Delhi District Court
Special Judge : Ndps2 : (Central) vs Jane Alam on 16 August, 2016
1 of 29
IN THE COURT OF SH. NARINDER KUMAR
SPECIAL JUDGE : NDPS2 : (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURT:DELHI
New SC No. : 27353/2016
SC No. : 22/14
FIR No. : 56/14
PS : Crime Branch
U/s. : 21 NDPS Act
State
Versus
Jane Alam
S/o Kadir Khan
R/o Village Malupur,
Tehsil Jalalabad,
Distt. Shahjahan Pur, U.P. .....Accused
Date of Institution : 30.07.2014
Date of Judgment : 16.08.2016
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016
2 of 29
JUDGMENT
Jane Alam (accused) has been facing trial for an offence U/s.21 of Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substance (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on the accusation that on 16.05.2014 when apprehended by the police of police station Crime Branch, at about 3.25 PM, under the flyover, on Ring Road, near Guru Govind Singh University bus stand, Delhi, he was found carrying heroin, weighing 500 grams, in a transparent polythene contained in a black colour polythene. He is alleged to have been so apprehended on the basis of secret information said to have been received by SI Rajni Kant of Narcotics Cell, Shakar Pur, Delhi on the same day at about 1.30 PM, and on the basis of raid conducted at the disclosed place, and at the pointing out of the secret informer.
2. The other members of the party accompanying SI Rajni Kant were Ct. Shani Kumar and HC Bharat Singh.
3. Case of prosecution is that before search of the SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 3 of 29 polythene recovered from the accused was conducted, he was apprised of his legal rights U/s.50 of the Act, was served with a notice under this provision of law and the accused refused to exercise is legally rights.
4. From the lot, two samples, each of 5 grams are said to have been taken, turned into two separate parcels, given Mark A1 & A2. The residue was kept in the transparent polythene, then placed in black colour polythene which parcel was given Mark 'A'. All these three parcels were sealed by SI Rajni Kant. FSL Form was filled in and impression of the seal used was affixed on it. After use, this seal is stated to have been handed over to Ct. Shani Kumar. The case property was then dispatched from the spot to police station while rukka was sent from the police station through HC Bharat Singh. On the basis of the rukka, case was registered. On production of the sealed parcels and other items by HC Bharat Singh before Inspt. Manoj Tyagi, the parcels were sealed by the Inspector with his seal. The Inspector also affixed impression of his seal on FSL Form and after recording FIR Number on all these items, he deposited the SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 4 of 29 same with the MHC(M).
5. One of the sample parcels was sent to FSL. Its contents, when analyzed by the expert, were found to contain ''Diacetylmorphine', '6monoacetylmorphine', 'Acetyl codeine', 'Paracetamol', 'Phenobarbital' & 'Alprazolam'.
6. SI Satyavir Singh is the Investigating Officer who took over investigation after registration of the case and reached the spot. At the spot, he collected documents from SI Rajni Kant, arrested the accused and conducted his personal search vide respective memos. Reports U/s.57 of the Act are said to have been routed by the two Sub Inspectors through Inspector Akash Rawat to the ACP.
7. On completion of investigation at the spot, the Sub Inspectors reached PS Crime Branch and deposited personal search items of the accused. Thereafter, on reaching Narcotics Cell, Shakkar Pur, the SI produced accused before Inspector Akash Rawat. Ultimately, the accused was produced in court.
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 5 of 29 Custody of the accused was obtained by way of police remand, but source of supply could not be traced.
8. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court. Charge for an offence U/s.21 of the Act was framed. Accused pleaded 'not guilty'.
9. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined following witnesses : PW1 : HC Kishan Kumar To prove recording of FIR and DD entries no.12 & 14.
PW2 : HC Chand Ram The concerned MHC(M).
PW3 : HC Sanjay He deposited one sealed sample
parcel in FSL on 19.05.2014 after
having collected the same from
MHC(M).
PW4 : ASI Dinesh Kumar To prove record maintained at the
office of ACP, pertaining to this case.
PW5 : HC Bharat Singh The witness to arrest of accused and
recovery from him.
PW6 : Inspt. Akash Rawat To prove communication of secret SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 6 of 29 information to him by SI Rajni Kant and the secret informer and the other investigation conducted by him.
PW7 : Inspt. Manoj Tyagi To prove production of the three sealed parcels, FSL Form and copy of seizure memo before him on 16.05.2014 by HC Bharat Singh and sealing thereof with his seal MKT, recording of FIR on these items and depositing of case property with the MHC(M) on the same day.
