of photography and videography of the alleged recovery in today's time and age casts a doubt on the credibility of the evidence. It is not the case of the prosecution that any notice was served under Section 100(8) of the CrPC on the person who refused to join the raiding party in the process of seizure. It is also relevant to note that the procedure prescribed in the NCB Handbook, which has been adopted by the Delhi Police, though may not be binding, SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 35 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:08 +0530 however, prescribes photography and videography as a crucial practice for obtaining evidence in order to avoid allegation in regard to the foul play. When the public persons refused to join the recovery proceedings, the least the police officials could have done is to photograph/videograph the recovery proceedings, in the absence whereof, serious doubts have definitely been raised in the entire proceedings conducted by the raiding team.
27. To bring home the guilt of the accused U/Sec. 20(b)
(ii)(C) of NDPS Act, the first and foremost requirement is that the prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the recovery of the contraband from the conscious possession of the accused. Admittedly, as per the case of the prosecution, the alleged contraband i.e. Ganja was recovered from the dickey of the car bearing registration No. OR-02BF-6450, which was owned by accused Harender Mandel (since deceased). Infact, the alleged recovered Ganja was found hidden beneath the back side seat and from the cavity inside the dickey of the said car. Since, the said car was owned by accused Harender Mandel, the prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record to show that the said alleged contraband was in the conscious possession of accused Praveen Yadav also. It is an essential requirement for applicability of Sec. 35 & 54 of the NDPS Act.
28. It is now well settled that to attract the presumptions provided U/s. 35 & 54 of the NDPS Act, the prosecution has to prove by bringing positive evidence on record that the contraband was in conscious possession of the accused. But, in this case, the prosecution has failed to prove this foundational fact. Infact, the secret information, which was received by ASI Ramdev was also SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 36 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:09 +0530 to the effect that one Harender Mandel will come in his car bearing registration No. OR-02BF-6450 alongwith one of his associates, namely, Praveen Yadav to supply huge quantity of Ganja from Odisha. Thus, the secret information was primarily regarding accused Harender Mandel and accused Praveen Yadav was only referred to as one of his associates. Merely because, accused Praveen Yadav was driving the said car is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was also having conscious possession of the said alleged Ganja and he was actively involved in the commission of the alleged offence. The material relied upon by the prosecution to prove the conscious possession of accused Praveen Yadav is only his presence in the car and his disclosure statement. So far as the disclosure statement of accused is concerned, same has no evidentiary value and mere presence of accused Praveen Yadav will not prove that he was having conscious possession of the said recovered Ganja.
29. In case, Noor Aga v. State of Punjab & Anr., 2008 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 352, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"76. The courts must always remind itself that it is a well settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious the offence, the stricter is the degree of proof. A higher degree of assurance, thus, would be necessary to convict an accused. In State of Punjab v. Baldev Singh, 1999 Drugs Cases 150: (1999) 3 SCC 977, it was also observed:
"It must be borne 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."
77. It is also necessary to bear in mind that superficially SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 37 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:09 +0530 a case may have an ugly look and thereby, prima facie, shaking the conscience of any court but it is well settled that suspicion, however high may be, can under no circumstances, be held to be a substitute for legal evidence.
78. Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, no doubt, raise presumptions with regard to the culpable mental state on the part of the accused as also place burden of proof in this behalf on the accused; but a bare perusal of the said provision would clearly show that presumption would operate in the trial of the accused only in the event the circumstances contained therein are fully satisfied. An initial burden exists upon the prosecution and only when it stands satisfied, the legal burden would shift. Even then, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence is not as high as that of the prosecution. Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of accused on the prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt" but it is 'preponderance of probability' on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actus reus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established.
79. With a view to bring within its purview the requirements of Section 54 of the Act, element of possession of the contraband was essential so as to shift the burden on the accused. The provisions being exceptions to the general rule, the generality thereof would continue to be operative, namely, the element of possession will have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt."
