Delhi District Court
State vs Nasruddin And Others on 22 January, 2026
DLSH010048572019 Page 1 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR. FIR No. 112/2019 (Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), SHAHDARA, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR. FIR No. 112/2019 (Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act In the matter of :- State ...(through Ld. Addl. PP) Vs. (1) Nasruddin, S/o Sh. Wanhid, R/o Village Dewni, P.S. & Tehsil Dataganj, District Badaun, U.P. (2) Riasat, S/o Sh. Mahendra, R/o Village Dewni, P.S. & Tehsil Dataganj, District Badaun, U.P. ...accused persons (represented through Sh. C.S. Tyagi, Advocate) Date of institution : 26.07.2019 Date when Judgment reserved : 16.01.2026 Date of Judgment : 22.01.2026 Final Decision : Acquitted DLSH010048572019 Page 2 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR. FIR No. 112/2019 (Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act JUDGMENT
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
1. Brief facts of the present case as per charge-sheet are that in the intervening night of 26/27.05.2019 SI Sohanpal alongwith Ct. Jitender were checking vehicles at Karkari Mor, Nala Road while barricading the road. At about 5:00 am one TSR No. DL1R-Q-8295 came from the side of Karkari Mor, which was signaled to stop by SI Sohanpal. Three persons were sitting on the back seat of TSR. All three of them were having bags in their lap and on interrogation, they disclosed their names as Nasruddin, Riasat and Sunil. On being asked by the police party regarding the contents of the bags, no satisfactory reply was received from the accused persons. All three bags were checked after opening them and they were found containing doda post (Poppy straw). SI Sohanpal sat in the TSR with all three persons for taking them to the Police Station as there was no arrangement of writing/ preparing any document. SI Sohanpal also directed Ct. Jitender to follow them. When TSR was at some distance from the Police Station then due to the garbage in the drain on the road TSR slow down, then one of three persons namely Sunil fled away and jumped in the nala, on that Ct. Jitendra made 100 number call and ASI Anoop & PCR car, fire brigade, gotakhor came at the spot. Sunil could not be traced, despite efforts. Thereafter, Ct. Vinod came at the spot who made inquiry from accused persons namely Nasruddin and Riasat who were present at the spot. Notice U/s 50 NDPS Act was served. All the three recovered bags were checked, green bag was containing doda post (Poppy straw) which was in the possession of Sunil DLSH010048572019 Page 3 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act was found to be 5.900 Kgs on weighing; purple bag containing doda post (Poppy straw) recovered from accused Nasruddin was found to be 4.510 Kgs on weighing and grey bag containing doda post (Poppy straw) recovered from accused Riasat was found to be 4.700 Kgs on weighing. The recovered contraband was seized, samples were taken and pullandas were prepared. During that period, SHO came at the spot who informed about the situation to senior officers. The samples were sealed, FSL form was filled at the spot. On the basis of which, the present FIR was registered U/s 15/25/29 NDPS Act. Accused persons were arrested. The samples were sent to FSL for examination and the FSL report dated 13.09.2019 has been received confirming the substance as 'Poppy straw'.
INVESTIGATION & OTHER PROCEEDINGS
2. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against accused persons namely Nasruddin and Riasat U/s 15/25/29 NDPS Act.
CHARGE
3. Vide order on charge dated 24.02.2021, separate charges U/s 15(b) NDPS Act were framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. To substantiate the aforementioned charge, the prosecution presented 13 witnesses. The details of these witnesses, alongwith the documents they presented during their testimonies, are listed below in tabular form:
DLSH010048572019 Page 4 of 46 SC No. 349/2019STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019 (Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act PW number Brief role of Documents Description and name of witness exhibited witness PW-1 On patrolling Ex. PW-1/A Seizure memo of all the pullandas and retired SI duty and one of remaining contraband Sohan Pal the recovery Ex. PW-1/B Seizure memo of TSR witness. Ex. PW-1/C His statement recorded by IO S.B. Saran Ex. PW-1/D Arrest memos of accused persons. and Ex. PW- 1/E
Ex. PW-1/F Personal search memos of accused persons. and Ex. PW-
1/G Ex. PW-1/H Disclosure statements of accused persons. and Ex. PW-
1/I Ex. P-1, Ex. P- Samples taken out from the recovered 2 & Ex. P-3. poppy straw/ contraband and sent to FSL.
Ex. PW-1/J Original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act addressed to accused Riasat.
Ex. PW-1/DA DD No. 13B PW-2 HC On patrolling Ex. P-4, Ex. P- All three bags containing poppy straw/ Jitender duty and one of 5 & Ex. P-6. contraband recovered from the possession Tomar the recovery of accused persons including Sunil.
witness.
PW-3 ASI Duty Officer Ex. PW-3/A Copy of FIR
Manoj Bhati from 8:00 am to Ex. PW-3/B Endorsement on the rukka
4:00 pm on
27.05.2019. Ex. PW-3/C Certificate U/s 65-B of Indian Evidence Act
PW-4 SI Duty Officer Ex. PW-4/A Copy of DD No.7 entered in CCTNS qua
Bhagat from 12:00 information received from PCR that one
Singh midnight to 8:00 person has jumped in the nala near P.S.
am on Jagat Puri.
DLSH010048572019 Page 5 of 46
SC No. 349/2019
STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019
(Jagat Puri)
U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
27.05.2019.
PW-5 SHO, P.S. Jagat
Inspector Puri who
Sunil Kumar reached the
spot, counter
sealed the
sealed parcels
and FSL from
after confirming
FIR number
from the Duty
Officer. He left
the spot,
reached the
Police Station
and deposited
the case
properties and
documents with
MHC(M).
PW-6 Sh. Owner of TSR Ex. PW-6/A Farad panchnama pehchan malmukdama
Bateshwar bearing no. DL executed at the time of release of TSR to
Kumar 1RQ 8295 him.
