Delhi District Court
Dri vs . Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 1 Of 70 on 13 July, 2015
:: 1 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR KUHAR,
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS ACT), SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC No. 01A/07
u/ Sec. 21 & 29 NDPS Act
Unique ID No.: 02403R0000832007
Shri Jyothimon Dethan,
Intelligence Officer,
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,
Headquarters, New Delhi.
Vs.
1. Rajesh Chauhan
S/o Shri Leela Ram,
R/o A-558, Daubua Colony,
NIT, Faridabad (Haryana)
2. Tejveer Singh @ Taj Paul Singh,
S/o Shri Rajveer Singh,
R/o V & Post-Office Jahangirpur,
Mohalla Maliwada, Tehsil Khurja,
Distt. Bulandshahar, U.P.
3. Gurnam Singh @ Kuldeep Singh @
Babu @ Jat @ Pamma
S/o Shri Jagtar Singh,
R/o Vill. Kakka Kadiyala
Tehsil-Taran Taran,
Distt. Amritsar.
Date of filing of charge-sheet : 02.01.2007
Arguments concluded on : 03.06.2015
Judgment announced on : 13.07.2015
SC No. 01A/07
DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 1 of 70
:: 2 ::
JUDGMENT
1.0 The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :
On 02.07.2006, Sh. Madan Singh, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Intelligence (DRI) received a specific intelligence that two men aged about 40 and 30 years carrying one black bag and one blue-black bag would be carrying narcotic drugs in their baggage and they would possibly deliver the bags containing narcotic drug to somebody at 1845 hours at underpass road below Railway Over Bridge near Badarpur Red Light Signal on M.B. Road on the road leading towards Mehrauli, Delhi. The men aged 40 years old would be dark complexioned bearded, 5'8" tall and wearing brown pant, off-white shirt and the man aged 30 years would be fair, having moustache, about 5'6" tall wearing blue jeans and blue shirt. The information after being reduced to writing, was placed before Sh. P.K. Singh, Deputy Director (Intelligence), who directed Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer (IO), DRI to form team and take necessary action. 1.1 A team of DRI officers alongwith Jyothimon Dethan, IO rushed to spot and kept surveillance at the spot well in advance. At 1840 hours, two persons, whose description matched the information, were seen below the Railway over bridge, on MB Road, carrying one bag each. At 1900 hours, these two men started crossing the road and at this time apprehending that these two persons might escape, DRI officials apprehended them and introduced themselves.
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 2 of 70 :: 3 ::
After introduction, the two persons were asked their names who told their names as Rajesh Chauhan (Accused No.1) and Tejveer Singh (Accused No. 2). On being asked what they were carrying in their bags they told that they were carrying their own clothes in their bags. At this stage, DRI officials called two independent witnesses, who were informed about the secret information and were directed to be present during search proceedings. In the presence of witnesses, DRI officials informed both the accused about the specific information and asked them if they are carrying any narcotic drug, to which they replied in negative. They were further informed that in view of the information, their bags and persons are to be searched and since the road being a crowded place, it was not suitable for conducting thorough search, they were asked to accompany DRI officials to their office situated on the 7th Floor, Drum Shaped Building, I.P. Bhawan, I.P. Estate. 1.2 On reaching DRI office alongwith panch witnesses A-1 and A-2 were given notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act.
They did not opt for search before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. The bags carried by A-1 and A-2 were than searched. During the search of the black bag (marked 'Adidas') of Rajesh Chauhan (A1) 20 packets packed in multi layered polythene and cloth packet bearing markings in Urdu and English were recovered, which were marked X-1 to X-20 for identification. During the search of blue-black bag of Tejveer Singh (A2), 15 packets packed in multi layered polythene and cloth packet bearing markings in Urdu and SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 3 of 70 :: 4 ::
English were recovered, which were marked as Y-1 to Y-15 for identification purpose. In all the packets X-1 to X-20, below the transparent polythene bag was a cloth packet with some rubber stamp markings like 'Superstar International Limited', markings in Urdu etc. and below the cloth packet was one more transparent polythene bag, in which off-white coloured granular powder was found. In packets X-1 to X-8, the markings on the cloth packets were found identical. In packets X-9 and X-10, the markings on the cloth packets were found identical. In packets X-11 to X-13, the markings on the cloth packets were found identical. In packets X-14 to X-17, the markings on the cloth packets were found identical and in packets X-18 to X-20, the markings on the cloth packet were found identical. In all packets, Y-1 to Y-15, below the transparent polythene bag, was a cloth packet with some rubber stamp markings/markings like 'Superstar International Limited', markings in Urdu, 333 etc. and below the cloth packet, there was one more transparent polythene bag in which off-white coloured granular powder was found. In packets Y-1 to Y-7, the markings on the cloth packets were found identical. In packets Y-8 and Y-9, the markings on the cloth packet were found identical. In packets Y-10 to Y-12, the markings on the cloth packets were found identical and in the packets Y-13, Y-14 and Y-15, the markings on the cloth packets were found different.
1.3 On testing a small quantity of this powder from all 35 packets it tested positive for "heroin". On weighing the 35 SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 4 of 70 :: 5 ::
packets weighed 35.144 Kgs. and were seized along with baggages under NDPS Act. Total 22 samples were drawn from each lot of similar packets. After drawal of samples, the thirty five packets, containing off-white colour granular powder suspected to be heroin, were then individually sealed with transparent cello-tape and repacked in their original packings. Those packets were then individually further kept in white cloth bags, which were then duly stitched at their mouth and sealed with DRI seal No. 10 over and above a paper slip bearing dated signatures of the witnesses, accused A-1 and A-2 and the officers of DRI. Those stitched and sealed cloth bags were then marked as X-1 to X-20 and Y-1 to Y-15 on the packets therein. All the said 35 cloth bags were then kept in a steel trunk alongwith the carry bags i.e. one black bag and one blue-black bag used for carrying narcotic drugs. The steel trunk was then wrapped with white cloth and sealed with DRI seal No. 10, over a paper slip bearing dated signatures of the witnesses, accused A-1 and A-2 and the officer of DRI. 1.4 The facsimile of DRI seal No. 10 used for sealing was affixed at page No. 8 of the Panchnama, which was drawn. A Test Memo was prepared in triplicate, which was signed on each copy by accused A-1 and A-2 in the presence of witnesses and facsimile of DRI seal No. 10 was also appended on Test Memo .
1.5 During personal search of Rajesh Chauhan (A-1), one I-Card No. 5775 of Railway Special Protection Force, one driving licence No. 8769-6-97 and one dairy was recovered SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 5 of 70 :: 6 ::
which were seized.
1.6 During personal search of Tejveer Singh, (A-2) one driving licence No. 295684/05 dated 24.02.2005 issued in name of Tej Paul Singh bearing photograph of Tejveer Singh was recovered and seized. The search proceedings were completed at 2345 hours on 02.07.2006.
1.7 The DRI Seal No. 10 used for sealing was obtained by Mr.Jyotimon Dethan I.O. from Shri B.K. Banerjee, Appraiser. The seal after use was deposited back with Shri B.K. Banerjee. 1.8 A summon under Section 67 of NDPS Act was issued to Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) for appearance on 03.07.2006.
In his voluntary statement he, inter-alias, admitted the recovery and seizure of 35.144 Kgs. of heroin and stated that seized 35.144 Kgs. of heroin belonged to one Gurnam Singh @ Pamma. He also stated that he had asked accused Tejveer Singh to accompany one Joginder Singh who was Gurnam Singh's accomplice to go to Amritsar and bring the seized heroin in a TATA-407 along with buffaloes and they brought the seized heroin to his village Alwalpur, Distt. Rewari on 29.06.2006. The seized heroin was brought from his village Alwalpur to his house at A-558, Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad on 02.07.2006 by Joginder Singh. He also stated that Gurnam Singh, when he met him on 02.07.06 in Sanjay Colony, had instructed him (A-1) to bring the seized heroin to railway over bridge at Badarpur Mehrauli Road and that Tejveer Singh (A-2) would help him in that job and that some one would come in a white Maruti Car to pick up the seized heroin.
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 6 of 70 :: 7 ::
1.9 Summon under Section 67 of NDPS Act was issued to Tejveer Singh for appearance on 03.07.2007 and in pursuance of summon Tejveer Singh tendered his voluntary statement and, inter-alias, admitted recovery and seizure of 35.144 Kgs. of heroin and also stated that on 28.06.2006 accused Rajesh Chauhan had asked him to accompany one Joginder Singh in a Tata-407 to Amritsar and bring two buffaloes and 35 kg. of heroin, which they brought and delivered at village Alwalpur, Near Daruheda in Distt. Rewari in house of accused Rajesh Chauhan. For this work, he got Rs. 20,000/- from Rajesh Chauhan (A1). He also stated that on 02.07.2006, he was called by accused Rajesh Chauhan at his house at A-558, Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad, where he (A-1) told him that they have to deliver seized heroin to some person at Badarpur in Delhi, where they were apprehended by DRI officers.
1.10 Since accused A-1 and A-2 appeared to have committed offences punishable under Section 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, they were arrested on 03.07.2006. 1.11 On 02.07.2006, immediately after search/seizure proceedings were over, the complainant deposited the sealed case property in intact sealed condition with Shri Alok Aggarwal, Assistant Director, DRI, New Delhi, which was kept in his office in lock and key. The complainant handed over the samples and Test Memos in duplicate to Shri B.K. Banerjee, Appraiser on 02.07.2006 immediately after search/seizure proceedings were over. The seized case property and packing SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 7 of 70 :: 8 ::
material etc. were deposited by the complainant with Shri A.C. Wadhwa, Inspector (Disposal), Valuable Godown of New Customs House on 04.07.2006, in intact condition. An entry bearing No. 07 (17/06-07) dated 04.07.2006 was made in this regard.
1.12 On 03.07.2006, Shri B.K. Banerjee, Appraiser, handed over the representative samples marked X-1-8-A, X-9-10-A, X-11-13-A, X-14-17-A, X-18-20-A, Y-1-7-A, Y-8-9-A, Y-10-12-A, Y-13-A, Y-14-A and Y-15-A, to the complainant alongwith a forwarding letter dated 03.07.2006 and Test Memo in duplicate, in intact condition, for onward transmission to Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) for chemical analysis and the complainant, handed over the same along with forwarding letter and Test Memo in duplicate, to Sh. K.K. Singh, Lab Assistant, CRCL on 03.07.2006 itself, against acknowledgment and the samples were diarised at Sl. No. 103 dated 03.07.2006.
1.13 In their respective voluntary statements tendered under Section 67 of NDPS Act, 1985, both the panch witnesses, Shri Ajay Kumar Ram and Parmod Sunola, testified the aforesaid recovery, seizure and correctness of the panchnama dated 02.07.2006. The report of seizure and arrest of accused A-1 and A-2, as required under Section 57 of NDPS Act, 1985, was submitted by the complainant to his immediate senior officer, Shri B.K. Banerjee on 03.07.2006. 1.14 It was reported in the press that the Delhi Police Special Cell, Northern Range, had arrested one Gurnam SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 8 of 70 :: 9 ::
Singh@ Kuldeep Singh in connection with the seizure of 41 Kgs. of heroin on 4/5.07.2006. The officers of DRI obtained the photograph of Gurnam Singh @ Kuldeep Singh from Delhi Police Special Cell. In order to confront the A-1 and A-2 with the photograph of Gurnam Singh arrested by Special Cell, Delhi Police, to ascertain whether it was the same Gurnam Singh, who had been named by them in their statements, and further to identify certain places, an application for DRI remand of accused A-1 and A-2 was moved before the Court of competent jurisdiction, who granted DRI remand of accused No. 1 and 2 on 17.07.2006.