PW8 : Ct. Shani Kumar The other witness to the arrest of accused and recovery from him.
PW9 : SI Rajni Kant He arrested the accused and made recovery of the contraband, on the basis of secret information, conducted investigation until SI Satyavir reached the spot.
PW10: SI Satyavir Singh He took over investigation after investigation of the case.
Statement of Accused
10. When examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 7 of 29 him regarding his arrest and recovery of contraband. The plea put forth by the accused reads as under:
"It is false. Officials of crime branch picked up me from near Karawal Nagar chowki, while I was traveling in an auto and coming from the side of Shabapur village towards Delhi.....
I was not apprised of any such legal right. They did not serve me any such notice. I was made to write something under pressure. Police obtained my signatures on about 20 papers.....
I was not carrying any polythene. Rather I was carrying 20 lehangas in a bag. Police official did not allow me to pick up my bag from the auto. Police officials also did videography at that place where I was detained for about half any hour. From that place, the police officials brought me to the office of crime branch, Shakkar Pur and then falsely implicated me in this case.....
I was arrested in the manner indicated above. I was having my mobile phone and Rs.2000/. Police seized the same.....
I was not produced before any Inspector. I do not SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 8 of 29 know about the remaining facts.....
I was carrying Rs.2000/, one concession certificate and a mobile phone, which were taken away by the police.....
No such item was recovered from my possession..... I have been falsely implicated. The auto driver was allowed to take away my lehangas worth Rs.75,000/. Those have not been returned to me so far."
11. Despite opportunity, accused opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
12. Arguments heard. File perused.
13. As noticed above, case of prosecution is that on 16.05.2014, PW9SI Rajni Kant of Narcotics Cell, Shakkar Pur, Delhi, was present at his office. At about 1.30 PM, one secret informer came there and communicated him secret information. According to PW9, the information was that one person, namely, Jane Alam, resident of Shahjahan Pur, U.P. who used to supply smack in Delhi and NCR, would come between 3 and 3.30 PM, SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 9 of 29 under the flyover leading to ISBT, on the Ring Road, near bus stand, I.P. University, to supply smack to someone and that he could be apprehended. He then produced the secret informer before Inspector Akash Rawat, who also enquired from the secret informer, satisfied himself and then informed ACP Zile Singh. The ACP, in turn, directed for constituting of a raiding party and necessary action. According to SI Rajni Kant he recorded DD No.15 Ex. PW9/A and placed it before Inspector Akash Rawat.
14. Learned Amicus Curiae has pointed out that in this case, secret informer was not produced before ACP, which creates doubt if any such secret information was received by the police.
15. According to PW6 Inspt. Akash Rawat, he was apprised of secret information by SI Rajni Kant at 1.45 PM and at that time, the SI was accompanied by the secret informer. He made enquiries from the informer, satisfied himself and then informed ACP Zile Singh, who in turn directed that raid be conducted and legal action be taken. In his crossexamination, SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 10 of 29 PW6 admitted that secret informer was not produced before ACP Zile Singh. Since PW6 himself satisfied about the secret information, nonproduction of the secret informer before the ACP does not adversely affect the case of prosecution.
Ex. PW9/A is copy of DD No.15 recorded by SI Rajni Kant, where the contents of the secret information received by the SI and the factum of production of the secret informer by him before Inspt. Akash Rawat stands recorded. Copy of this DD entry was also produced by the Sub Inspector before Inspt. Akash Rawat. According to the Inspector (PW6), he forwarded copy of DD No.15 to the ACP. That copy is Ex. PW4/A, which the Inspector has also proved. According to PW4, Ex. PW4/A was received at the office of ACP. PW4 has proved signatures of the ACP on this copy Ex. PW4/A. From the above evidence, court finds that this is a case where prosecution has proved compliance with provisions of Section 42 of the Act.
Police leaves for the spot
16. As stated by PW9SI Rajni Kant, he constituted a SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 11 of 29 raiding party consisting of Ct. Shani Kumar and HC Bharat Singh and that it was headed by him. He apprised the members of the raiding party about the secret information and departed vide DD No.16 Ex. PW9/B, along with the secret informer, riding WagonR car no. DL8CP3419.
On reaching the disclosed place, at about 3.40 PM, he asked HC Dharmender the driver to park the vehicle, at a short distance. As further stated by PW9, he tried to join five persons from the public, but they did not join. Thereafter, he and other members of the raiding party took positions.