30. Moreover, it is worth noticing that compliance of Sec.50 of the NDPS Act was also not properly done. The notice given to accused Praveen Yadav is reproduced herein below:-
"आप मुसम्मी Praveen Yadav S/o. Dinesh Yadav, R/o. H. No. A-70, Gali No.1, Zero Pusta, Sonia Vihar, Delhi, SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 38 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:59 +0530 age 25 years को इस नोटिस के माघ्यम से सुचित किया जाता है कि पुलिस के पास इतला है कि आप अपने साथी Harender Mandel के साथ मिल कर उडिसा से गांजा लाकर दिल्ली में सप्लाई करते हैं आप आज भी आप उडिसा से गांजा लाकर किसी को सप्लाई करने जा रहे हैं आप से व आपकी कार न. OR-02 BR-6450 से गांजा बरामदगी की सम्भावना है जिसके लिए आपकी व आपकी कार की तलाशी ली जानी है आपका यह कानूनी अधिकार है कि आप अपनी तलाशी व अपनी गाड़ी की तलाशी किसी राजपत्रित अधिकारी या मजिस्ट्रेट के सामने करवा सकते हैं। आपका यह भी अधिकार है , कि आप अपनी व अपनी गाड़ी की तलाशी से पहले पुलिस पार्टी के सदस्यों व पुलिस की गाड़ी की भी तलाशी ले सकते है। "
31. Bare perusal of the notice u/s. 50 of the NDPS Act given to accused Praveen Yadav shows that only option which was given to accused was that his search could be taken in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. It is totally silent as to whether any option was given that he could be taken to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, or the Gazetted Officer or Magistrate could be called to the spot. No doubt, the alleged recovery was done from the car of accused Harender Mandel and Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act does not strictly apply in this case, but the fact that it was not duly complied with cannot be ignored.
32. It is worth mentioning that during the testimony of PW-13 HC Sunil Kumar, it came to the notice that when the case property i.e. the alleged recovered Ganja was produced, the bag in which, it was kept was torn and it was also not properly sealed. Infact, one GD No. 195A date 09.08.2023 was also produced during his testimony. Accordingly to which, when the concerned MHC(M) took charge, on that day, he found that the articles i.e. A1, B1, A2, B2 and the main case property in two bags were SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 39 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:06 +0530 found with broken seal and the bags were also torn having bitten by the rats and the Ganja was scattered all over the place. This GD shows that the alleged Ganja was not placed in the malkhana properly and the fact that the bags in which it was kept was not sealed and torn and the Ganja was found scattered all over the place implies that the entire sanctity of the said Ganja has been compromised and it has made the entire case of the prosecution regarding alleged Ganja doubtful. The recovered Ganja was the most important evidence and the way it was kept in the malkhana further demolishes the case of the prosecution. The said GD is Ex.PW13/A-1.
33. Non-compliance of Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act. To add to it, it is worth-noticing that even after seizure of the recovered contrabands, no steps u/s. 52-A of NDPS Act were taken by the IO. The IO failed to comply with the provisions of Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act altogether. Although, merely non-compliance of Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act in itself does not result into acquittal of the accused, yet there are other factors also, which further weakens the case of the prosecution.
34. Another fact which is worth considering is whether the alleged contraband can actually be termed as 'Ganja' within the definition provided U/s. 2(iii)(b) & (c) of the NDPS Act and if yes, whether it can be said to be of commercial quantity? As per the document Ex.PW1/B and also as per the seizure memo of the alleged Ganja which is Ex.PW6/A, the recovered contraband was mentioned as 'बदबूदार हरा घासनुमा जैसा बीजयुक्त पत्तीदार सिलनयुक्त पदार्थ मिला जो सूघंने व भौतिक गुणों के आधार पर गांजा होना पाया गया।' SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 40 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:02 +0530
35. There is no dispute that commercial quantity in relation to NDPS Act for 'ganja' means any quantity greater than 20 kg. The Section 2(iii) (b) and (c) defines 'Ganja' as the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever, name they may be known or designated, and any mixture, with or without any neutral material, of any of the above forms of cannabis or any drink prepared therefrom.
36. Thus the definition of term 'ganja' defines and clarifies that 'ganja' is the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. In the case in hand, as seen from the FIR and the investigation papers, the quantity of 50.550 kg. of ganja was seized from the vehicle. However, the inventory certificate as well as the recitals of the FIR, the panchnama shows that the seized articles were 'बदबूदार हरा घासनुमा जैसा बीजयुक्त पत्तीदार सिलनयुक्त पदार्थ'. It appears that when the bags were measured with the help of weighing machine, the contraband articles were containing leaves, seeds, stems and stalks. Admittedly, none of the investigating papers shows that either of these materials were segregated and thereafter weighed.
37. The above state of affairs would make it clear that there is nothing on record to prima facie show that before carrying weight of the seized plant of ganja, the investigating officer had segregated the seeds or the other parts of the plant in order to ascertain the exact quantity of ganja. In fact, none of the paper mentions that the said contraband articles which were seized includes the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant.
SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 41 of 45
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02
17:16:10
+0530
This fact becomes further clear from the panchanama also. The seizure panchanama also nowhere shows that the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant, in any other manner, were along with the contraband articles seized from the possession of the present applicant. Thus, perusal of the material on record shows that what was seized was plant i.e. leaves, seeds, stems and stalks and without separating the same, the ganja was weighed. As the seized material was not weighed after separating the leaves and the other parts and moreover it is not along with the flowering or fruiting tops, therefore, it is difficult to ascertain whether quantity can be said to be commercial.
38. It is significant to note that the definition of 'ganja' under NDPS Act takes in its ambit only the flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant and excludes the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops. Thus, the definition of 'ganja is restricted and it does not include the seeds and leaves of ganja plant. The panchanama and seizure do not reflect presence of flowering or fruiting tops on the plant. The inventory certificate mentions of the plant of ganja, which is of greenish colour and it nowhere shows that it includes the flowering or fruiting tops. If at all the seeds and other parts were to be counted as fruiting part, it ought to have been excluded and weighed separately to measure the quantity of ganja.
39. There is no clarity in the seizure memo as to whether the seized heterogenous material contained flowering or fruiting tops; the only reference to something of that nature comes on record from the FSL Report which mentions "dried greenish brown fruiting & flowering vegetative material". Even though the SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 42 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:05 +0530 FSL report mentions it as ganja, but to begin with, in no other documentary evidence being relied upon the prosecution, it mentions to contain fruiting and flowering vegetative material.
40. So far as accused Bharat Sharma is concerned, he has been charged for commission of offence u/s. 29 r/w. Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act on the ground that he was involved in the conspiracy of committing the alleged offence, however, the only evidence against him is CDR connectivity between him and other accused persons. The said CDR has been proved by examining Sh. Surender Kumar, Nodal Officer, who had proved the CDR & CAF of mobile number 9870425276, which was in the name of Bharat Sharma, however, in the considered opinion of this court, mere CDR connectivity between the two accused persons is not sufficient to prove that accused Bharat Sharma was also involved in commission of the alleged offence. Admittedly, neither any recordings of the calls between the two has been produced on record to prove as to what actually had transpired between the two accused, while they were talking to each other, nor any transcripts of any chat regarding the alleged conversation between the accused persons have been proved on record. Merely, the CDR connectivity per se has no incriminating value so far as the offence of criminal conspiracy is concerned. It merely proves that both the accused persons were in contact with each other and nothing else.
41. Keeping in view the fact that no proceedings u/s. 52- A NDPS Act were conducted and the recovered contraband alongwith samples were there in the custody of the police officials in such a condition that there seals were broken and the SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 43 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:57 +0530 plastic bags in which the alleged contraband was kept in the malkhana was got torn due to rat bitings and the Ganja was found scattered all over the place, further raises serious questions regarding sanctity of the alleged contraband and possibility of tampering of the alleged contraband and the samples recovered from there also cannot be ruled out. Infact, whether the recovered material was actually Ganja or not within the definition provided u/s. 2(iii)(b) and (c) of NDPS Act has also become doubtful, as the contraband seized was not mentioned as including flowering or fruiting tops of cannabis plant. Thus, the fact that the recovered contraband as well as samples were there in the possession of the said police officials and the fact that the alleged contraband was very badly mishandled and not at all properly kept in safe condition, while it was lying in the malkhana, also raises serious doubts in the case of the prosecution and benefit of which is to be given to the accused.
42. In view of the above discussion and various contradictions and discrepancies noticed above, this court has no hesitation in holding that in the present case, it is not safe to rely solely on the uncorroborated testimonies of the police officials, who were all part of the same raiding team. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the accused Praveen Yadav was having conscious possession of the alleged contraband. So far as the present case is concerned, non-joining of any independent witness, no videography/photography of the alleged recovery proceedings and non-compliance of Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act are fatal to the prosecution case. It can be said that the prosecution has failed to prove it's case, beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Praveen Yadav was found in possession of alleged SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 44 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:16:01 +0530 50.550 kgs of Ganja and accused Bharat Sharma was also involved in the criminal conspiracy of supplying Ganja, therefore, both these accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and thus, both the accused persons, namely, Praveen Yadav and Bharat Sharma stand acquitted in the present case.
43. Both the accused are required to furnish bail bonds as per Sec. 437-A CrPC.
44. Case property, if any be confiscated and same be destroyed as per rules.
45. File be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court on 2nd day of February, 2026 (PUNEET PAHWA) Special Judge (NDPS)/Addl. Sessions Judge/ North East District/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi SC No. 326/2018 State Vs. Harender Mandel & Ors. Page 45 of 45 Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2026.02.02 17:15:54 +0530