1.15 During DRI remand of Rajesh Chauhan (accused no. 1) and Tejveer Singh (accused no. 2), they were shown the photograph of accused Gurnam Singh arrested by Delhi Police Special Cell, whom they identified and they put their signatures on the reverse of the photograph of Gurnam Singh.
After the accused no. 1 and accused no. 2 identified the photograph of Gurnam Singh as of the same person at whose instance they had brought the heroin. The DRI officers sought the production warrant of accused Gurnam Singh, who was in custody in some other case. The accused Gurnam Singh was therefore produced pursuant to the production warrant and with the permission of the Court, he was on 19.07.06 and his statement was reduced into writing by the Investigation Officer in the presence of Ct. Satbir Singh. In this statement, he admitted that he had asked Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh to bring 35 Kg of heroin. Pursuant to this statement, he SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 9 of 70 :: 10 ::
was also arrested in this case.
1.16 Another statement of Gurnam Singh (A-3) u/s 67 of NDPS Act, was recorded on 20.07.06 after his arrest, in which he stated that on 28.06.06, Tejveer Singh and Naresh @ Joginder had brought 35 Kg of heroin on his asking alongwith two buffaloes in a Tata-407 from Sahid Gurudwara, Amritsar and it was concealed in the house of Rajesh Chauhan in his village. In the statement, he further submitted that on 02.07.06, 35 Kg. of heroin was brought at the residence of Rajesh Chauhan at A-558, NIT Dabua Colony, Faridabad. He further said that he had told Rajesh Chauhan in the morning that the heroin was to be taken at Mehrauli-Badarpur Road, below the Railway Bridge in the evening. He further said that he used to give heroin to one David and Nestle, who used to contact him on his telephone no. 9871985671. 1.17 During the recording of his statement, he was shown a page of the diary recovered from the accused Rajesh Chauhan, in which two numbers and name of one Surjit Singh were written. The accused Gurnam Singh had stated that the telephone number was taken by him in the fictitious name through a tout and Surjit Singh was one of his neighbour and the second number 2424502 written on the page of the diary, was the number of the residence of Surjit.
1.18 After the arrest of the accused Gurnam Singh, (A3), the report u/s 57 NDPS Act, was given to B.K. Bannerji, Appraiser on 20.07.06.
1.19 Further, inquiry with regard to telephone number SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 10 of 70 :: 11 ::
9871985671 revealed that it was in the name of one Karam Raj, working in M/s Kanishka Enterprises. When Karam Raj was contacted, he denied of having any mobile phone in his name. One Ramesh Chand Tiwari, Accountant of M/s. Kanishka Enterprises was also examined and he tendered his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act stating that he knew Karam Raj for 10 years, who has been working in the company Kanishka Enterprises and that he did not have a mobile phone. 1.20 During the investigation, an inquiry was also made with regard to the Identity card recovered from A-1, Rajesh Chauhan. Sh. Alok Aggarwal, Assistant Officer, DRI informed Senior Commanding Officer, Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF), regarding identity card no. 5775 of RPSF in the name of Rajesh Chauhan. The senior Commanding Officer RPSF informed vide letter dated 27.11.06 that the identity card no.
5775 was forged.
1.21 The chemical examination report dated 05.09.06 by Sh. R.P. Meena, Assistant, Chemical Examiner, CRCL confirmed that on analysis, the 11 samples were found to be of Diacetylmorphine (heroin).
2.0 The complaint was therefore filed for the offences under section 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Cognizance was taken by my Ld. Predecessor. After hearing the submission of Ld. Sr. Special PP for DRI and Ld. Counsels for accused, vide order dated 28.02.2007 charges were framed against all the accused persons for the offences punishable under section 8(C) read with section 21 (c) and 29 of NDPS SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 11 of 70 :: 12 ::
Act. All the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed the trial.
Prosecution Evidence
3.0 The prosecution has examined following witnesses to prove the case :-
3.1 PW-1 Madan Singh Intelligence Officer, DRI, Headquarter had received a secret information/intelligence on 02.07.2006 at about 04:00pm. He deposed that on receipt of this information, he reduced the same into writing vide Ex.
PW1/A and placed the information before Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Deputy Director.
3.2 PW-2 Sh. P. K. Singh, Deputy Director, DRI deposed that on 02.07.2006 , after the information was put up before him by Sh. Madan Singh, he, after having discussion with the Joint Director, Intelligence Officer/DRI, called Jyothimon, Intelligence Officer, DRI and briefed him about the information. He made endorsement on the information (Ex. PW1/A) whereby he asked Jyothimon, Intelligence Officer to form a team of officers and take necessary steps for seizure of contrabands.
3.3 PW-3 is A. C. Wadhwa, the then custodian to the Valuable Godown, New Customs House, New Delhi. He deposed that on 04.07.2006, Mr. Jyothimon had deposited one packet duly sealed with the seal of DRI in intact condition with him. He further deposed that he issued a receipt of the deposit by putting his signatures at point A on the deposit memo (Ex. PW3/A).
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 12 of 70 :: 13 ::
3.4 PW-4 K. K. Singh, Lab Assistant, Grade-III, CRCL, New Delhi, deposed that on 03.07.2006 he had received 11 sample packets alongwith forwarding letter and Test Memo in duplicate from Mr. Jyothimon and he had issued a receipt for the deposit. The receipt was proved by him as (Ex. PW4/A). He also deposed that he had checked the samples and found four DRI seals on each sample packet, which were in intact condition and tallied with facsimile of seal given on the Test Memo.
3.5 PW-5 B. K. Banerjee, Appraiser, DRI, New Delhi has deposed that on 02.07.2006, he had issued the DRI seal to Jyothimon Dethan at about 05:00 pm and received back the same at midnight. He further deposed that two intimations u/s 57 NDPS Act were received by him from Jyothimon Dethan. He also deposed that he had handed over the sample alongwith forwarding letter to Jyothimon for taking the same to CRCL for testing. The forwarding letter addressed to the Chemical Examiner, CRCL has been proved by him (Ex. PW5/C) bearing his signatures at point A. The two reports u/s 57 NDPS Act submitted by Jyothimon were proved by him as (Ex. PW5/D) and (Ex. PW5/E) bearing his signatures at point A. PW-5 also brought the Seal Moment Register and proved the relevant entry at sl no. 20 dated 02.07.2006 pertaining to handing over the seal and receiving the same back from Jyothimon. Copy of the same was placed on record (Ex. PW5/F) (original was seen and returned).
3.6 PW-6 M.C. Maheshwari was the Intelligence SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 13 of 70 :: 14 ::
officer in DRI, Headquarter. He deposed that on 04.07.2006, the search authorization in his favour was issued by Sh. Alok Aggarwal, Asstt. Director, DRI for the search of premises no. A-558, Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. PW-6 deposed that he conducted the search vide panchnama Ex. PW6/A. The Execution report of the search authorization was placed on record vide Ex. PW6/B and Ex. PW6/C. The search authorization was placed on record, which is Ex. PW6/D. 3.7 PW-7 Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Headquarter is the Investigating Officer in this case, who has effected the recovery of the contraband and conducted further proceedings in the matter. He deposed on the same lines as the prosecution case is narrated in the complaint.
PW-7 has proved Notice u/s 50 NDPS Act given to accused Rajesh Chauhan (Ex. PW7/B) and to accused Tejveer Singh (Ex. PW7/C). He had identified the signatures of both the accused on the reply to the notice and signatures of independent witnesses at points D and E respectively. PW-7 has proved the panchnama proceedings dated 02.07.2006 as Ex.PW7/D. He has proved the summon issued u/s 67 NDPS Act to the public witness Pramod Sunola as Ex. PW7/O and his statement Ex. PW7/P recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act. PW-7 also proved the summon issued to public witness Ajay Kumar Ram as Ex. PW7/Q and his statement Ex. PW7/R recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act. PW-7 deposed that the report u/s 57 NDPS Act regarding the seizure of 35.144 kg of 'heroin' from accused Rajesh Chouhan and Tejvir Singh and their arrest was put up before SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 14 of 70 :: 15 ::
Sh. B.K. Banerjee on 03.07.2006. PW-7 has further deposed that he had come to know about the arrest of accused Gurnam Singh by Delhi Police, Special Cell for the seizure of 41 kg of 'heroin' and obtained his two photograph. PW-7 sought remand of accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh from the court of Learned ACMM, New Delhi. He deposed that on 17.07.2006, DRI officials had obtained one day DRI custody remand of accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh. He recorded the statement of accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh on 17.07.2006 u/s 67 NDPS Act, which are Ex.
PW7/S and Ex. PW7/V respectively. PW-7 placed on record photographs of accused Gurnam Singh duly identified by accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh as Ex. PW7/T) and Ex. PW7/U. 3.7.1 He deposed that he had moved appropriate application for interrogation and seeking DRI custody of accused Gurnam Singh on 19.07.2006. He was granted permission to interrogate the accused Gurnam Singh. He recorded the statement of accused Gurnam Singh u/s 67 NDPS Act vide Ex. PW7/Z-2 and thereafter, he arrested the accused Gurnam Singh. PW-7 , thereafter, sought the remand of the accused Gurnam Singh on 20.07.2006 and on the said date, he also recorded further statement of accused Gurnam Singh u/s 67 NDPS Act vide Ex. PW7/Z-7. He deposed that accused Gurnam Singh also identified the photographs of accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh, which are (Ex. PW7/Z-8) and (Ex. PW7/Z-9).
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 15 of 70 :: 16 ::
3.7.2 PW-7 deposed about the investigation conducted by him with regard to mobile number, which was mentioned in the diary recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh Chauhan and was stated to be pertaining to the accused Gurnam Singh. This mobile phone number was found in the name of Karam Raj, who was working at D-402, Defence Colony, New Delhi. He deposed that on 20.12.2006, said Karam Raj appeared before him and gave his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act, wherein he stated that he did not have any mobile phone number in his name and had no knowledge about the mobile phone number, which was mentioned in the diary recovered from the accused Rajesh Chauhan. Statement of said Karam Raj was produced on record (Ex. PW7/Z-13). 3.7.3 PW-7 further deposed that he had taken the seal from Sh. B.K. Banerjee vide entry in seal movement register (Ex. PW5/F) wherein he identified his signatures at point C. 3.7.4 He deposed that after completion of investigation, complaint Ex. PW7/A was filed by him. PW-7 further deposed that he had given summon u/s 67 NDPS Act Ex. PW7/I to accused Rajesh Chauhan and recorded his statement Ex. PW7/J. 3.7.5 PW-7 has deposed about the deposit of case property at Valuable Godown, New Customs House, near IGI Airport, New Delhi on 04.07.2006. He deposed that on 03.07.2006, Sh. B. K. Banerjee had handed over 11 sealed sample packets and Test Memo Ex. PW7/N in duplicate with the authorization letter in the name of Chemical Examiner, SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 16 of 70 :: 17 ::
CRCL and he deposited the same in CRCL vide acknowledgment receipt Ex. PW4/A. 3.8 PW-8 is Ram Kunwar, Tax Assistant, DRI, Headquarter. He recorded the statement of accused Gurnam Singh on 20.07.2006. He deposed that he had reduced in writing the statement of accused Gurnam Singh as he was unable to write in Hindi. This statement was recorded as per the dictation of the accused, which is already on record as Ex.