Ex. P-4 TSR
PW-7 ASI MHC(M), P.S. Ex. PW-7/A Entry no. 1225 in register no.19 regarding
Kamaljeet Jagat Puri. deposit of six sealed parcels, FSL Form and
copy of seizure memo.
Ex. PW-7/B RC Number 73/21/19.
(OSR)
Ex. PW-7/C Copy of acknowledgment of FSL.
PW-8 ASI On receiving
Anoop DD No. 7A, he
Kumar reached the
spot.
PW-9 Ct. On the
(now HC) directions of IO,
Hakikat he obtained
three sealed
DLSH010048572019 Page 6 of 46
SC No. 349/2019
STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019
(Jagat Puri)
U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
parcels Marks
A1, A2 and A3
and FSL form
from MHC(M)
vide RC No.
73/21/19;
deposited the
parcels at FSL,
Rohini, Delhi
and deposited
the receipt of
FSL with
MHC(M).
PW-10 Ct. On receipt of
(now HC) DD No. 13B, he
Vinod alongwith SI
S.B. Saran
reached the
spot. IO
prepared the
rukka and
handed over to
him for
registration of
FIR. He went to
Police Station,
got registered
the FIR and
handed over
copy of FIR and
original rukka to
SI S.B. Saran.
PW-11 Dr. Expert witness Ex. PW-11/A Her detailed report dated 27.06.2019 Kavita from FSL (running into Goyal, two pages) Assistant Director (Chemistry) PW-12 SI 2nd IO of the Avaneesh case. He tried to DLSH010048572019 Page 7 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019 (Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act Kumar search associate of accused persons who fled away from the spot, but in vain. He prepared charge-sheet, submitted before the Court. After obtaining FSL result, he filed supplementary charge-sheet. PW-13 SI 1st IO of the Ex. PW-13/A Carbon copy of notice U/s 50 NDPS Act Shyam case. On issued to accused Riasat. Bihari receiving DD Ex. PW-13/B Carbon copy of notice U/s 50 NDPS Act Sharan No.13B he issued to accused Nasruddin. reached the spot, he checked Ex. PW-13/C Rukka all the three Ex. PW-13/D Site plan bags, inquired the accused persons, apprised them about their legal rights, prepared and served notices U/s 50 NDPS Act upon accused persons, marked the recovered bags, weighed the recovered contraband, drawn sample, sealed and seized the case property, filled DLSH010048572019 Page 8 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR. FIR No. 112/2019 (Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act the FSL form, seized TSR, prepared rukka, prepared site plan, arrested both the accused persons, conducted their personal search and recorded their disclosure statements.
After examining the depositions of the witnesses mentioned in the table above, it is found that they gave evidence about the undermentioned facts for the prosecution:-
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
5. In order to prove the aforesaid charges, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses.
6. PW-1 Retired SI Sohan Pal deposed that in the intervening night of 26-27.05.2019, he was posted as SI at P.S. Jagat Puri. On that day, he alongwith Ct. Jitender was on patrolling duty in the area of P.S. Jagat Puri. They were checking the vehicle at Nala Road, near Karkari Mor, Jagat Puri. At about 5:00 am, they saw that one TSR bearing no. DL 1RQ 8295 was coming from the side of Karkari Mor and going towards Nala Road. They gave signal to stop the said auto. The said auto was stopped. Three persons were traveling on the said auto. All were carrying three bags respectively. This witness checked all three bags.
DLSH010048572019 Page 9 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act The bag which was recovered from accused Riasat was containing doda poss (doda post) (Poppy straw). This witness also checked the bag which was recovered from the accused Nasruddin which was containing doda poss (doda post) (Poppy straw). The third person managed to run away from the spot by throwing the bag at the spot. Ct. Jitender made a call at 100 number. TCR (PCR) Van reached there. This witness alongwith the help of officials of PCR Van tried to search the third accused in the nearby area, but he could not be traced. ASI Anoop also reached the spot and he also searched the third accused, but he could not be found. This witness gave the information to the Duty Officer regarding the recovery of the above-mentioned contraband. After sometime SI S.B. Saran alongwith Ct. Vinod reached the spot and this witness handed over both the accused persons and the recovered three bags to SI S.B. Saran. SI S.B. Saran checked all the three bags and inquired from both the accused persons.
Thereafter, SI S.B. Saran apprised accused persons about their legal rights by saying that they can get themselves searched as well as search the raiding team in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate, however accused persons refused to get themselves searched in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate as well as to search the raiding team in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate. SI S.B. Saran gave the notice U/s 50 NDPS Act to both the accused persons and the carbon copies of the same are Mark 'X' and Mark 'Y'.
It is stated by him that IO SI S.B. Saran asked many public persons to join the investigation, but none agreed to join the investigation. IO SI S.B. DLSH010048572019 Page 10 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act Saran marked the said bags as 1, 2 and 3. IO SI S.B. Saran weighed the bag which was recovered from the possession of accused Riasat and it was found 4 kilo 700 grams of poppy straw. IO SI S.B. Saran weighed the bag which was recovered from the possession of accused Nasruddin and it was found 4 kilo 510 grams of poppy straw. The weight of third bag was 5 kilo 900 grams. IO SI S.B. Saran took one sample of 500 grams each from the three bags. IO prepared the said pullandas as samples by putting it into white cloth and sealed the same with the seal of SBS. The same were marked as 1A, 2A and 3A. The remaining contraband was also sealed with the seal of SBS. The seizure memo of all the pullandas and remaining contraband is Ex. PW-1/A. FSL form was also filled by the IO. SHO Inspector Sunil Kumar also came at the spot. He also satisfied himself regarding the proceedings. SI S.B. Singh handed over the above- mentioned recovered case property, seizure memo, FSL form to IO (may be he wants to say SHO) and he put his seal on all the pullandas and FSL with the seal of SK. IO also seized the above-mentioned TSR vide seizure memo Ex. PW- 1/B. IO S.B. Saran had recorded statement of this witness which is Ex. PW-1/C. It is stated by him that IO prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Vinod. He went to Police Station. Thereafter, this witness alongwith IO SI S.B. Saran and accused persons alongwith case property came to the Police Station. IO arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/E. He was also conducted the personal search of both the accused persons vide memos Ex. PW-1/F and Ex. PW-1/G. During the personal search of accused Riasat, original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act, one bus ticket from Bareilly to Delhi, one mobile phone and 102/- rupees were recovered from him.