Accused is apprehended & apprised of legal rights
17. According to SI Rajni Kant, it was at about 3.15 PM that the accused was seen coming from the side of bus stand. When he was at a distance of 1520 meters from the raiding party, the secret informer pointed out towards the accused, and then he went away. Standing near the pillar, beneath ISBT flyover, the accused started waiting for someone. He so waited for about 8/10 minutes and then started moving away. According to PW9, at that time, the accused was apprehended.
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 12 of 29 He was carrying a black colour polythene in his left hand.
SI Rajni Kant has also stated that he introduced himself and members of the raiding party to the accused and also about the secret information received against him. He was also apprised of his legal rights that some gazetted officer or Magistrate could be called to the spot for his search and search of the polythene in their presence. He was also apprised of the legal right that he could conduct search of the police officers and the vehicle, before being subjected to search, but he refused to do so.
SI (PW9) has further stated that he then served upon the accused a notice U/s.50 of the Act, which is Ex. PW5/A. The accused replied the notice, vide Ex. PW5/B. PW5 HC Bharat Singh and PW8 Ct. Shani, other members of the party, have supported the statement of PW9 SI Rajni Kanton the point of service of notice U/s.50 of the Act on the accused, at the spot. According to PW5, the SI apprised the accused of his legal rights that gazetted officer or Magistrate could be called at the spot and his search and search of the polythene could be conducted in their presence and also that he SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 13 of 29 could conduct search of the police officials and that of the vehicle, before his search was conducted. PW5 has proved his attestation on notice. PW8 has also deposed that accused was apprised of the aforesaid legal rights. He has also proved his attestation on the notice Ex. PW5/A. PW5 & PW8 have further supported the version of prosecution by stating that the accused refused to exercise his legal rights, vide reply Ex. PW5/B. Both of them have proved their attestation under the reply at Point A & B. From the material available on record, court finds that prosecution has proved compliance with provisions of Section 50 of the Act before the recovery from possession of the accused.
Recovery of contraband and drawing of samples
18. According to PW9 SI Rajni Kant, when he conducted search of the black colour polythene, which the accused was holding in his left hand, he found that it was containing Matiala colour powder. On testing the powder, on the field testing kit, he found that it was smack. Then, he weighed the recovered SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 14 of 29 smack and found that it was 500 grams. By way of two samples, each of 5 grams, he separated from the lot, turned the same into two separate cloth parcels and assigned them Mark A1 & A2. The remaining smack was kept in the recovered transparent polythene, then placed in the recovered black colour polythene and turned into a cloth parcel which was given Mark A. Further, according to PW9 SI Rajni Kant, he affixed his seal bearing impression "5APS NB DELHI" on all the three parcels, filled in FSL form, affixed impression of his seal on FSL Form and handed over the seal, after use, to Ct. Shani Kumar. He also stated to have seized the case property, vide memo Ex. PW5/C. PW5 HC Bharat Singh, member of the party, has also stated about recovery of a black colour polythene which the accused was holding in his left hand. Further, according to him, from the black colour polythene, one transparent polythene containing Matiala colour powder was recovered. IO checked the powder on field testing kit and it came out to be smack.
To same effect is statement of PW8 Ct. Shani Kumar, the other member of the party.
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 15 of 29 Both PW5 & PW8 have supported the statement of PW9 SI Rajni Kant by deposing that the Sub Inspector weighed the total smack and found that it was 500 grams and that the Sub Inspector took out of the lot, two samples, each of 5 grams, turned the same into two parcels which were given Mark A1 & A2 whereas the remaining smack contained in the transparent polythene, was turned into a separate cloth parcel, after the same was kept in the recovered black colour polythene, and was given Mark A. Further, according to them, the IO affixed his seal bearing impression 5APS NB DELHI on all the three parcels. SI Rajni Kant prepared FSL Form and affixed his aforesaid seal on it. Further, according to PW5 HC Bharat Singh, the IO handed over the seal after use to Ct. Shani. PW8 has supported this version by clearly stating that after use, the IO handed over the seal to him.
PW5 & PW8 have further supported the prosecution version by stating that the case property was seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW5/C. Both of them have proved their attestation on the seizure memo.