PW7/Z-7 bearing his signatures at point A and that of accused Gurnam Singh at point F. 3.9 PW-9 Pramod Sunola is public witness, who has been joined in the investigation by Jyothimon, Intelligence Officer. He deposed that on 02.07.2006, he was coming from Faridabad and near the railway over-bridge, Badarpur red light, he was asked by two officers of DRI to join the investigation. They told him that two persons, carrying packets, containing some material, are required to be searched in his presence and the packets carried by them also need to be searched. PW-9 joined the investigation with the officials of DRI. He further deposed that in DRI office, search of bags was conducted and 20 transparent polythene bags in one bag and 15 in another were recovered. He further deposed that substance was tested by the officers and they told him that it was heroin. He also deposed that sample of the contraband substance recovered from bags, were drawn. The sample was sealed over a paper slip signed by him and the other witness who was present at that time. PW-9 has SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 17 of 70 :: 18 ::
proved his statement Ex. PW7/P, which was recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act by the DRI officials. He deposed that proceedings conducted were recorded on paper, which was signed by him. He identified his signature at point 'X' on Panchnama Ex. PW7/D. In the examination-in-chief recorded on 03.03.2011, PW-9 was unable to identify the accused on account of lapse of time but later on, he correctly identified the accused persons on 07.04.2011.
3.10 PW-10 is Alok Aggarwal Assistant Director, DRI, Headquarter. He deposed that on 02.07.2006, he was handed over the sealed pullandas of the case property by Jyothimon, Intelligence Officer for safe custody, which was sealed with the seal of 'DRI 10'. PW-10 deposed that he kept the case property in safe custody in his room till 04.07.2006 and on the said date, he handed over the case property to Jyothimon for depositing the same in the Valuable Godown, New Customs House, near IGI Airport. He deposed that the deposit memo (Ex. PW3/A) was signed by him at point C and after the case property was deposited, a receipt of the Incharge, Valuable Godown was also shown to him.
3.10.1 PW-10 deposed that on 04.07.2006, he issued search authorization in the name of Sh. M.C. Maheshwari for the search of premises at Dabua Colony, NIT, Faridabad, Haryana. He deposed that execution report was put up by Sh.
M.C. Maheshwari, which was signed by him. He deposed that the execution report Ex. PW6/B bears his signatures at point A. 3.10.2 PW-10 further deposed that he had issued a letter SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 18 of 70 :: 19 ::
to the Excise Officers of Noida, Rewari, Haryana and SIO, Amritsar for conducting follow up actions against accused Tejbir Singh, Rajesh Chauhan and Gurnam Singh. He produced on record office copies of the letters (Ex.PW10/A to Ex. PW10/C) . The reply received from DRI, Amritsar with regard to Gurnam Singh was placed on record vide Ex. PW10/D. 3.10.3 PW-10 further deposed that on 01.11.2006, he had written a letter vide Ex. PW10/E to the Commanding officer, Railway Protection Force for inquiry with regard to the identity card of accused Rajesh Chauhan. Reply thereof was received (Ex.PW10/F), which was kept in the investigation File. He deposed that on 15.12.2006, he sent original Identity card recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh Chauhan alongwith his letter (Ex. PW10/J) to the Commanding Officer for initiating appropriate action, as the identity card was reported to be forged.
3.11 PW-11 R.P. Meena, Chemical Examiner, has deposed that on 03.07.2006, he was assigned 11 sample packets along with Test Memo and forwarding letter, by Sh.
S.K. Mittal, Incharge, Narcotic Section. The seal on this sample packets were found affixed and intact. He also tallied the seal with the facsimile given in the Test Memo and the impression of the seal was of 'Directorate of Revenue Intelligence 10'. He kept the sample allotted to him in the strong room in the Narcotic Section of CRCL under the supervision of Sh. S.K. Mittal. They were taken out on 28.08.2006 and he again checked the seals and found them in intact condition. They SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 19 of 70 :: 20 ::
were also tallied again with the facsimile given in the Test Memo.
3.11.1 PW-11 further deposed that after opening the sample packet, he found each of the packet was containing auto press polythene pouch and the weight of the sample was recorded in the analytical sheets of CRCL. He analysed the samples on the basis of chemical and chromatographic examination test and opined that samples were found positive for "diacetylmorphine". He prepared the final report Ex.
PW11/A under his signature. The analysis report was also given in Section-II of the Test Memo (Ex. PW7/Z-16) at point X to X-1 under the signatures of Sh. T.C. Tanwar, his Junior Officer.
3.12 PW-12 S.K. Sharma, Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI, Headquarter at the relevant time deposed that on 20.07.2006, he had sent intimation of the arrest of accused Gurnam Singh to his family members vide (Ex. PW12/A). 3.13 PW-13 B. Palaniswami, Commandant, 6th Battalion, RPSF, deposed that record in the office pertaining to the identity card no. 5775 in the name of Rajesh Chauhan purported to be issued from his office, was checked but no such record was found. He has proved the report (Ex. PW10/F) in this regard.
3.14 PW-14 Karam Raj deposed that he was working in M/s Kanishka Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. at D-402, Defence Colony, New Delhi and residing at House No. 18-C, 259-B on rent. He deposed that he does not know any person by the SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 20 of 70 :: 21 ::
name of Gurnam Singh, Tejbir Singh and Rajesh Chouhan. He deposed that in response to summon Ex. PW7/Z-12, he had given his statement to the DRI officials Ex. PW7/Z-13. He deposed that he did not possess any mobile phone during the relevant time.
3.15 PW-15 Tarun Kumar, Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel Limited, had brought scanned copy of the Subscriber Application Form (Ex. PW15/A) pertaining to mobile phone number 9871985671 allotted, as per the record of the company, to one Sh. Karam Raj R/o 407, Defence Colony, New Delhi .
3.16 PW-16 Ct. Satbir Singh deposed that on 19.07.2006, he was working as Constable, IIIrd Battalion, DAP, posted at Lock Up, Patiala House Courts. He has stated that the statement (of Gurnam Singh) Ex. PW7/Z-2. was recorded in his presence by the DRI officials and he identified his signatures on the same at point X and that of the accused Gurnam Singh at point Y. PW-16 also identified the accused Gurnam Singh in Court, who was produced by him in the Court on the directions from the Court of Sh. Kamaljeet Arora, the then Learned ACMM. He deposed that the accused Gurnam Singh was interrogated by the officials of DRI and the statement was recorded in his presence.
3.17 PW-17 is N.P. Sharma, Superintendent, Central Excise Division, Rewari. He was witness to the panchnama with regard to the search conducted at the residence of the accused Rajesh Chauhan situated at village Alwalpur, District SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 21 of 70 :: 22 ::
Rewari, Haryana. He identified his signatures on the panchnama dated 08.07.2006.
3.18 PW-18 S. D. Sharma, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Headquarter, has deposed that on 02.07.2006, he had joined the raiding team with IO/Jyothimon Dethan. He has deposed about the apprehension of the accused and the recovery of contraband substance from their possession. He remained with IO/Jyothimon Dethan till the contraband substance recovered from the possession of accused, was tested with the narcotic drug test kit. He deposed that after the test, the contraband substance was found to be positive i.e. 'heroin'.
Thereafter, he left to attend some other official work. He identified the accused A-1 and A-2 in the Court correctly. 3.18.1 PW-18 also deposed that he had issued summon u/s 67 NDPS Act to accused Tejveer Singh. He deposed that pursuant to summon on 03.07.08, accused Tejveer Singh tendered his statement in his own handwriting, which was recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act. The statement of the accused Tejveer Singh was proved by him as (Ex. PW18/B) bearing his signature at point A and that of accused Tejveer Singh at point B. 3.19 PW-19 is Dr. Kalyani, Medical Officer, RML Hospital. PW-19 deposed that accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh were examined on 03.07.2006 vide MLC Ex. PW17/A & Ex. PW17/B. It was deposed by PW-19 that no mark of fresh external injury was found visible on the persons examined. It was further deposed by PW-19 that on SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 22 of 70 :: 23 ::
20.07.2006, one Gurnam Singh was medically examined vide MLC Ex. PW19/C and no mark of fresh external injury was found on his person. It was further stated by PW-19 that on 18.07.2006, accused Tejveer Singh and Rajesh Chauhan were medically examined in Casualty, RML Hospital by Doctor Ajay Chhabra vide Ex. PW19/D & Ex.PW19/E. PW-19 deposed that as per the MLC, no mark of fresh external injury were found and both the examinees were conscious and oriented and their condition was normal. PW-19 identified the signatures of Doctor Ajay Chhabra on MLC at point A having worked with him, who has since left the hospital.
4.0 The accused persons were explained all the incriminating evidence, in the statements of prosecution witnesses, when examined under Section 313 Cr.PC. Accused Rajesh Chauhan has denied all the evidence and stated that on 02.07.2006, he was forcibly taken away by some persons in their plain clothes to DRI office. They asked about Gurnam Singh but he told them that he has no concern or connection with him. He stated that he could not read and write English language and he was illegally kept in the office and his family history was obtained and under pressure, threat, beatings and on the false promise, he was forced to write a statement. His signatures were also obtained on various papers, blank small slips, semi-written papers and written papers without explaining the contents of the same. He further stated that he was not medically examined. With regard to retraction application, he stated that he had disclosed everything to one SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 23 of 70 :: 24 ::
of his inmate, who had prepared retraction application in English language and without explaining the contents of the same in Hindi. He tendered his retraction application dated 31.07.2007 as mark X, bearing his thumb impression at points A and B respectively.
4.1 Accused Tejveer Singh has denied all the evidence and stated that he was falsely implicated and was brutally tortured and his signatures were taken on many blank, semi written papers. He was dictated by the officers of DRI to write a statement, after obtaining his family history. He stated that he had also retracted his statement.
4.2 Accused Gurnam Singh has also denied all the evidence and stated that he was brutally tortured and his signatures were taken on many blank, semi written papers.
He stated that he had no concern with the alleged recovery of contraband from the co-accused. He stated that he had retracted his statement.
4.3 Accused Rajesh Chauhan had preferred to lead evidence in his defence and examined Smt. Sheela as DW-1, who happens to be his wife. She deposed that in the month of July, 3-4 persons in plain clothes came to their house and on the pretext of making some inquiry, took away her husband Rajesh Chauhan. After 2-3 days, she received a call and she was informed that her husband was arrested in a case. DW-1 further deposed that she made complaints before the Chief Justice, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Chief Justice Hon'ble High Court, National Human Rights Commission and Ld. SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 24 of 70 :: 25 ::
District and Sessions Judge, Delhi by post. DW-1 placed on record, complaints and their related documents as Ex. DW1/A to Ex. DW1/M. 4.4 Accused Tejveer Singh had preferred to lead evidence in his defence and examined Sh. Chetanya Raj Singh as DW-2, who was brother of accused Tejveer Singh. He deposed that on 01.07.2006 , accused Tejveer Singh was having lunch with his family members when 4-5 persons came to their house and forcibly took him to their vehicle and taken him away.