DLSH010048572019 Page 11 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act During the personal search of accused Nasruddin, original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act, one bus ticket from Bareilly to Delhi, one mobile phone, one wrist watch and 100/- rupees were recovered from him. IO prepared the site plan at the instance of this witness.
It is stated by him that IO recorded the disclosure statement of both the accused persons which are Ex. PW-1/H and Ex. PW-1/I. IO recorded statement of this witness.
This witness correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court.
MHC(M) produced one yellow colour envelope Mark 1A bearing the seal of FSL KG DELHI bearing case particulars. Same was opened and found one cloth pullanda containing one transparent polythene in which the contraband i.e. poppy straw was shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same as the contraband i.e. poppy straw and stated that he took a sample from the recovered case property from the person who had run away from the spot. The same is Ex. P-1.
MHC(M) produced one yellow colour envelope Mark 2A bearing the seal of FSL KG DELHI bearing case particulars. Same was opened and found one cloth pullanda containing one transparent polythene in which the contraband i.e. poppy straw was shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same as the contraband i.e. poppy straw and stated that he took a sample from the recovered case property from accused Riasat. The same is Ex. P-2.
MHC(M) produced one yellow colour envelope Mark 3A bearing DLSH010048572019 Page 12 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act the seal of FSL KG DELHI bearing case particulars. Same was opened and found one cloth pullanda containing one transparent polythene in which the contraband i.e. poppy straw was shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same as the contraband i.e. poppy straw and stated that he took a sample from the recovered case property from accused Nasruddin. The same is Ex. P-3.
MHC(M) has produced one original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act which was given to accused Riasat. The same is Ex. PW-1/J. During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, he could not tell the DD number whereby he was on patrolling duty on the day of the incident. It is admitted by him that no DD entry/ duty roaster regarding patrolling is placed on record, though it is admitted by him that duty roaster/ register is maintained in every Police Station regarding their duty hours. It is stated by him that he apprehended the accused at about 4:30 am. He could not tell whether IO had seized the key and its documents when the TSR was seized. It is stated by him that IO started writing the rukka at about 2:15 pm. He could not tell from where IO arranged the weighing machine. It is admitted by him that the place of occurrence is a public place and large number of public persons were passing through at the time of incident.
7. PW-2 HC Jitender Tomar deposed that in the intervening night of 26-27.05.2019, he was posted as Constable at P.S. Jagat Puri.
He deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW-1 retired SI Sohan Pal.
DLSH010048572019 Page 13 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act The case property i.e. samples are already Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-3. MHC(M) has produced one green colour bag having serial no.1 bearing the case particulars and sealed with the seal of SBS. The seals were duly intact. The seals were broken. Same was opened with the permission of the Court. The said bag contains the recovered contraband i.e. doda post. The same was shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same and stated that it was the same contraband which was recovered from the possession of accused persons. The case property with bag is Ex. P-4.
MHC(M) has produced one grey colour bag having serial no.2 bearing the case particulars and sealed with the seal of SBS. The seals were duly intact. The seals were broken. Same was opened with the permission of the Court. The said bag contains the recovered contraband i.e. doda post. The same was shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same and stated it was the same contraband which was recovered from the possession of accused persons. The case property with bag is Ex. P-5.
MHC(M) has produced one purple colour bag having serial no.3 bearing the case particulars and sealed with the seal of SBS. The seals were duly intact. The seals were broken. Same was opened with the permission of the Court. The said bag contains the recovered contraband i.e. doda post. The same was shown to the witness. Witness correctly identified the same and stated it was the same contraband which was recovered from the possession of accused persons. The case property with bag is Ex. P-6.
During further examination-in-chief of this witness on 24.03.2025, MHC(M) of P.S. Jagat Puri W/HC Neetu Rana was present alongwith registers DLSH010048572019 Page 14 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act no.19 and 21 and she submits that the original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act issued to accused Nasruddin is not available at the maalkhana.
The then MHC(M) who received the personal search articles of accused persons at the maalkhana ASI Kamaljeet was also present and examined as PW-7. He submits that on 16.09.2019, by the orders of the Court, the personal search articles of accused Nasruddin were handed over to him. Inadvertently, while releasing the personal search articles, he (ASI Kamaljeet) also released original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act to the accused).
This witness was thoroughly cross-examined on behalf of accused persons.
8. PW-3 ASI Manoj Bhati deposed that on 27.05.2019, he was posted at P.S. Jagat Puri as HC and was working as Duty Officer from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm. At about 3:38 pm Ct. Vinod brought the rukka sent by SI S.B. Sharan, contents of which were dictated by this witness to the Computer Operator and the FIR was registered vide FIR No. 112/2019 and computerized copy of FIR was obtained. SHO of P.S. Jagat Puri confirmed the FIR number from this witness. This witness had handed over the copy of FIR and the original rukka to Ct. Vinod to hand over the same to SI S.B. Sharan as investigation was marked to him. The copy of FIR is Ex. PW-3/A (OSR). This witness had made endorsement on the rukka and the same is Ex. PW-3/B. In this regard the certificate U/s 65B of the Evidence Act is Ex. PW-3/C.
9. PW-4 SI Bhagat Singh deposed that on 27.05.2019, he was posted DLSH010048572019 Page 15 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act at P.S. Jagat Puri as ASI and was working as Duty Officer from 12:00 midnight to 8:00 am. At about 5:19 am an information was received from PCR that one person has jumped in the nala near P.S. Jagat Puri. This witness entered the said information vide DD No. 7 in CCTNS, copy of which is Ex. PW-4/A. The DD was marked to ASI Anoop.