Ex. PW5/C would reveal that it bears signatures of SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 16 of 29 both these witnesses as attesting witnesses to this memo. In this memo, the entire process adopted by the Sub Inspector at the spot regarding testing of the contents of the polythene on field testing kit, weighing the quantity of the total substance, the process in which the sample parcels and the third parcel, containing the residue, were prepared, stands recorded. It also stands recorded in it that all the three parcels were sealed by the Sub Inspector with his aforesaid seal and impression of the said seal was affixed on FSL form filled in by the IO then and there and also that after use the seal was handed over by the Sub Inspector to Ct. Shani Kumar.
Registration of case and dispatch of sealed parcels from the spot
19. PW9 SI Rajni Kant has stated that he prepared rukka and handed over the same to HC Bharat Singh with direction that he shall produce the same before duty officer. He also handed over to the HC, above referred to three sealed parcels, FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo, with the direction to produce the same before the SHO. HC Bharat Singh then left the SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 17 of 29 spot with all these items.
PW5 HC Bharat Singh has supported the prosecution version by stating that SI Rajni Kant prepared a rukka and handed over the same to him with directions that he shall deliver the same to the duty officer. The Sub Inspector also handed over to him, the aforesaid three sealed parcels, FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo, while directing that he shall deliver the same to the SHO. According to PW5, he then left the spot at about 7.15 PM by the aforesaid WagonR car, driven by HC Dharmender. On reaching the PS Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar, he handed over the original rukka to the duty officer, whereas the three sealed parcels, FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo were delivered by him to Inspt. Manoj Kumar.
PW8 Ct. Shani Kumar has deposed in line with the statement of PW5 HC Bharat Singh as to the handing over of rukka and other items by the Sub Inspector to PW5 at the spot and also about the departure of PW5 from the spot, at about 7.15 PM, by the aforesaid WagonR car, driven by HC Dharmender.
Case of prosecution as per statement of PW1 is that SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 18 of 29 on the same night at about 8.15 pm, HC Bharat Singh, on reaching PS Crime Branch, produced before him rukka and on its basis, PW1 got recorded FIR, Ex. PW1/A. According to PW1, he appended his endorsement Ex. PW1/B to the original rukka and handed over copy of FIR and the original rukka to HC Bharat Singh. DD No.12 and 14 were also recorded by PW1.
Case of prosecution is that on 16.05.2014, after delivery of rukka to PW1 HC Krishan Kumar, HC Bharat Singh had gone to PW7 Inspt. Manoj Tyagi and produced before him three sealed parcels, FSL form and carbon copy of seizure memo. PW7 has supported this part and further stated to have found that the parcels were lying duly sealed. He affixed his seal bearing impression 'MKT' on all the parcels and also affixed his seal on FSL form. He also recorded FIR number on all these items and then deposited the same with the MHC(M) vide Ex. PW2/A. It is significant to note that when HC Bharat Singh came to the office of PW7 and delivered him three sealed parcels with carbon copy of seizure memo and FSL Form, PW7 found that these three parcels were bearing Mark A, A1 & A2 and also SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 19 of 29 bearing the seal of 5APS NB DELHI. He also found specimen of the said seal lying affixed on FSL Form produced before him. According to PW7, while writing FIR number of this case on the parcels etc., he had put his signatures on all the sealed parcels, carbon copy of seizure memo and FSL Form. This was the second stage, after the case property was sealed at the spot, that steps were taken for proper preservation of the case property.
Further, according to PW7, the Inspector, he called MHC(M) with register no.19 and deposited with him the aforesaid sealed parcels and documents, and also signed in the said register. He has testified that till the case property remained with him, it was not tampered or allowed to be tampered with. In his crossexamination, he stated that the aforesaid items were produced before him by HC Bharat Singh on 16.05.2014 at about 8.20 PM while he was present at his office.
To rule out possibility of tampering with the case property, prosecution also examined PW2 HC Chand Ram, the concerned MHC(M) posted at PS Crime Branch. According to him, on 16.05.2014, at about 9.30 PM, Inspt. Manoj Kumar SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 20 of 29 Tyagi called him with register no.19 and handed over to him three sealed parcels Mark A, A1 & A2, with FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo. The Inspector deposited all these items with him vide entry at sl.no.2029 in register no.19. Copy of the relevant page of register no.19 is Ex. PW2/A. According to PW2, the Inspector also put his signatures in the relevant column of register no.19.
It is in the crossexamination of PW2 that at the time the sealed parcels were deposited with him, he had checked the seals. These parcels and FSL form were having the seals of 5APS NB DELHI and MKT, as stated by him in chief examination, which again lends corroboration to the prosecution version.
Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in this case prosecution has relied on statements of police officials and that since no witness from the public was joined despite opportunity, no reliance should be placed on the statement of police officials who are interested in the success of their case.
As noticed above, according to PW9 SI Rajni Kant, he departed from Narcotics Cell, Shakar Pur at about 3.30 PM and reached the spot at about 3.40 PM. The police party remained at SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 21 of 29 the spot upto 1.50 AM. According to PW9, after having come out of his office, so as to reach the spot, he had asked four public persons; had asked five public persons at Shanti Van Crossing and five public persons on reaching the bus stand I.P. University, to join the party, narrating them the facts/secret information, but they did not join. In his crossexamination, he admitted that Narcotics Cell is situated in a thickly populated area where shops and houses are also situated. He admitted that he did not call any person from those houses or shops. He could not recall names or addresses of the persons who did not join the party, although they were asked to do so. No notice was issued by him to those persons, who opted not to join the party. He also admitted in his crossexamination that no person from the public was called at the spot where contraband was weighed. PW5 HC Bharat Singh has also stated in his crossexamination that the IO did not note down the names and addresses of the persons from the public who were asked to join the party, after the party came out of their office, the party reached after crossing Shanti Van and on reaching the bus stand of I.P. University. He also admitted that no notice was issued to those public persons.
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 22 of 29 Buses and trucks were playing on the road, near the University bus stand. According to PW5, there is no residential colony near the spot. Some persons from the public, according to PW5, present at the bus stop were asked by the IO to join the party but they did not join and no notice was issued by the IO to those persons.
From the aforesaid statements of the witnesses, it appears that there was opportunity with the investigating officer to associate persons from the public, but this is a case of no corroboration from independent source. It is well settled that statements of police officials cannot be rejected outrightly simply because they are police officials. They are as good witnesses as others. Court has gone through the statements of the material witnesses PW5, PW8 & PW9 and found that they are consistent on all material aspects of the case. Learned Amicus Curiae has not pointed any contradiction in the statement of the police officials. Therefore, simply because no independent witness was joined in the party, statements of all these witnesses cannot be rejected outrightly.
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 23 of 29 Defence Plea
20. Accused has come up with the plea that on the given date, he was traveling in an auto rickshaw when picked up by officials of Crime Branch from near Karawal Nagar Chowk, while he was coming from the side of Shabapur village towards Delhi. According to the accused, he was carrying 20 lehangas worth Rs.75000/ in a bag and the police officials did not allow him to pick up his bag from the auto.
It may be mentioned here that despite opportunity accused has not led any defence evidence. In the course of arguments, court enquired as to from where the accused was bringing those 20 lehangas. Learned Amicus Curiae, after having talked to the accused, submitted that the shopkeeper from whom he had bought the lehangas refused to attend the court. The fact remains that accused has neither examined any witness in proof of the fact that he bought any lehanga on the said date nor produced any invoice in proof thereof. At the time his personal search was conducted, he was not found in possession of any such invoice. The articles recovered on his personal search were specifically mentioned in the search memo.
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 24 of 29 It is not believable that police officials would have allowed any such auto rickshaw driver to leave with lehangas belonging to the accused.
It may be mentioned here that when PW5 HC Bharat Singh was crossexamined, learned Amicus Curiae suggested the witness that the accused was picked up from his residence on 15.05.2014. No suggestion was put to PW5 that he was apprehended while traveling in TSR in the area of Karawal Nagar. This suggestion came to be put for the first time to PW8 Ct. Shani Kumar. There is no explanation as to why this defence version was not put to PW5 in his crossexamination.
From the above discussion, court finds that accused has failed to prove the defence plea put forth by him.
Investigating Officer reaches the spot
21. PW10 SI Satyavir Singh is the 2nd Investigating Officer, who took over investigation after registration of the case under orders of Inspt. Akash Rawat. According to PW10, he departed from the Narcotics Cell vide DD No.26 Ex. PW10/A, taking along HC Dharmender and reached the spot, at about SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 25 of 29 11.10 PM, where they found SI Rajni Kant and Ct. Shani with the accused.
SI Satyavir Singh collected documents prepared by SI Rajni Kant. He also prepared rough site plan Ex. PW9/C, arrested the accused vide memo Ex. PW8/A and seized, on his personal search, copy of notice, Rs.750/ and a certificate, vide memo Ex. PW8/B. Thereafter, they left the spot.