5.0 The accused Gurnam Singh himself had appeared as a defence witness u/s 315 Cr.P.C. He has deposed that he did not know the co-accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh, prior to his implication in the present case. He also submitted that on 19.07.06, when he was in custody, he was produced in the Court at Tis Hazari Courts, where DRI officials asked him to put his signatures on some blank papers.
Subsequently, they implicated him in this case on the basis of same statement, which he had never made before them. He further deposed that on 20.07.06, he was detained in the office of DRI and his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and written documents. He further stated that he was physically tortured and he had given an application in the Court regarding his false implication and taking of his signatures on blank and written documents. He placed on record, the copy of letter addressed to the Court of Mr. S.N. Gupta, learned Special Judge, NDPS Act, mark DW3/1 and SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 25 of 70 :: 26 ::
another letter addressed to Hon'ble Chief Justice of Delhi High Court as mark DW3/2. He had not preferred to examine any other witness in his defence.
6.0 I have heard the arguments from Sh. Satish Aggarwal, Ld. Senior Special Public Prosecutor for DRI and Sh.
Yogesh Saxena, Advocate, counsel for accused Rajesh Chauhan and Sh. S.S. Das, Advocate, counsel for accused Tejveer Singh and Gurnam Singh. I have perused the evidence on the record in the light of documents submitted with the complaint. I have also gone through written submissions, which have been filed by the learned counsels for the accused persons as well as learned Sr. Special PP. 7.0 Ld. defence counsels have relied upon following judgments :-
(a) Noor Aga vs. State of Punjab 2008 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 135.
(b) UOI vs. Bal Mukund & Ors. 2009 (2) Crimes 171 (SC).
(c) Frank Kingsley Ugochukusu vs. DRI Crl. A. No. 1173 of 2010.
(d) Mohd. Irfan vs. DRI Crl. A. 783/2012.
(e) Rajesh Kumar @ Sanjay vs. State of NCT, Delhi 2014 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 156.
(f) Eze Val Okeke @ Val Eze vs NCB 116 (2005) Delhi Law Times 399
(g) Hannan vs State of NCT of Delhi 2013 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 94
(h) Nnadi K. Thearnyi vs NCB 2014 (4) JCC (Narcotics) 182
(i) L. Choraria vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 Supreme Court 938.
8.0 The case of the complainant is that the accused SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 26 of 70 :: 27 ::
Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2) have been apprehended on the basis of a specific intelligence and they were found to be in possession of two bags, which on checking were found to contain heroin. The fact that the content of those bags was heroin is confirmed by the report of CRCL Ex. PW11/A. To prove the recovery of contraband i.e. heroin from the possession of accused persons namely Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2), the complainant relied upon the statement of PW7 Mr. Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer, PW9 Mr. Parmod Sunola, public witness and PW18 S.D. Sharma, who was a member of raiding team. The evidence in the statement of these witnesses, is supported and corroborated by the statement of the accused Rajesh Chauhan recorded u/s 67 of NDPS Act, Ex. PW7/J and the statement of accused Tejveer Singh recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act Ex. PW18/B. It is the case of the complainant/DRI that 35 Kg. of heroin, recovered from the possession of accused Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2), has been brought on 29.06.06 from Punjab by the accused Tejveer Singh (A-2) along with one Joginder in a truck Tata-407. They also brought in the said truck two buffaloes and fodder, wherein the bags containing heroin, were sealed. This heroin was brought from Punjab at the instance of accused Gurnam Singh (A-3). The contraband heroin was kept at the house of accused Rajesh Chauhan at Village-Alwalpur, District-Rewari and on 02.07.2006, it was brought to Faridabad at the residence of accused Rajesh Chauhan. The accused Gurnam Singh had told accused SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 27 of 70 :: 28 ::
Rajesh Chauhan that this heroin is to be delivered to some person on the same day in the evening near Railway Over Bridge, Mehrauli-Badarpur Road and the accused Tejveer Singh (A-2) helped Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) in carrying heroin, so the role of the accused Gurnam Singh, first time emerged during the recording of statement of the accused Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2). Pursuant to that the accused Gurnam Singh, who was in custody in some other case, was called in the Court by moving an application for his production warrant. When he was produced on 19.07.06 in the Court, the inquiry was conducted and his statement was recorded and he tendered his statement in the inquiry before PW7 Mr. Jyothimon Dethan and Ct. Satbir Singh (PW16) vide Section 67 of the NDPS Act vide Ex. PW7/Z2. In this statement, he had stated that Rajesh Chauhan, son of Mr. Leela Ram and Tejveer, son of Rajveer Singh, were asked by him to bring 35 Kg of heroin, which was seized by DRI officials on 02.07.06. He stated that this 35 kg heroin was his. He signed the statement at point B.
9.0 Before considering the role of the accused Gurnam Singh and the evidence connecting him with the evidence, I would deal with the evidence, which has come on record against the accused Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2).
10.0 It was argued by the Ld. Sr. SPP that the recovery of 35.144 Kg. of heroin on 02.07.06 by the officers of DRI from the possession of the accused Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 28 of 70 :: 29 ::
Tejveer Singh (A-2) has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that the recovery had been effected from the possession of the accused accused Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2) in the presence of two independent witnesses namely Pardeep Sunola (PW9) and Ajay Kumar Ram. He submitted that Pardeep Sunola has appeared as witness in the Court as PW9. So far as the other public witness Ajay Kumar Ram is concerned, he submitted that he was not found traceable at the given address. It was his argument that the statement of official witness, which by itself is sufficient to establish the case of the prosecution has received necessary corroboration from the statement of PW9 Pardeep Sunola. 10.1 He further submitted that the statement of PW7 and PW9 also stand corroborated with statement u/s 67 NDPS Act tendered by accused Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2) vide Ex. PW7/J and PW18/B. He submitted that the statement u/s. 67 of NDPS Act are admissible in the evidence.
He submitted that simply because one of public witnesses was not examined, the statement of other recovery witnesses, cannot be ignored. He further submitted that the accused Gurnam Singh was named by accused Rajesh Chauhan (A-1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2) in their statements. The investigation officer had come to know through a Press Report of Delhi Police, Special Cell, Northern Range that Gurnam Singh @ Kuldeep Singh has been arrested in connection with the seizure of 41 Kg of heroin on 4/5.07.06. The DRI officers had the photographs of Gurnam Singh, which was shown to SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 29 of 70 :: 30 ::
accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2). They identified the photographs as of the same person, who they referred as Gurnam Singh in their statement Ex. PW7/J and Ex. PW18/B. The accused Gurnam Singh was arrested after he tendered his statement regarding his involvement in the case. Ld. Sr. SPP has further submitted that the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and there is nothing to doubt the statements of witnesses examined in the case. He submitted that all the statutory compliances have been strictly followed. He also submitted that it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the case property and the samples remained sealed and intact right from the time they were sealed till the case property reached the Court and the sample reached to CRCL for chemical analysis.
11.0 The Ld. counsels for the accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2) had argued that the prosecution case is doubtful with regard to the interception of the accused and the preparation of the documents at the given date and time. Ld. counsels have referred to various contradictions in the statements of PW7 and PW9 in this regard. Then the Ld. counsels submitted that the statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act have been retracted, they have no evidentry value because they have been obtained under pressure and threat. It is submitted that the statements have been dictated to the accused by the DRI officials. It was submitted that there is no recovery pursuant to the statements of the accused persons SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 30 of 70 :: 31 ::
recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act.
11.1 It is argued that the prosecution got identified the photographs of accused Gurnam Singh (A3) from accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2) and likewise the photographs of accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2) was got identified through accused Gurnam Singh (A3). It is submitted that only one photograph had been shown, which is not a proper way of identification.
11.2 It is further argued that the link evidence is not sufficient to rule out the possibility of tampering with the case property and the sample. It is submitted that the case property was deposited on 04.07.06, while it was seized on 02.07.06 and there is no document/evidence to show where the samples and case property was kept during the intervening period. It is further submitted that there is no compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act as the secret information Ex. PW1/A was not conveyed by Sh. Madan Singh to his immediate superior officer, rather it has been submitted to Deputy Director of Intelligence. He further submitted that the relevant godown register where the case property was kept, has not been produced. However, I am of the view that this argument is not borne out of the facts and the evidence, which is on the record as the said register was produced by PW3 Sh. A.C. Wadhwa. It was further submitted that the public witness examined by prosecution, PW9 Pardeep Sunola, could not identify the accused in the Court on 03.03.2011, but on 07.04.2011, he identified them. This shows that the witness SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 31 of 70 :: 32 ::
had been tutored. Ld. counsel for the accused also pointed out certain contradictions in the statement of PW9. It is also submitted by the Ld. counsel that none of the member of the raiding party, whose name has been disclosed by PW7 in his cross-examination in the Court, has been cited as witness or examined as such with regard to the recovery of heroin. 11.3 Number of contradictions have been referred to the Ld. counsel in the statement of PW7, who is a witness of recovery. It was submitted by the Ld. counsel for accused, that PW7 being the IO did not prepare any site plan. He did not mention the name of members of the team either in the complaint or in panchnama or in the report u/s 57 NDPS Act. He submitted that PW9 Pardeep Sunola, in his examination on 03.03.11, stated that the officers had told him that the said persons would be carrying cloth in their bags and he further deposed that the bags carried by these persons had been searched by the DRI officers and they have found some objectionable material in their bags. In his cross-examination on 03.06.2011, he said that polythene packets were having some transparent material. It was not tested at the spot. In his cross-examination on 15.10.2011, he said that he does not know what the DRI officers did with those bags at the spot. It was argued by the Ld. defence counsels that this version of PW9 shows that the bags were opened at the spot, but no proceedings with regard to the bags were conducted. The Ld. counsel referred to the statement of PW7 and pointed out that PW7 has given wrong description about the preparation of SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 32 of 70 :: 33 ::
panchnama. It was submitted that as per the panchnama Ex. PW7/D, which was submitted at 7 pm and collected at 11:45 pm, but PW7 said that panchnama was started at 1:30 pm. 11.4 With regard to PW9, the Ld. counsels further said that this witness did not speak about notice u/s 50 NDPS Act, nor he spoke about the number of samples as well as mark given on the samples. It was further could not identify the accused on 03.03.2011. Ld. counsel further argued that it is also doubtful, if the statement of PW9 was recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act, because in whose examination-in-chief he has denied that his statement was recorded, but later on he said that it was recorded. It was further argued that it is doubtful whether PW9 was associated in the raid because in his cross-
examination on 15.10.11, he has stated that he has no idea that the DRI officers has joined any other public person from the nearby area. It was submitted by the Ld. counsel for accused that the prosecution has not produced the other witness namely Ajay Kumar Ram in the witness box. It was argued that PW9 deposed that the officials of DRI had told him that there was recovery of two bags from two persons when they requested him to join the investigation. This means that when PW9 was called recovery already effected. PW9 further deposed that one bag was having 30-35 small polythene pouches having transparent material while the case of the prosecution is that there were 35 packets in all in two bags. 12.0 Before considering these contradictions, which have been referred time span during which the PW9 has been SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 33 of 70 :: 34 ::
examined, may be considered. PW9 was examined for the first time on 03.03.2011. Then he was examined on 07.04.2011. His cross-examination was deferred and he was examined on 03.06.2011 and again on 05.10.2011 and lastly on 15.11.11. Thus, examination of this witness has taken eight months. It may also be noted that when he came to depose in the Court, he was deposing about the incident, which had taken place on 02.07.2006. The witness had come in the witness box after 5 years of the incident and his examination itself had taken about eight months. One cannot except a verbatim reproduction of sequence of events with mathematical precision from a witness after such a long time.