It is stated by him that at about 8:55 am, an information was received from ASI Sohan Pal that three persons have been apprehended alongwith doda post in a TSR and one of them jumped in the drain and escaped from the spot. This witness informed SHO of Police Station regarding the same who directed SI S.B. Sharan for further action. This witness registered DD No. 13B already Ex. PW-1/DA (OSR) and the copy of the same was handed over to SI S.B. Sharan.
10. PW-5 Inspector Sunil Kumar deposed that on 27.05.2019 he was posted at P.S. Jagat Puri as SHO. On that day on receiving information regarding apprehension of two persons by their staff alongwith contraband at nala road, Karkari Mor, Jagat Puri, Delhi, he directed SI S.B. Saran to conduct the appropriate proceedings after reaching the spot. This witness also reached on the nala road at some distance from P.S. Jagat Puri where accused Nasruddin and Riasat were present in the custody of SI S.B. Saran. SI Sohan Pal, ASI Anoop, Ct. Vinod and Ct. Jitender were also present at the spot. One TSR bearing no. DL 1RQ 8295 was also stationed at the spot. Driver of TSR was also present there. SI S.B. Saran handed over six sealed parcels Marks 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 3 and 3A which were already sealed with the seal of SBS, FSL form and DLSH010048572019 Page 16 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act copy of seizure memo to this witness. This witness confirmed the FIR number from the Duty Officer from the spot. This witness counter-sealed the parcels and FSL form with his seal of SK. Thereafter, this witness left the spot, reached Police Station and deposited the case properties with MHC(M) and documents. MHC(M) made entry in register no.19 on dictation of this witness. This witness could not sign upon the relevant entry in register no.19 since at that time he sustained injuries on his right palm. He correctly identified accused persons namely Nasruddin and Riasat in the Court.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is admitted by him that no report U/s 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest or seizure of the contraband was placed before him by the IO and was not therefore forwarded by him to the senior officers. It is stated by him that he had not lodged any DD entry regarding the proceedings conducted by him U/s 55 NDPS Act.
11. PW-6 Sh. Bateshwar Kumar deposed that he is the owner of TSR bearing no. DL 1RQ 8295. In the month of May 2019, he went to attend some marriage at his native place and he has given the aforesaid TSR to one of his known namely Dharmender for plying the same. Later on, this witness came to know that his TSR was seized by the police. He obtained his TSR on superdari from P.S. Jagat Puri by the orders of the Court by executing superdarinama. The farad panchnama pehchan malmukdama executed at the time of release of TSR to him which is Ex. PW-6/A bearing his signature at Point-A. He has brought his aforementioned TSR which was parked in the DLSH010048572019 Page 17 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act Court parking. The TSR is Ex. P-4.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is stated by him that no written agreement was executed by him and Dharmender when he handed over his aforementioned TSR to ply.
12. PW-7 ASI Kamaljeet deposed that on 27.05.2019, he was working as MHC(M) at P.S. Jagat Puri. On that day Inspector Sunil Kumar deposited six sealed parcels, FSL form and copy of seizure memo before this witness at the maalkhana on which the SHO has already put the FIR number and his signatures. The pullandas were already sealed with the seals of SBS and SK. This witness made entry in register no.19 at serial no.1225. Copy of the same is Ex. PW-7/A (OSR). On the same day, SI S.B. Saran also deposited one TSR alongwith copy of seizure memo. This witness made entry regarding the same in register no.19 already Ex. PW-7/A. The said TSR was later on released on superdari. On the same day, SI S.B. Saran also deposited the personal search articles of the accused persons namely Riasat and Nasruddin in the maalkhana. This witness made entry in register no.19 which is already Ex. PW-7/A. It is stated by him that on 27.06.2019, on the directions of IO, this witness handed over three sealed parcels Marks A1, A2 and A3 to Ct. Hakikat to be deposited at FSL vide RC No. 73/21/19. After depositing the same, Ct. Hakikat came back and handed over acknowledgment of FSL to this witness. The copy of RC No. 73/21/19 is Ex. PW-7/B (OSR) and copy of acknowledgment of FSL is Ex. PW-7/C. It is stated by him that till the time the case property was in his DLSH010048572019 Page 18 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act possession, it has not been tampered with.
It is stated by him that on 16.09.2019, by the orders of the Court, the personal search articles of accused Nasruddin were handed over to him. Inadvertently while releasing the personal search articles, this witness also released original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act to the accused.
13. PW-8 ASI Anoop Kumar deposed that on 27.05.2019, he was posted as ASI at P.S. Jagat Puri. On that day on receiving DD No.7A at about 5:20 am, he reached at Nala Road, near P.S. Jagat Puri where SI Sohan Pal, Ct. Jitender and both the accused persons namely Nasruddin and Riasat (correctly identified by this witness in the Court) met him. One TSR alongwith TSR driver was also present at the spot. Upon inquiry, SI Sohan Pal told this witness that while he was bringing both the accused persons alongwith their associate to the Police Station in TSR, since they were found in possession of contraband, associate of accused persons namely Sunil jumped out of the TSR and jumped in the nala. PCR Van, fire brigade vehicle and divers also arrived and they tried to search for the said Sunil in the nala, but in vain.
It is stated by him that SI Sohan gave the information to the Duty Officer regarding the recovery of the above-mentioned contraband. After sometime SI S.B. Saran alongwith Ct. Vinod reached the spot. SI Sohan handed over both the accused persons and the recovered three bags to SI S.B. Saran. SI S.B. Saran checked all the three bags and inquired from both the accused persons. Thereafter, SI S.B. Saran apprised accused persons about their legal rights by saying that if they want, they can be searched in the presence of a DLSH010048572019 Page 19 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate or they can be taken to a Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate for this purpose and also explained meaning of Gazetted Officer and Magistrate in vernacular to the accused persons and that if they want they can take their search prior to their search. However, both the accused persons refused to get themselves searched in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate as well as to take search of the raiding team members.