According to SI Satyavir Singh on reaching PS Crime Branch, he deposited with the MHC(M) personal search items of the accused. From there, they reached Narcotics Cell, Shakkar Pur, where they produced the accused before Inspt. Akash Rawat.
PW6 Inspt. Akash Rawat has deposed about arrival of ASI Satyavir Singh accompanied by Jane Alam, accused, at his office on 17.05.2014 at about 4.25 AM. According to PW6, he made enquiries from the accused. The witness correctly identified the accused present in the court.
PW2 HC Chand Ram has supported the case of prosecution about deposit of personal search items of accused by SI Satyavir Singh.
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 26 of 29 Dispatch of sample parcels to FSL
22. PW2MHC(M) has deposed about dispatch of one sample parcel Mark A1 and FSL Form/forwarding letter to the FSL on 19.05.2014, through HC Sanjay Kumar vide RC No.160/21/14. Contents of Road Certificate Ex. PW2/C support this testimony of PW2. Even the entries recorded in register no.19 in this regard support his testimony. The witness was not subjected to any crossexamination on this point. Statement of PW2 finds corroboration from the statement of PW3 HC Sanjay.
According to PW3, on 19.05.2014 he collected one sealed parcel, FSL Form and other documents from MHC(M) Crime Branch and deposited the same at FSL Rohini on the same day i.e. 19.05.2014, and on return produced acknowledgment before the MHC(M). He has also testified that the sample parcel was not tampered with till it remained in his custody. Statement of PW3 has gone unchallenged for want of crossexamination.
On 12.06.2014, result was received from FSL alongwith one sealed parcel. As per report Ex. PX received from FSL the contents of sample analyzed and these were found to SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 27 of 29 contain 'Diacetylmorphine', '6monoacetylmorphine', 'Acetyl codeine', Paracetamol, Phenobarbital' & Alprazolam'.
Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that in this case prosecution has failed to rule out possibility of tampering with the case property as PW8 Ct. Shani Kumar displayed ignorance in his crossexamination as to when he had returned the seal to the investigating officer.
It is true that PW8 could not remember, during his crossexamination, as to when he had returned the seal to SI Rajni Kant, but PW9 SI Rajni Kant clearly stated that the seal was returned by the Constable to him after 45 days. Recovery of contraband was made on 16.05.2014 and the sample parcel and FSL form were sent to FSL on 19.05.2014 through HC Sanjay Kumar. HC Sanjay Kumar collected the sample parcel and FSL Form from the MHC(M0. Had same been collected from the MHC(M) by Ct. Shani Kumar or by SI Rajni Kant, then the matter would have been otherwise. HC Sanjay Kumar has clearly stated that he did not allow anyone to tamper with the sample parcel and the FSL Form till the same remained in his possession and in this regard his testimony gone unchallenged SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 28 of 29 for want of crossexamination. Similarly, PW2 HC Chand Ram has testified that case property was not tampered with during the period the same remained in his custody. FSL report Ex. PX reveals that the sample parcel and the FSL Form were deposited at FSL on 19.05.2014 by HC Sanjay Kumar and at that time seals were found intact and tallied as per forwarding authority specimen seals i.e. 5 APS NB DELHI & MKT. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention raised by learned Amicus Curiae that there was possibility of tampering with the case property.
Compliance with provision of Section 57
23. Case of prosecution is that two reports Ex PW4/C and Ex PW4/D, one from SI Rajni Kant and other from SI Satyavir Singh, and forwarded by Inspector Akash Rawat, were received in the office of ACP vide diary No. 1130 and 1131 respectively. PW 4 has proved to have put up these reports before ACP Zile Singh, who in turn, went through there contents and signed at points A. Entries collectively exhibited as Ex PW4/E support this version of PW4. This shows compliance with provisions of Section 57 of the Act.
SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016 29 of 29 Conclusion
24. In view of the above discussion, when statements of PW5, PW8 & PW9 are consistent on all material aspects and prosecution has ruled out possibility of tampering with case property including the sample parcels, and in view of the report of the expert of FSL, court finds that charge for the offence U/s.21(c) of Narcotics Drugs Psychotropic Substance Act stands established against the accused, as the accused kept in his possession 500 grams of heroin. I, thus, hold him guilty of the offence U/s.21(c) of the Act and convict him thereunder.
Let the convict be heard on the point of sentence tomorrow.
Announced in the open Court on this 16th day of August, 2016.
(NARINDER KUMAR) SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS - 02 (CENTRAL) TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI SC No.27353/2016 State v. Jane Alam Dated: 16.08.2016