There are bound to be some contradictions and some omissions, additions and improvements in the statement of witnesses when they depose after such a long time. It is a dilemma faced by all the Courts that if a witness depose with precision about incident then his statement is challenged that it is tutored and artificial and if there are flaws in his statement, then such omission, addition and contradictions are given too much importance.
12.1 PW9 in his statement, has categorically deposed that on 02.07.06, he was coming from Faridabad; two officers of DRI had asked him to be a witness to interception; that both the accused person apprehended in his presence namely accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A-2); that DRI officials had taken both the accused with their bags to DRI office where the bags were searched and seized; that search SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 34 of 70 :: 35 ::
led to recovery of 20 transparent polythene bag in one bag and 15 transparent polythene bags in another bag; that the substance in those transparent polythene bags was tested by the officers and they took samples from the contraband; that these samples were seized by the officers; over a paper slip signed by him and another witness, who was present at the said time; that the officers of DRI conducted personal search of accused Rajesh Chauhan in his presence and the entire proceedings were recorded, which was signed by him. This witness then identified panchnama Ex. PW7/D and identified his signatures on the panchnama at point X. This witness has further stated that his statement was recorded vide Ex. PW7/P in his own handwriting in the DRI office. He also identified his signatures on the seal impression on pulinda Ex. PW7/E. The DL of the accused Tejveer Singh Ex. PW7/F, DL of accused Rajesh Chauhan Ex. PW7/G. He also identified the signatures on the notice given to accused Tejveer Singh as Ex. PW7/C and notice given to accused Rajesh Chauhan Ex. PW7/B. Thus, PW9 has given the statement about apprehension of the accused, the recovery of two bags from them, which were carrying 35 packets of substance, which was tested and found to be heroin. All the proceedings, which were done with regard to the recovery of the heroin has been witnessed by him. He had signed the documents. There is no allegations of any enmity or prejudice against him. This witness is neither known to the DRI officers nor to the accused persons. It is not the case of the accused that PW9 is a stock witness of DRI.
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 35 of 70 :: 36 ::
PW9 is an independent public witness, who had joined the proceedings at the instance of DRI officers. He has no personal interest in the investigation conducted by DRI. So far as the contradictions in his statement are concerned they are natural variations, which occur with the passage of time and also because the power of retraction and reproduction of event differ from person to person. What is more important, is that none of the contradictions, which has been referred by the Ld. defence counsel goes to the root of the case. There is no contradictions with regard to apprehension of accused and recovery from them, testing of the contents of the bags, service of Notice u/s 50 NDPS Act and of taking samples, sealing of property and preparation of panchanama and seizure of documents. Therefore, I am of the view that the statement of PW9 cannot be doubted and it totally supports the prosecution case.
12.2 With regard to some contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of witness, recently in the case of Raju v. State, Crl. Appeal No. 1221/2012 decided on 11.10.2013, it has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court:
"It is no longer res integra that while appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions, omissions, improvements, embellishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution, should not be made a ground for the SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 36 of 70 :: 37 ::
Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Court, after going through the entire evidence must from an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses."
12.3 In Leela Ram v. State of Haryana, (1999) 9 SCC 525, it was held by the Supreme Court that there are bound to be discrepancies between the narration of various witnesses when they speak about details and unless the contradiction is material it should not be used to jettison the evidence in its entirety. Therefore, not withstanding the contradictions noticed in statement of PW9 his statement is found trustworthy and reliable.
13.0 Another recovery witness is PW7 Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer,DRI. His statement was also found to be reliable, consistent and trustworthy. There is no inconsistency, weakness in his statement of such a magnitude which could shake his creditworthiness. Ld. Defence counsels have argued that PW7 has not done proper investigation. He has not prepared the site plan of the spot where the accused were apprehended. He has not named the members of the raiding team in the complaint, in the panchnama and the Report u/s 57 of NDPS Act. He has named the members of the raiding team for the first time in this statement in the court. This is a major improvement made by him in the statement; therefore he is not reliable witness.
14.0 The statement of an official witness cannot be discarded simply because of his status. The intrinsic worth of SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 37 of 70 :: 38 ::
the statement of the official witness is to be considered. PW 7 is the Investigation Officer who has no malice towards the accused persons nor is it the case of the accused persons that the PW7 is known to them and has any ill will against them to falsely implicate them in the case. In this case, complainant/DRI has relied upon the statement of PW7 Jyothimon Dethan and PW18 S.D. Sharma, both official witnesses to prove the recovery. With regard to the statement of PW18 S.D. Sharma, an objection has been taken by the Ld. Defence counsels that his name was not mentioned in the complaint or in the Panchnama as the member of the DRI team, which apprehended the accused. He was summoned u/s 311 Cr.P.C. on the application of DRI, to prove the statement of the accused Tejveer Singh u/s 67 of the NDPS Act. He had recorded this statement though inadvertently his name was not mentioned in the list of witnesses. However, when S.D. Sharma was summoned and examined as PW18 he not only deposed about recording of the statement of accused Tejvir Singh but also about the recovery aspect as well. It was objected to by the Ld. Defence counsel that since, there is no previous statement of this witness with regard to he being the member of the DRI raiding team, it would cause prejudice, if the statement of PW18 S.D. Sharma, so far it is with regard to the recovery aspect, is read in the case. I found some justification in this submission of Ld. Defence counsel that examination of a witness of fact whose statement is not recorded during investigation may cause prejudice to accused SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 38 of 70 :: 39 ::
as in such a case there would be no previous statement of the witness with which he can be confronted. Therefore, accepting the submissions of the defence counsels I intend to ignore the statement of PW18 S.D. Sharma with regard to the recovery aspect.
15.0 But even if it is ignored still the statement of PW7 Jyothimon Dethan and PW9 Parmod Sunola (public independent witnesses) is found sufficient to prove the recovery of contraband i.e. heroin from the possession of two accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2). It is not the quantity but the quality of evidence which matters. The statement of these two witnesses is found trustworthy and reliable. The proceedings of Panchnama, seizure of documents from the accused persons corroborate their statements. The statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act tendered by the accused is an additional material to provide corroboration to the statement of PW7 Jyothimon and PW9 Parmod Sunola.
16.0 It was argued by the Ld. defence counsel that the complainant/DRI has not examined Ajay Kumar Ram, the independent witness in the case. Ld. Sr. SPP has further argued that the summons were issued for the independent witness Ajay Kumar Ram, but he was not found at the given address. As per the report on his summons dated 03.06.11 and 14.07.11, an untrace report was filed with regard to the witness Ajay Kumar Ram. Earlier this witness has given a SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 39 of 70 :: 40 ::
statement Ex. PW7/R pursuant to a summon issued vide Ex. Pw7/Q. In the summon Ex. PW7/Q his address is mentioned as House No. 501, Gali No. 2, Mandawali, Delhi-92. He appeared on 06.07.06 for recording his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act before the Intelligence Officer Jyothimon Dethan. However, the summon EX PW7/Q shows that the same was received by him on 02.07.06 itself. But when summons were issued at the address of the witness for his statement in the Court on 03.06.11 and 14.07.11, he was not found traceable at the addresses. In these circumstances, I do not consider it appropriate to draw any adverse inference against the prosecution on account of non-examination of Ajay Kumar Ram. This is specially so because the prosecution had examined another independent witness Sh. Pramod Sunola (PW9).
17.0 So far as the recovery of contraband i.e. heroin is concerned, the statement of Jyothimon, PW7 and PW9 is found sufficient enough. In the case of K.R. Vengadeshwar vs. NCB Crl. Appeal No. 830/10, the Hon'ble High Court had relied upon the statement of complainant alone, which was supported by the statement of accused u/s 67 of the NDPS Act. In the case of Sumit Tomar vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 Scale 507, it was held that in a case under NDPS Act, in the absence of animosity between the accused and the official witness, there is nothing wrong in relying upon their testimony. Thus, the statement of PW7, who is an official witness, can be believed when there is no allegation of any SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 40 of 70 :: 41 ::
prejudice or enmity against him.
18.0 It was argued by the Ld. counsels for accused that PW9 had deposed that the accused persons were not explained that they can take the search of officials before their search. Therefore there is no compliance of the provision of section 50 of the Act. In the statement of witness, one loose statement here and there cannot be taken to discredit the witness in entirety. The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable in criminal trial. Moreover the principle is that witness can lie but not document. The notices Ex. PW7/B and PW7/C bear signature of accused persons. The perusal of the notices Ex. PW7/B and PW7/C given to accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh respectively makes it clear that the accused were conveyed their legal right of search in the presence of Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The requirement of Section 50 NDPS Act is only to the extent that the accused is informed about his legal right. How the accused respond to the notice under section 50 of the Act is immaterial in this connection. Moreover, it is a case where recovery has been effected not from the person of the accused but from the bags, which they were carrying. Therefore, there was no requirement as such of notice u/s 50 NDPS Act. In the case Megh Singh vs. State of Punjab (2003) 8 SCC 666 it has been held that section 50 NDPS Act only applies in case of personal search of a person, but it is not extended to a search of a vehicle or a container or a bag or premises. In the case of State of H.P. vs. Pawan Kumar SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 41 of 70 :: 42 ::
(2005) 4 SCC 350, it was observed that a bag, brief case or any search article or container etc. can under no circumstances be treated as body of a "human being". Thus strict compliance with section 50 of the Act is necessary in case of personal search of a person.
19.0 It was also argued by Ld. defence counsels that there is violation of guideline 1.88 issued by Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) while conducting the search and recovery. It was also argued that PW1 Madan Singh did not convey the secret information to his "immediate" superior officer, but to the Deputy Director Sh. Pankaj Kumar Singh, PW2. It was also argued that the search and seizure was not conducted at the spot, which is the mandatory requirement. In this connection, the first question which comes to mind is whether it has caused any prejudice to the accused ? The search and seizure has been done in the presence of the accused, public persons by officers of DRI. There may be circumstances when search cannot be conducted effectively at the spot of apprehension of accused. In the Panchnama Ex. PW7/D, it is mentioned that since the accused were to be searched and examined but the road being a busy crowded place, was not found suitable for conducting a thorough search and examination of their bags and their persons. Therefore, accused were required to accompany the officers to their office where search was conducted. In the case of M. Prabhulal vs. The Assistant Director, DRI, 2003 (3) JCC 1631, such a contention that search and seizure was not taken at the spot was repelled by SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 42 of 70 :: 43 ::
the Hon'ble Supreme Court by observing that no prejudice was caused to accused. In Khet Sing vs. Union of India (2002) 3 SCC 380 similar view was taken earlier and it was observed;
"Even if there was procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the Court would consider all the circumstances and find out where any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused."