It is stated by him that SI S.B. Saran prepared notices U/s 50 NDPS Act in duplicate by putting carbon between two white papers and handed over the respective original notices U/s 50 NDPS Act to both the accused persons. Accused Riasat put his thumb impression on the carbon copy of his notice and accused Nasruddin signed on the carbon copy of his notice. Carbon copy of notice issued to accused Riasat Mark X bears signature of this witness at Point- B and carbon copy of notice issued to accused Nasruddin Mark Y bears signature of this witness at Point-B. It is stated by him that SI S.B. Saran asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation, but none agreed to join the investigation. IO SI S.B. Saran marked the said bags as 1, 2 and 3. IO SI S.B. Saran weighed the said bag Mark 1 of green colour stated to be recovered from Sunil, which was found to be 5.9 Kgs. SI S.B. Saran weighed the grey colour bag Mark 2 stated to be recovered from Riasat which was found to be 4.7 Kgs. SI S.B. Saran weighed the purple colour bag Mark 3, which was found to be 4.510 Kgs. All the bags were found contained poppy straws.
It is stated by him that IO SI S.B. Saran took one sample of 500 grams each from the three bags, kept them in separate polythene bags, which DLSH010048572019 Page 20 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act were kept in three different cloth parcels and sealed the same with the seal of SBS. The same were marked as 1A, 2A and 3A. The remaining contraband in the bags were also sealed with the seal of SBS. Seal was handed over to this witness after use. SI S.B. Saran prepared seizure memo already Ex. PW-1/A. FSL form was also filled by the IO.
It is stated by him that SHO Inspector Sunil Kumar also came at the spot. He also satisfied himself regarding the proceedings. SI S.B. Saran had handed over the above-mentioned recovered case properties, copy of seizure memo, FSL form to SHO Inspector Sunil Kumar and he put his seal on all the pullandas and FSL form with the seal of SK. IO also seized the above- mentioned TSR vide seizure memo already Ex. PW-1/B. It is stated by him that IO prepared the rukka and handed over to Ct. Vinod. He went to Police Station. SI S.B. Saran prepared site plan at the instance of SI Sohan Pal. Thereafter, they came back to the Police Station alongwith both the accused persons.
It is stated by him that SI S.B. Saran arrested both the accused persons vide arrest memos already Ex. PW-1/D and Ex. PW-1/E. He also conducted the personal search of both the accused persons vide memos already Ex. PW-1/F and Ex. PW-1/G. It is stated by him that IO recorded the disclosure statements of both the accused persons already Ex. PW-1/H and Ex. PW-1/I. IO recorded statement of this witness.
It is stated by him that the original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act issued to accused Riasat already Ex. PW-1/J. DLSH010048572019 Page 21 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act At this stage, it is observed that the case properties have already been exhibited during the testimony of earlier witnesses. The Ld. Defence Counsel does not oppose the same. Hence, the production of the case property is dispensed with.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is stated by him that it took 7-8 minutes to reach at Police Station from the spot on foot. It is stated by him that he returned back the seal to SI S.B. Saran on the next day. It is stated by him that no memo in this regard was prepared.
14. PW-9 Ct. (now HC) Hakikat deposed that on 27.06.2019, he was posted at P.S. Jagat Puri as Constable. On that day, on the directions of IO, this witness obtained three sealed parcels Marks A1, A2 and A3 sealed with the seal of SBS and SK and FSL form from MHC(M) vide RC No. 73/21/19. This witness deposited the parcels at FSL, Rohini, Delhi, came back to Police Station and deposited the receipt of FSL with MHC(M).
It is stated by him that till the time the case property was in his possession, it has not been tampered with.
The copy of RC is already Ex. PW-7/B. Receipt of FSL is already Ex. PW-7/C.
15. PW-10 Ct. (now HC) Vinod deposed that on 27.05.2019, he was posted as Constable at Police Station Jagat Puri. On that day on receiving DD No. 13B, he alongwith SI S.B. Saran reached at Nala Road, near Jagat Puri Police Station where SI Sohan Pal, ASI Anoop and Ct. Jitender met them DLSH010048572019 Page 22 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act alongwith accused Nasruddin and Riasat. One TSR was also stationed there. SI Sohan Pal told that both the said persons alongwith one Sunil were apprehended alongwith contraband, but when they were bringing the said persons to P.S. Jagat Puri, Sunil jumped out of the TSR into the drain. PCR officials, divers and fire brigade officials were searching for Sunil. SI Sohan Pal handed over both the accused persons and the recovered three bags to SI S.B. Saran. This witness correctly identified both the accused persons in the Court. SI S.B. Saran checked all the three bags and inquired from both the accused persons. All the three bags were found pieces of doda post.
Thereafter SI S.B. Saran apprised accused persons about their legal rights by saying that they can get themselves searched in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate and that they can take search of police team prior to their search, however accused persons refused to get themselves searched in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate as well as to search the raiding team. SI S.B. Saran prepared the notices U/s 50 NDPS Act in the name of respective accused persons and gave the respective original notices U/s 50 NDPS Act to both the accused persons.
It is stated by him that SI S.B. Saran asked 4-5 public persons to join the investigation, but none agreed to join the investigation. IO SI S.B. Saran marked the said bags as 1, 2 and 3. IO SI S.B. Saran weighed the said bag which was recovered from the possession of accused Riasat and it was found 4 kilos 700 grams of poppy straw. IO SI S.B. Saran weighed the bag which was recovered from the possession of accused Nasruddin and it was found 4 kilos 510 grams of poppy straw. The weight of third bag which was in DLSH010048572019 Page 23 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act possession of absconder Sunil was 5 kilos 900 grams. IO SI S.B. Saran took one sample of 500 grams each from the three bags and kept the same in three separate polythene pouches. IO prepared the cloth pullandas of samples and sealed the same with the seal of SBS. The same were marked as 1A, 2A and 3A. The remaining contraband in the three bags were also sealed with the seal of SBS. The seizure memo of all the pullandas and remaining contraband already Ex. PW-1/A. FSL form was also filled by the IO. SHO Inspector Sunil Kumar also came at the spot. He also satisfied himself regarding the proceedings. SI S.B. Singh had handed over the above mentioned sealed parcels, copy of seizure memo, FSL form to SHO and he also put his seal on all the parcels and FSL form with the seal of SK. IO also seized the above-mentioned TSR. SHO left the spot alongwith the case properties.