20.0 Thus, in case of any irregularity in the investigation, the Court has to see if any prejudice has been caused to the accused. In the present case, merely because search and seizure has not taken place at the spot and the secret information was conveyed to the Deputy Director, it can not be said that any prejudice has been caused to the accused. The Ld. counsel for accused A1 had also argued that the log book of the vehicle was not produced in the Court. The Ld. defence counsel referred to the judgment of Md. Irfan vs. DRI (Supra), Aze Val Okeke va. NCB (Supra) in support of his submissions. I have gone through the judgments, they can be distinguished on facts . In these cases non production of the log book of the vehicle, which was used by the investigating agency, was only one of the reason to disbelieve the prosecution case. In the present case, however, there is statement of recovery witnesses, which inspire confidence and cannot be ignored simply because of the fact that the log book of the vehicle was not produced.
21.0 Thus, the contradictions and discrepancies which SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 43 of 70 :: 44 ::
Ld. Defense counsels have referred to in the statement of PW7 and PW9 are not such which can shake the version of the prosecution. In the case of Krishna Mochi vs. State of Bihar 2002 (2) CC cases (SC) 58, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a criminal trial, credible evidence of even a solitary witness can form basis of conviction. With regard to the discrepancies in the statement of the witnesses, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case Amrita vs. State of M.P. 2004 (1) CC cases (SC) 220 has held that it has to be kept in view that in every case, some or the other discrepancy is likely to occur. In case discrepancy does not materially effect the case of the prosecution, it has to be ignored.
22.0 Therefore, I have no hesitation to observe that statements PW7 and PW9 are sufficient to prove the recovery of the 35 Kg of contraband substance i.e. heroin from the possession of Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh. This evidence is further supported by the statement tendered by these two accused u/s 67 of NDPS Act.
Statement u/s 67 NDPS Act 23.0 The Ld. Defence had submitted that the statement of accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) was taken under pressure and threat and they were beaten brutally. Not only that, the statements were retracted by these accused persons. So far as the retraction by accused Rajesh Chauhan is concerned, his retraction application was received from Superintendent Jail, which is on record, but SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 44 of 70 :: 45 ::
there is not application for retraction of the statement of accused Tejveer Singh. In his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he submitted that he has retracted the statement. The law is well settled that the statement tendered u/s 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence, though its admissibility would depend on number of circumstances. The accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) have admitted that the substance, which was seized from their possession was heroin and that it was brought by them at the instance of accused Gurnam Singh. They also explained, how the heroin seized from their possession, was brought from Punjab. They have also admitted that this 35 kg of heroin was to be delivered to some person at the instance of accused no. 3 Gurnam at the place where they were apprehended. They accused produced before the court on 03.07.2006. Admittedly, they did not make any complaint that their statement u/s 67 NDPS Act was taken under threat, pressure or by force. They did not say that the statement was dictated to them and they wrote the same under fear. The statement Ex. PW7/J and Ex. PW18/B of accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) respectively contain their personal details and information as well apart from the manner in which they procured the heroin at the instance of the accused Gurnam Singh. In their statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., they have submitted that the accused were brutally beaten and their statement was taken by force. However, there is no evidence that they were beaten before they tendered statement u/s 67 NDPS Act. Their SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 45 of 70 :: 46 ::
statement has been recorded on 03.07.06 and on the same day, they were produced before the Court after their medical examination.
24.0 PW19 Dr. Kalyani Medical Officer, Ram Manohar Lohia (RML) Hospital has deposed that on 03.07.06, she was working as CMO in Casualty Department of RML Hospital and she had examined Rajesh Chauhan as well accused Tejveer Singh and prepared the MLCs of both of them vide Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW19/B. It was deposed that these persons were normal and there was no mark of any fresh external injury visible on their person. So, the plea taken by the accused that they were brutally beaten, does not stand in view of their MLCs Ex. PW19/A and Ex. PW19/B, which rule out any mark of external injury on their person.
25.0 The position with regard to the admissibility of statement tendered u/s 67 of NDPS Act may be considered here.
26.0 It is now well settled that such a statement tendered under section 67 of the Act by an accused is very much admissible in evidence and the same can also be made the basis of the conviction of an accused, if the same is found to be made voluntary and is truthful. Further, it cannot be equated with the statement of an accused made in custody, even if it is confessional in nature, as the same is made by an accused prior to his arrest in the case and hence, the bar of SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 46 of 70 :: 47 ::
Section 24 to 27 of the Evidence Act and even Article 20 (3) of the Constitution would not be attracted to such a statement. However, if such a statement is found to be made by an accused under some pressure, coercion or influence etc and is not voluntary then it cannot be believed and acted upon with out some independent corroboration of facts stated therein.
27.0 If the accused subsequently retracts from such a statement, then the court has to look into the entirety of the facts and circumstances leading to the making of the above statement and its subsequent retraction, so as to form an opinion regarding the voluntariness of such a statement and the effect which has to be given to subsequent retraction thereof. However, it is also well settled that such a retracted statement is a weak piece of evidence and the court should not proceed to base a finding of conviction on the basis of such a retracted statement, unless there is some other independent evidence to corroborate the same. Reference with regard to the above can be made to some of the judgments in cases Raj Kumar Karwal Vs. Union of India & Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 409; Kanhaiya Lal Vs. Union of India 2008 (1) AD (Crl.) (SC) 277; Noor Aga Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2008 (9) Scale 681: Union of India Vs. Bal Mukund and othrs. 2009 (2) Crimes 171 (SC); DRI Vs. Raj Kumar Mehta & Ors. 2011 (3) JC (Narcotics) 156.
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 47 of 70 :: 48 ::
28.0 In a recent judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has dealt with the admissibility of the statement u/s 67 NDPS Act in the case Rapheal Vs. Devender Singh (Intelligence Officer, DRI) Crl. Appeal No. 1394/2013 decided on 27.05.15, wherein it has been observed ;
"21. It is trite that a statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is admissible in evidence and can be considered by the Court against the accused. It is also settled law that if the same is found to be made voluntarily, then the same can even be made the sole basis of conviction of accused. However, if the same is subsequently retracted by the accused then such a statement cannot be made the sole basis of conviction of accused and independent corroboration is required."
29.0 Ld. counsel for the accused, however, argued that the statement of the accused u/s 67 NDPS Act cannot be used to base the conviction of accused. They have placed reliance on the Noor Aga's case (Supra), Bal Mukund's case (Supra) and Nnandi K. Thearnyi's (Supra) case. No doubt there is a slight shift in the manner of appreciation and in the evidentiary value of statement u/s 67 NDPS Act, but even in Bal Mukund's case (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, did not say that the statement tendered u/s 67 NDPS Act cannot be relied upon. It was observed; "That the court while weighing evidentiary value of such a statement cannot loose site of ground realities. Circumstances attended to making of such statement, which in our considered opinion be taken into SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 48 of 70 :: 49 ::
consideration." Even in Noor Aga's case (Supra), the Court had held, whether the confession was made under duress and coercion and/or voluntarily should be considered having regard to the facts and circumstances of each case.
30.0 So the circumstances in which accused A 1and A2 have tendered their statements under section 67 of Act in the present case have to be considered to ascertain voluntariness. The attending circumstances however, do not indicate any use of force,pressure or coercion. There is no evidence of any physical beating etc. of the accused and there is no material to show that they were put under any kind of pressure or inducement to give the statement.
31.0 In view of the position of the law with regard to admissibility of statement u/s 67 of NDPS Act, the statement tendered by accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) vide Ex. PW7/J and PW19/B respectively can be considered in evidence against having been tendered without any force or pressure. As I have already observed the MLCs of the both accused, do not show any evidence of external injury on the person of both the accused persons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the statement has been obtained under any pressure or force. That, therefore, defines the voluntariness of their statements u/s 67 of NDPS Act.
32.0 The statement u/s 67 NDPD Act would require an independent corroboration, if it has been retracted SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 49 of 70 :: 50 ::
subsequently. Retraction of the statement robs it of its voluntariness. Court has to see whether the retraction is under some legal guidance or it is natural and it is at the very first instance/opportunity available to the accused. The accused Rajesh Chauhan had given a statement Ex. PW7/J before his arrest in the case. He claimed that it has been retracted. Retraction application of the accused Rajesh Chauhan is on the record as mark X. First of all this retraction is not at the first available opportunity. The accused had been arrested on 03.07.06 and this retraction application has been prepared by jail visiting advocate on 31.07.07 and was endorsed by Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail No. 3 on 04.08.07. It was received in the Court from the office of Delhi Legal Services Authority (DLSA) vide its letter dated 06.08.07. With regard to the statement EXPW7/J, the accused in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he was illegally kept in the office of DRI and they obtained the information with regard to his family history under pressure and beating and he was dictated to write a statement on false promises. He further stated that he was not medically examined and the ground of his arrest was also not explained to him. He further said that he had disclosed everything to one of its inmate, who prepared his retraction application without explaining the contents of the same in Hindi to him and he signed the same and also put his thumb impressions.
33.0 First of all the claim of the accused Rajesh SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 50 of 70 :: 51 ::
Chauhan that he was forced to write the statement by giving him beating and under a false promise is not supported by any material on the record. The MLC shows that he had no mark of external injury, which belie his statement that he was given beating. He has not explained what false promise was given to him, which forced him to give the statement. His statement that he was not medically examined, is also against the record because his MLC dated 03.07.06, is also on record. The retraction application has lost its sheen when the accused Rajesh Chauhan said that the contents of this application were not explained to him by the writer thereof. So in what manner, the statement u/s 67 NDPS, was retracted, is not known to the accused. In other words, he had endorsed whatever is said in the retraction Application Mark X without knowing the contents. Therefore, the retraction application is of no use in this case. It is an after thought.
34.0 The accused Tejveer Singh in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. claimed that he had retracted his statement, but no such retraction application has been filed on the judicial record. He claimed that he was falsely implicated and he was forced to write a statement dictated by the officers of DRI and he was brutally tortured. There is not even a hint that accused Tejveer Singh has been given beating. His MLC Ex. PW19/D clearly shows that he was not having any mark of injury on his person. So what the accused is saying in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C., is factually incorrect.
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 51 of 70 :: 52 ::
35.0 The statement of accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) was also recorded on 17.07.06, after they were taken on one day DRI remand. In their statements Ex. PW7/S and Ex. PW7/B they have spoken about the accused Gurnam Singh, A (3) and identified the photograph of Gurnam Singh. The Ld. Defence counsel had submitted that the accused were shown only one photograph of Gurnam Singh.