It is stated by him that IO prepared the rukka and handed over to this witness for registration of FIR. This witness went to Police Station, got registered the FIR and handed over copy of FIR and original rukka to SI S.B. Saran. Thereafter, both the accused persons, TSR, TSR driver were brought back to the Police Station.
It was observed by the Court that the case properties have already been exhibited during the testimony of earlier witnesses. The Ld. Defence Counsel does not oppose the same. Hence, the production of the case property is dispensed with.
During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is stated by him that he reached the spot alongwith SI S.B. Saran on foot. It is stated by him that SHO of the Police Station came to the spot at about 2:30 pm. DLSH010048572019 Page 24 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
16. PW-11 Dr. Kavita Goyal, Assistant Director, Chemistry, FSL, Rohini, Delhi deposed that she is working at FSL Rohini since 1999. On 27.06.2019, she was posted as Assistant Director (Chemistry) at FSL, Rohini. On that day three sealed parcels Marks 1A, 2A and 3A sealed with the seal of SBS and SK in FIR No. 112/2019 dated 27.05.2019 U/s 15/25/29 NDPS Act, P.S. Jagat Puri alongwith specimen seals, forwarding letter, copy of FIR, copy of seizure memo etc. were received in their office from SHO, P.S. Jagat Puri vide letter reference no. 1023/SHO/Jagatpuri dated 27.06.2019. Same were marked to this witness for chemical examination. The seals were intact and were tallying with specimen seals.
It is stated by her that on opening the parcel Mark 1A, it was found containing light brown coloured pieces of brown capsules (vegetative material) weight approx. 500 gms with polythene and it was marked as Ex. 1A.
It is stated by her that on opening the parcel Mark 2A, it was found containing light brown coloured pieces of brown capsules (vegetative material) weight approx. 480 gms with polythene and it was marked as Ex. 2A.
It is stated by her that on opening the parcel Mark 3A, it was found containing light brown coloured pieces of brown capsules (vegetative material) weight approx. 475 gms with polythene and it was marked as Ex. 3A.
It is stated by her that she analyzed the exhibits between 07.08.2019 to 13.09.2019. On physical, chemical, TLC & HPTLC examination, Ex. 1A, Ex. 2A and Ex. 3A were found to be poppy straw. After the examination the remnants of the exhibits were kept in three separate parcels DLSH010048572019 Page 25 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act which were sealed with the seal of K.G. FSL DELHI. She prepared the detailed report bearing no. SFSL DLH/6319/CHEM/2074/19 dated 27.06.2019 which is Ex. PW-11/A (running into two pages) bearing her signature at Points A and B. She submitted her report in a sealed envelope alongwith the sealed parcels for onward transmissions to the forwarding agency.
17. PW-12 SI Avaneesh Kumar deposed that on 16.06.2019, he was posted at PS Jagat Puri. On that day, on the directions of SHO, further investigation of the case was marked to this witness. This witness tried to search for the associate of the accused persons who fled away from the spot, but in vain. He tried to obtain the NBWs from the Court, but the same were not issued as despite their multiple raids, the said person could not be traced at the given address. He prepared the charge-sheet and submitted before the Hon'ble Court. After obtaining the FSL result, he filed the supplementary charge-sheet.
18. PW-13 SI Shyam Bihari Sharan deposed that on 27.05.2019, he was posted as SI at P.S. Jagat Puri. On that day, on receiving DD No. 13B, he alongwith Ct. Vinod reached the spot i.e. Nala Road, Opposite Jagat Puri Police Station where SI Sohan Pal, Ct. Jitender, ASI Anoop and both the accused namely Nasruddin and Riasat (correctly identified by this witness in the Court) met this witness. One TSR alongwith TSR driver was also present at the spot. Upon inquiry, SI Sohan Pal told this witness that while he was bringing both the accused persons alongwith their associate to the Police Station in TSR, since they were found in possession of contraband, associate of accused persons DLSH010048572019 Page 26 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act namely Sunil jumped out of the TSR and jumped in the nala. PCR Van, fire brigade vehicle and divers also arrived and they tried to search for the said Sunil in the nala, but in vain.
This witness deposed almost on the same lines as deposed by PW-8 ASI Anoop Kumar and PW-10 Ct. (now HC) Vinod.
This witness exhibited carbon copy of notice issued to accused Riasat as Ex. PW13/A (earlier Mark X), bears thumb impression of the accused at Point-X, signature of this witness at Point-C and carbon copy of notice issued to accused Nasruddin as Ex. PW-13/B (earlier Mark Y), bears signature of accused at Point-X and signature of this witness at Point-C. It is further deposed by him that he also put his seal of SBS on the FSL form filled by him. Seal was handed over to ASI Anoop after use.
He exhibited rukka prepared by him as Ex. PW-13/C and site plan prepared by him at the instance of SI Sohan Pal as Ex. PW-13/D. It is further deposed by him that apart from other articles one notice U/s 50 NDPS Act each were recovered from the respective search of the accused persons.
It is further deposed by him that during investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses. He was transferred from the Police Station after few days and he submitted the case file with MHC(R).
It was observed by the Court that the case properties have already been exhibited during the testimonies of earlier witnesses. The Ld. Defence Counsel does not oppose the same. Hence, the production of the case property is dispensed with.
DLSH010048572019 Page 27 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act During his cross-examination on behalf of accused persons, it is stated by him that he had gone through DD No. 13B before leaving for the spot. It is admitted by him that in the said DD the exact location was not mentioned. It is stated by him that the rukka already Ex. PW-1/C is in his handwriting. It is stated by him that seizure memo was in the handwriting of ASI Anoop. It is admitted by him that he had not moved any application for sampling of recovered contraband before the Court. It is admitted by him that in DD No. 7A it is not mentioned that accused persons namely Nasruddin and Riasat have been apprehended.
19. No other witness was examined by the prosecution. Thereafter, P.E. was closed vide order dated 27.11.2025.
STATEMENTS OF ACCUSED PERSONS
20. Statement of accused Nasruddin was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded his innocence and denied entire prosecution's case. Qua notice U/s 50 NDPS Act, it is stated by him that no notice was ever served to him. It is stated by him that his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and semi written papers and same were converted into exhibits documents. He never made his disclosure statement. It is stated by him that PW- 11 Dr. Kavita Goyal prepared a false report at the instance of IO. It is stated by him that being the police officials they have deposed against him in order to prove their false case. It is stated by him that he was lifted from Anand Vihar Bus Station when he was coming from native village to Delhi in search of the DLSH010048572019 Page 28 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act job and falsely implicated in this case.
21. Statement of accused Riasat was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded his innocence and denied entire prosecution's case. It is stated by him that his signatures were obtained on some blank papers and semi written papers and same were converted into exhibits documents. He never made his disclosure statement. It is stated by him that being the police officials they have deposed against him in order to prove their false case. It is stated by him that he was lifted from Anand Vihar Bus Station when he was coming from native village to Delhi in search of the job and falsely implicated in this case.
22. Accused persons chose not to lead any defense evidence.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
23. This Court has heard the Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor and Ld. Counsel for the accused persons and perused the record carefully.
24. It is contended by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that all the procedures as per NDPS Act have been complied with in the present matter at the time of recovery and thereafter. It is contended that bag containing doda post (Poppy straw) recovered from Sunil (absconded from the spot) was found to be 5.900 Kgs on weighing; purple bag containing doda post (Poppy straw) recovered from accused Nasruddin was found to be 4.510 Kgs on weighing and grey bag containing doda post (Poppy straw) recovered from accused Riasat was found to DLSH010048572019 Page 29 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act be 4.700 Kgs on weighing. There is nothing on record to suggest that police officials had any enmity with the accused persons. Thus, the offence U/s 15(b) NDPS Act is proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused persons.
25. Per contra, it is contended on behalf of the accused persons that accused persons have been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no DD or duty roaster has been exhibited on record showing that the police party was assigned the duty of vehicle checking on that day. It is pointed out that no CCTV footage qua arrest of the accused persons or their movement towards the spot of their arrest has been filed on record. There is no videography or photography of the alleged recovery, sampling and seizure proceedings. Section 52A NDPS Act has not been complied with in the present matter.
Legal Requirement to prove the Charges :-
26. Accused persons have been charged for offence U/s 15(b) of NDPS Act as 4.510 Kgs Poppy straw from accused Nasruddin and 4.700 Kgs Poppy straw from accused Riasat, were recovered. Section 15 NDPS Act reads as under :
"15. Punishment for contravention in relation to poppy straw.
Whoever, in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder, produces, possesses, transports, imports inter-State, exports inter-State, sells, purchases, uses or omits to warehouse poppy straw or removes or does any act in respect of warehoused poppy straw shall be punishable -DLSH010048572019 Page 30 of 46 SC No. 349/2019
STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.FIR No. 112/2019
(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
(a) where the contravention involves small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to [one year], or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both;
(b) where the contravention involves quantity lesser than commercial quantity but greater than small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees.
(c) where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than one lakh rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that the court may, for reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a fine exceeding two lakh rupees."
(emphasis supplied)
27. As far as contravention of the provision is concerned, Section 8 of NDPS Act completely prohibits the possession of narcotic drug or psychotropic substances, except for medical or scientific purposes, that too in the manner as prescribed by the Act. This section reads as under :
"No person shall-
(a) cultivate any coca plant or gather any portion of coca plant; or
(b) cultivate the opium poppy or any cannabis plant; or
(c) produce, manufacture, possess, sell, purchase, transport, warehouse, use, consume, import inter-State, export inter-State, import into India, export from India or tranship any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, except for medical or scientific purposes and in the manner and to the extent provided by the provisions of this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder and in a case where any such provision, imposes any requirement by way of licence, permit or authorisation also in accordance with the terms and conditions of such licence, permit or authorisation:
Provided that, and subject to the other provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder, the prohibition against the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of Ganja or the production, possession, use, consumption, purchase, sale, transport, warehousing, import inter-State and export inter-State of Ganja for any purpose other than medical and scientific purpose shall take effect only from the date which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:DLSH010048572019 Page 31 of 46 SC No. 349/2019
STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.FIR No. 112/2019
(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act Provided further that nothing in this section shall apply to the export of poppy straw for decorative purposes."
(emphasis supplied)
28. As per the Section, possession of all narcotic drugs is prohibited by Section 8.
29. The term "narcotic drugs" is defined in Section 2(xiv) as under:-
(xiv) "narcotic drug" means coca leaf, cannabis (hemp), opium, poppy straw and includes all manufactured drugs;
30. As per the definition, 'narcotic drug' includes poppy straw. Therefore, the possession of poppy straw is prohibited by Section 8 of NDPS Act.
31. The term "poppy straw" is defined in Section 2(xviii) of NDPS Act, as under :
"(xviii) "poppy straw" means all parts (except the seeds) of the opium poppy after harvesting whether in their original form or cut, crushed or powdered and whether or not juice has been extracted therefrom."
(emphasis supplied)
32. "Poppy straw" besides other things also called doda post. In the present case, the prosecution would be required to prove that the recovered substance was poppy straw.
DLSH010048572019 Page 32 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
33. The prosecution would also be required to prove that the quantity of the contraband recovered was of small, intermediate or commercial quantity. The terms "small quantity" and "commercial quantity" are defined in Section 2(xxiiia) & 2 (viia), as under :-
"(xxiiia) "small quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity lesser than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;"
(viia) "commercial quantity", in relation to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, means any quantity greater than the quantity specified by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette."