He referred to the judgment in the case of Lakhmidat Choraria vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 1968 SC 938, and submitted that it was not proper to show only one photograph of Gurnam Sing to accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) and then ask whether the photograph is of Gurnam Singh or not. I think there is a difference in the case on which the Ld. Defence counsel has relied and in the present case. In present case, the accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) have noted Gurnam Singh as the person for whom they had brought the heroin for delivery to somebody at Badarpur. They knew the person Gurnam Singh. Thus the question of identity of Gurnam Singh,as the person at whose instance they were carrying heroin is not an issue. The only issue was, whether the person with the name of Gurnam Singh, who has been apprehended in some other case, was the same Gurnam Singh, to whom the accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) referred in their statement. This is not a case where some offence has been committed by a person and a witness is shown only one photograph of the suspect for identification. Here accused SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 52 of 70 :: 53 ::
Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2), were shown the photograph of accused Gurnam Singh, (A3) only to ascertain the fact that one Gurnam Singh, who has been arrested in some other case is the same person, on whose instance they had brought the contraband/heroin. They already knew Girnam Singh.
Link Evidence 36.0 The Ld. Counsel for the accused argued that the complainant/DRI could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was no tempering with the case property and the samples from the time they were seized and till the time the case property was produced before the Court and sample reached the CRCL. It is submitted that the alleged seizure was effected on 02.07.06. The case property was deposited in the Valuable Godown on 04.02.06. There is no documentary evidence to show as to where the case property was kept during the said period. Similarly there is no evidence with regard to samples. Further no evidence has been led to show where the second set of sample of the case property was kept. The Ld. Sr. SPP has submitted that there is sufficient evidence on the record that samples had reached the CRCL with the seal intact and samples were kept in a strong room and seal was intact when they were taken for inspection from the strong room. It is argued that there is nothing on record to indicate that the seals and samples were tempered at any stage.
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 53 of 70 :: 54 ::
37.0 The prosecution had examined PW10 Alok Aggarwal, who deposed that the case property duly sealed with the seal of DRI 10 was handed over to him. It was kept in safe custody by him till 04.07.06 and on 04.07.06; he handed over the case property to the IO for depositing in the Valuable Godown, New Custom House. He submitted that the deposit memo Ex. PW3/A was signed by him. PW3 A.C. Wadhva, who was the custodian of Valuable Godwon, New Custom House, has deposed that on 04.07.06, Mr. Jyothimon (PW7) had deposited one box duly sealed with DRI seal which was in intact condition. He deposed that he had issued a receipt of deposit by endorsing the deposit memo Ex. PW3/A at point A. Although he had admitted in the cross-examination that he did not receive the facsimile of the seal for comparison. With regard to the sample of the case property, PW5 B.K. Bannerji has deposed that the sample along with forwarding letter was handed over by him to Mr. Jyothimon IO. PW7 Jyothimon deposed that 11 sample packets with its memo in duplicate Ex. PW7/M with authorization letter Ex. PW5/C in the name of Chemical Examiner, CRCL, were handed over to him by PW5.
38.0 PW4 K.K. Singh deposed that on 034.07.06, Mr. Jyothimon (PW7) deposited 11 samples packets. The seal of DRI on each sample packet was intact and it tallied with the facsimile on the test memo Ex. PW7/M. He deposed that he issued a receipt Ex. PW4/A regarding the deposit of the sample. He handed over the sample with seal intact to Sh.
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 54 of 70 :: 55 ::
S.K. Mittal, Assistant Chemical Examiner. PW11 R.P. Meena, Chemical Examiner had deposed that on 03.07.06, S.K. Mittal, Incharge, Narcotics Cell, had handed over test memo in duplicate, one forwarding letter, sample packet in sealed condition to him. He had checked the seal with the facsimile and kept them in the strong room of Narcotics Section. He further deposed that on 28.08.06, the samples were taken out for chemical examination. The seal was again checked and tallied with the facsimile in test memo and it was found in intact condition.
39.0 In the cross-examination of these witnesses, nothing adverse could come out, to shake the version of the prosecution. The statement of these witnesses had been found creditworthy. The case property when produced in the Court was found in intact condition. The sample sent to the CRCL duly sealed and the seal was found intact, which tallied with the facsimile on the test memo. The statement of these witnesses proved beyond reasonable doubt that there was no tempering with the samples from the time they were seized and till they reached CRCL and examined.
40.0 Thus the evidence on record clearly prove beyond reasonable doubt that the contraband substance found in possession of accused Rajesh Chauhan and the accused Tejveer Singh was "heroin". The fact that the substance recovered from their possession, was heroin has been proved by the chemical analysis report submitted by PW11 Sh. R.P. SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 55 of 70 :: 56 ::
Meena, who tendered his report Ex. PW11/A in this regard and also deposed that he had analysed the samples and on the basis of chemical and chromatographic examination, it was concluded that the samples were found positive for diacetylmorphine.
41.0 The Ld. Counsel for the accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh submitted that entire case of the prosecution is based on the false story, which is evident from the statements of defence witnesses examined by them. The accused Rajesh Chauhan has examined DW1 Smt. Sheela, who is his wife. She deposed that her husband was taken from her house in the month of July by 3-4 persons, who were in plain clothes on the ground that they wanted to make some inquiry from him. After 2-3 days, she was informed that her husband has been arrested in a case. She made complaints to the Chief Justice of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Ex. DW1/A, Chief Justice of Hon'ble High Court Ex. DW1/C, Ld. District and Sessions Judge Ex. DW1/G and National Human Rights Commission Ex. DW1/I. In the cross-examination, she, however, admitted that she did not make any complaint at the police station when her husband was lifted by 2-3 persons from her house. She admitted that she is illiterate lady and the letters in question were written by her daughter.
However, later on she admitted that her daughter had not drafted these complaints. She denied having written these letters with the consultation of an advocate. Her statement is found improbable from the fact that she had stated in her SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 56 of 70 :: 57 ::
cross examination that she herself did not go to the post office to post the letters and the Postman in the locality was handed over those letters. She did not give any money or cash to the Postman for posting the above letters. No any receipt of posting was given to her. The statement of Smt. Sheela is not found convincing. Simply because the wife of the accused had sent the letters/complaints to some higher authorities would not be sufficient to disbelieve the statements of the official witnesses and independent witnesses, unless the facts stated in those complaints are proved on the record. Therefore, the statement of DW1 Smt. Sheela is not found reliable.
42.0 The accused Tejveer Singh had examined DW2 Sh.
Chetanya Raj Singh. He is the brother of accused Tejveer Singh. He deposed that on 01.07.06, the accused Tejveer Singh was having lunch with his family members in the ancestral house in village Ashrajpur, District-Bulandshahar. He deposed that 4-5 persons came to the house and inquired about Tejveer Singh and they took him away with them. This fact has not been brought to the notice of any government agencies or authorities. The witness had come to depose in the Court after 7 years of the incident. During this period, no steps have been taken to highlight this fact that the accused Tejveer Singh was picked up from his house. Moreover, the official witnesses and public witness PW9 Pardeep Sunola had no motive to falsely implicate the accused Tejveer Singh while DW2 Chetanya Raj Singh has clear motive to depose in favour SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 57 of 70 :: 58 ::
of his brother. Even in the light of statement of DW2, the statement of prosecution witnesses cannot be ignored, which is found trustworthy and reliable.
42.1 Therefore, the defence led by the accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh is not found convincing enough to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The evidence on the record proved beyond doubt the possession and recovery of contraband i.e. heroin.
Role of accused Gurnam Singh 43.0 Now I shall consider the role of Gurnam Singh A3.
As per the case of prosecution the accused Gurnam Singh abetted or was a party to criminal conspiracy to commit an offence under the Act. Generally, it is not possible to get any direct evidence in case of criminal conspiracy as it is hatched in privacy and secrecy. The proof of conspiracy is largely inferential though the inference must be founded on solid facts.The surrounding circumstances, antecedents and subsequent conduct, among other factors, constitute relevant material (Harley vs. State Criminal Appeal No. 827/2011, Delhi High Court). Therefore, the inferential evidence need to be considered with pragmatic approach. In the present case, the DRI officers received the information that two persons aged 40 years and 30 years would come to deliver heroin. Consequent to action taken on this, they apprehended accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2). Till the recovery was effected from these accused, the complainant/DRI was not aware about the involvement of the SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 58 of 70 :: 59 ::
accused Gurnam Singh in the case. His name first of all had figured in the statement of accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) Ex. PW7/J. He knew the accused Gurnam Singh. It is stated that he has been working with him and the 35 Kg of heroin was brought from Punjab at the instance of Gurnam Singh and it was to be delivered at the instance of Gurnam Singh. The fact that accused Rajesh Chauhan knew Gurnam Singh received support from recovery of a diary from his possession. On page 41 of this diary, the name of Gurnam Singh is mentioned with his residential address and his father's name. One telephone no. 9871985671 was also mentioned in the said diary, which is on record Ex. PW7/Z10. Through the statement of accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh, the prosecution came to know about the role of Gurnam Singh. While the investigation was under progress, the officers of DRI learnt from a Press report that Delhi Police, Special Cell, Northern Range had arrested one Gurnam Singh @ Kuldeep Singh. Therefore, an application was moved before the concerned ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts, where the accused Gurnam Singh was produced and his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act was recorded on 19.07.06 Ex.
PW7/Z2. In this statement, he had stated that Rajesh Chauhan, son of Lila Ram and Tejveer Singh, son of Rajveer Singh, brought 35 Kg of heroin at his instance and the said heroin belong to him. This statement was given by the accused Gurnam Singh before his arrest in the present case. 44.0 PW7 and PW16 Ct. Satbir Singh have deposed about the statement given by Gurnam Singh. Ct. Satbir Singh SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 59 of 70 :: 60 ::
(PW16) had deposed that statement Ex. PW7/Z2 was read over to the accused (Gurnam Singh) in his presence and it was signed by him (PW16), the accused and the IO. He deposed that the accused Gurnam Singh had put his signatures at point 'Y' in his presence. In the cross-examination, he deposed that the accused was explained the provisions of Section 67 NDPS Act by the IO.
45.0 Ct. Satbir Singh (PW16) was posted in Third Battalion, DAP and he was the person, who produced the accused in the Court from lock-up. During his examination, a record was called by the defence counsel regarding his posting. Inspector R.P. Meena, Incharge, Lock-up, Patiala House Courts, brought the attendance record of 19.07.06 and stated that Ct. Satbir was not posed in the Lock-up, Patiala House Courts, on that day. However, it was clarified later on, that Ct. Satbir (PW16) had produced the accused before Ld. ACMM, Tis Hazari Courts on 19.07.06 from the lock-up of that Court and thereafter, the accused was produced before the Ld. ACMM, Patiala House Courts and be accompanied the accused from Tis Hazari Court to Patiala House Court. PW16 Ct. Satbir Singh has no motive to depose falsely. He being the official witness, carry the presumption that he performs his duty as per law. He deposed that Gurnam Singh had signed the statement in his presence after the statement was read over to him by the IO. It is established beyond doubt that the statement Ex. PW7/Z2 was understood by the accused Gurnam Singh and thereafter, it has been singed by him.
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 60 of 70 :: 61 ::
46.0 So, the statement of accused Gurnam Singh u/s 67 NDPS Act, which has not been retracted during the trial, till his statement was recorded under section 313 Cr.p.c. can be considered against him. Gurnam Singh appeared as defence witness u/s 315 Cr.P.C. and he submitted that his signatures have been taken on blank papers. He also said that prior to his examination in the present case, he did not know the co- accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh. However, the statement of the accused Gurnam Singh as DW3, is a false statement when he said that he did not know accused Rajesh Chauhan prior to this case. A diary was recovered from the possession of the accused Rajesh Chauhan and at page no. 41 (Ex. PW7/Z-10) of the said diary, the name of accused Gurnam Singh, his father's name and his address is mentioned with a telephone no. 9871985671. Recovery of Diary with 53 pages is mentioned in Panchnama dt. 02.07.06 (Ex. PW7/D), which is Signed by accused Rajesh Chauhan and independent witness Pardeep Sunola, PW9. It was easy for the accused Gurnam Singh to deny that telephone no. 9871985671, does not belong to him, but in the cross-examination he could not conceal the truth and admitted that the address and the mobile number written on the diary Ex. PW7/Z10 are his address and mobile number. He further deposed that the mobile number 9871985671 was obtained by him through some agent. It may not be out of place to mention here that subscriber of this mobile number was PW14 Karam Raj, who had deposed that he never had any mobile phone at relevant SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 61 of 70 :: 62 ::
time.
47.0 So, the fact that a diary was recovered from the possession of the accused Rajesh Chauhan on 03.07.06, which bears the mobile number of the accused Gurnam Singh, his name, his father's name and his address, admission of Gurnam Singh that the telephone number 9871985671 mentioned therein belongs to him. It clarifies that the accused Gurnam Singh and Rajesh Chauhan were well known to each other prior to the arrest of the accused Rajesh Chauhan. Therefore, the statement of accused Gurnam Singh that he did not know accused no. 1 Rajesh Chauhan and accused no. 2 Tejveer Singh prior to this case, is a false statement. 48.0 The statement u/s 67 NDPS Act dated 19.07.06 Ex. PW7/Z2 given by Gurnam Singh is voluntary. There is no material on the record, which could suggest that his statement was given under any pressure, inducement or threat. PW19 Dr. Kalyani, Medical officer, RML Hospital, has deposed that on 20.07.06, she had medically examined Gurnam Singh in the Casualty Department of the Hospital, who was brought by Mr. Jyothimon Dethan. She prepared the MLC Ex. PW19/C. There was no mark of any external injury on his person. His condition was found to be normal. Thus, there is nothing to suggest that the statement given by the accused Gurnam Singh on 19.07.06, was not voluntary.
49.0 After his arrest on 19.07.06, he was again examined on 20.07.06. He tendered his statement on 20.07.06 Ex. PW7/Z7. I tend to ignore this statement as SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 62 of 70 :: 63 ::
obviously this statement has been recorded after the accused was arrested and was in custody in the present case. The evidence, which can be considered against the accused Gurnam Singh is his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act dated 19.07.06 (Ex. PW7/Z-2), the statement of Rajesh Chauhan Ex.
PW7/J, the recovery of a diary containing the personal details of accused Gurnam Singh, showing the nexus between Rajesh Chauhan and Gurnam Singh and the false plea taken by accused Gurnam Singh when he appeared as a defence witness in this case as DW3. He had taken the plea that he had a previous rivalry with officers of DRI. However, he had not explained the nature and cause of such rivalry. He had further stated in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he was brutally tortured. However, his MLC Ex. PW19/C, does not support this.
50.0 The accused when appeared as a defence witness, also stated that he had retracted his statement and he placed on record one photocopy of the retraction application. He submitted that he had given the retraction application in the Court of Ld. Special Judge, NDPS Act. However, no such retraction application was available on the judicial file and it is only during his examination as DW3 that the photocopy of retraction application has been filed. This application, which was initially marked as Ex. DW3/1 and later on, on the objection of Ld. Sr. SPP, the marking was corrected as Mark DW3/1. Since it was a photocopy only and not even written by the accused, therefore, the document was de-exhibited and SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 63 of 70 :: 64 ::
marked as Mark DW3/1. DW3, the accused Gurnam Singh admitted that this document is not in his handwriting, therefore, he cannot say, what is written in the same. They were written by some inmate in the jail. It is a settled position of law that the retraction application should be moved at the initial state or at the earliest opportunity. The accused Gurnam Singh did not make any complaint before the Court when he was produced first time after his arrest or after his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act was recorded on 20.07.06. His MLC on record, shows that he was not having any physical injury. In this background, this retraction application looses its significance. It is not clear from this application Mark DW3/1 when it has been moved. Therefore, this retraction application does not carry any value and can be ignored easily as it is an after though and apparently on some legal advise.
51.0 In view of the above discussion, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has established the case against the accused Gurnam Singh for abetting and also being party to a criminal conspiracy for dealing in the supply of narcotics and psychotropic substance, though he was not found in possession of any substance.
Conclusion 52.0 Thus, in view of the evidence on the record, facts and circumstances of the case, the accused Rajesh Chauhan (A1) and Tejveer Singh (A2) are held guilty for keeping in their possession contraband substance i.e. heroin and for also being part of a criminal conspiracy for supply of narcotic and SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 64 of 70 :: 65 ::
psychotropic substance. They are held guilty and convicted accordingly for the offence u/s 21 (c) and Section 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
53.0 The accused Gurnam Singh is held guilty and convicted accordingly for the offence u/s 29 of the NDPS Act. Order on sentence shall be announced after hearing the accused. Bail bonds furnished u/s 437A Cr.P.C. stand discharged.
Announced in open Court on 13th July, 2015.
(Ajay Kumar Kuhar) Special Judge (NDPS Act) South District: Saket SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 65 of 70 :: 66 ::
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY KUMAR KUHAR, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS ACT), SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI SC No. 01A/07 u/ Sec. 21 & 29 NDPS Act Unique ID No.: 02403R0000832007 Shri Jyothimon Dethan, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Headquarters, New Delhi.
Vs.
1. Rajesh Chauhan S/o Shri Leela Ram, R/o A-558, Daubua Colony, NIT, Faridabad (Haryana)
2. Tejveer Singh @ Taj Paul Singh, S/o Shri Rajveer Singh, R/o V & Post-Office Jahangirpur, Mohalla Maliwada, Tehsil Khurja, Distt. Bulandshahar, U.P.
3. Gurnam Singh @ Kuldeep Singh @ Babu @ Jat @ Pamma S/o Shri Jagtar Singh, R/o Vill. Kakka Kadiyala Tehsil-Taran Taran, Distt. Amritsar.
Date of Judgment : 13.07.2015 Date of order on sentence : 15.07.2015 ORDER 1.0 Accused Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh have
been held guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 21(c) NDPS Act, 1985 for keeping in possession heroin in SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 66 of 70 :: 67 ::
commercial quantity, which is a narcotic substance. They have also been held guilty and convicted for the offence u/s 29 NDPS Act for being party to criminal conspiracy of transportation of heroin, which is a narcotic substance.
1.1 The accused Gurnam Singh has been held guilty for abetting and being a party to criminal conspiracy for the commission of offence of possession and transportation of narcotic substance (heroin) which is an office u/s 21 (c) NDPS Act. He is therefore convicted for the offence u/s 29 NDPS Act. 2.0 I have heard the submissions on the point of sentence from learned SPP for DRI and the learned counsels for the convicts and the convicts also in person. 3.0 I have taken into account all the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the case.
4.0 Learned SPP has submitted that convicts Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh have been found in possession of commercial quantity of heroin, which was more than 35 Kg. It was argued that considering the gravity of the offence, these convicts be awarded the maximum sentence provided under the Act. As regard the convict Gurnam Singh, it was argued that he is a previous convict under the NDPS Act, which is admitted by him in his cross-examination as DW3, and therefore, he is liable to enhanced punishment u/s 31 NDPS Act.
5.0 The convict Rajesh Chauhan has prayed for a lenient view on the ground that he is the only earning member in the family, which consists of four daughters and one son;
SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 67 of 70 :: 68 ::
that he has no previous criminal record of conviction. His financial condition is very poor.
5.1 The convict Tejveer Singh has prayed for a lenient view on the ground that he has no previous criminal record of conviction. His financial condition is very poor. He is a young person and has a life ahead, therefore, a lenient view may be taken.
5.2 The convict Gurnam Singh has prayed for a lenient view on the ground that he is the only earning member in the family. He submits that he has been acquitted in the case registered by the Special Cell of Delhi Police. So far as his previous conviction is concerned, he himself had pleaded guilty after facing trial for about six years. He may be given a chance to reform himself. His financial condition is very poor. 6.0 I am conscious of the fact that a too harsh sentence and too lenient sentence, both loose its significance.
But, there can be circumstances when a lenient view by the Court is justified. It is generally noticed that in such cases where drugs are supplied to consumers, the main drug paddlers go scott free and the conduit used by such paddlers, who are invariably poor people get caught. The harsh punishment provided for offence under the NDPS Act is an indication that offences are to be considered very serious in nature, but while awarding sentence, the court has also to keep in mind, if there is any chance of reformation of the convicts. If there is noting on the record to suggest that the convicts have been engaged in any such type of offence in past, and if not SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 68 of 70 :: 69 ::
kept behind the bars, they may engage themselves in similar activity, then court must adopt a lenient view to give the convicts a chance to reform themselves. The fact that the probability of the convicts not committing similar act and would not, therefore, be a threat to the society is very relevant fact for determination of sentence in the absence of any material being furnished by DRI/prosecution showing criminal propensity of the convicts. In the present case the convicts Rajesh Chauhan and Tejveer Singh were the carriers, who became the part of the conspiracy to deal in the supply and transportation of narcotic and psychotropic substance. On the other hand, convict Gurnam Singh is the person who engaged them in procuring and supply of narcotic drug. He has a background of indulging himself in such activities earlier also. He is the person, who got other two convicts involved in the present transaction. Therefore, a lenient view qua him will not be justified.
7.0 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case all the convict are sentenced as under :-
(a) The convict Rajesh Chauhan is sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lac, in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence u/s 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. He is further sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lac, in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence u/s 29 of the NDPS Act (Read with Section 21
(c) NDPS Act). Both the sentences shall run concurrently with SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 69 of 70 :: 70 ::
the benefits of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
(b) The convict Tejveer Singh is sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lac, in default to undergo SI for six month for the offence u/s 21 (c) of the NDPS Act. He is further sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1 Lac, in default to undergo SI for six months for the offence u/s 29 of the NDPS Act (Read with Section 21 (c) NDPS Act).
Both the sentences shall run concurrently with the benefits of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
(c) The convict Gurnam Singh is sentenced to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1.5 Lacs, in default to undergo SI for one year for the offence u/s 29 (Read with Section 21 (c)) of the NDPS Act, with benefits of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
8.0 Case property be confiscated to DRI/State 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 Appellate Court, as the case may be. 9.0 Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to all the convicts, free of cost. 10.0 File be consigned to record room after all the necessary compliances.
Announced in the open Court on (Ajay Kumar Kuhar) 15th July, 2015 Special Judge (NDPS Act) South District: Saket SC No. 01A/07 DRI Vs. Rajesh Chauhan & Ors. Page No. 70 of 70