34. The notification specifying small quantity & commercial quantity vide SO1055(E) dated 19.10.2001 mentions the small quantity and commercial quantity for various Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, including 'Poppy straw'. As per entry at serial no.110 in the said notification, the small quantity for Poppy straw is 1000 gms and commercial quantity is 50 Kgs.
35. In order to prove the charge U/s 15(b) NDPS Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following facts :
(1) That the accused persons were in possession of contraband. (2) That the possession was in contravention of the provision of the Act or any rule on order made or condition of license granted thereunder.
(3) That the contraband was Poppy straw.
(4) That the quantity of the contraband was intermediate (i.e. more than 1000 gms, but less than 50 Kgs), for Section 15(b) NDPS Act.DLSH010048572019 Page 33 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019
(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
36. Besides proving the aforesaid facts, the prosecution is also required to prove that the investigating agency carried out the investigation in compliance with the provisions of NDPS Act. The investigating agency must adhere strictly to the legal procedure established during the search, ensuring transparency and fairness in the investigation. By adhering to this procedure, the agency demonstrates its commitment to protecting personal liberty, a fundamental right of citizens. This ensures that the search was conducted in a manner that upholds the principles of the judicial system. The credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution is enhanced when the investigating agency follows the statute scrupulously as held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case titled as Koyappakalathil Ahamed Koya vs. A.S. Menon and Ors. (03.07.2002 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1838/2002 :-
"In view of the principle that Ceaser's wife must be above-board, the investigating agency has to be consistent with the procedure laid down by law while conducting the search and it has to be above-board in following the procedure by investigating into the crime and if that is done it would assure the judicial mind that by giving importance to the personal liberty a fundamental right of (he citizen, the search was conducted. If that is done, then there would be creditworthiness to such evidence which has been adduced by the prosecution. The investigating agency must follow the procedure as envisaged by the statute scrupulously and failure to do so must be viewed by the higher authorities seriously inviting action against the concerned official so that laxity on the part of the investigating authority is curbed."
Thus, the failure to adhere to the procedure raises a doubt in the mind of the Court regarding the manner in which the investigation is carried out, which obviously favors the accused persons.
DLSH010048572019 Page 34 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
37. It is settled legal proposition that the procedure provided under Chapter V of the NDPS Act has to be scrupulously followed for the Court to raise such presumption. For raising the presumption U/s 54 of the Act it must be first established that recovery was made from the accused and the procedure provided under the NDPS Act followed thoroughly without fail. It is further settled law that for attracting the provision of Section 54 of NDPS Act, it is essential for the prosecution to establish the element of possession of contraband by the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the burden to shift to the accused to prove his innocence. This burden on the prosecution is a heavy burden. To decide whether the burden has been discharged or not by the prosecution, it is relevant to peruse the record and evidence and consider the submissions made by the parties.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE
38. The Court will now proceed to examine and discuss the various aspects of the case and the relevant pieces of evidence under distinct headings as follows:-
Discussion on the point of compliance of Section 42 of NDPS Act
39. Section 42 of the NDPS Act provides that the concerned police officer, who received the secret information is required to record the secret information in writing and send the information so reduced into writing within 72 hours of its receipt to immediate official superior.
DLSH010048572019 Page 35 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
40. The present case is a case of chance recovery as no secret information was received before the apprehension of the accused persons. Accordingly, the recording of secret information in terms of Section 42(1) NDPS Act and forwarding the same to immediate official superior within 72 hours was not required in the present case. Thus, the question of compliance of Section 42 NDPS Act does not arise in the facts of this case.
41.(a) Being a case of chance recovery, the most important document in the present case was the DD entry whereby the police party was on duty at the spot of incident.
(b) None of the police official could tell the DD entry whereby the police party was on duty at the time and place of recovery. Since no DD entry whereby SI Sohan Pal alongwith Ct. Jitender were on barricading duty has been brought on record.
(c) The doubt on the story of the prosecution also arises from the fact that rukka which was the first document whereby the information of the offence was given, is not containing the DD entry number whereby the police party i.e. SI Sohan Pal and Ct. Jitender had left the Police Station.
(d) As per prosecution case, SI Sohan Pal and Ct. Jitender were checking the vehicles on the road during which they by chance caught the accused persons who were coming in a TSR. However, no specific duty was DLSH010048572019 Page 36 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act assigned to the police party to check the vehicles. Further, no written document qua any such checking wherein particulars or registration number of any such vehicle was recorded, could be produced before the Court.
(e) As per PW-1 SI Sohan Pal, he saw the TSR at 5:00 am and thereafter apprehended the accused persons. Similarly, deposed by PW-2 HC Jitender. However, first information qua recovery of contraband was given to the Police Station at 8:55 hours vide DD No. 13B (Ex. PW-1/DA) i.e. after almost four hours. Prior to that at 5:19 hours a DD entry no. 7A got recovered at Police Station which was received from PCR qua jumping of a person in nala. There was nothing stopping the raiding party i.e. SI Sohan Pal and HC Jitender from informing the Police Station qua recovery of contraband at around 5:19 hours, but they did not do so, rather waited for almost four hours on the pretext of searching accused Sunil, while they were expected to forthwith inform the Police Station qua recovery of contraband as well, so that contraband could have been seized immediately to avoid any false implication or tampering.
(f) As per rukka, SI Sohan Pal alongwith the accused persons sat in the TSR and was bringing the TSR to the Police Station, while the TSR was about to reach the Police Station, one of the accused Sunil jumped out of the TSR into the nala. However, SI Sohan Pal (PW-1) as well as HC Jitender (PW-2) deposed in their evidence before the Court that when SI Sohan Pal checked the bags containing doda post the third person (Sunil) managed to run away from the spot by throwing the bag at the spot. Thus, there is apparent discrepancy that is DLSH010048572019 Page 37 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act whether accused Sunil ran away from the spot after throwing the bag or whether he jumped out of the TSR when the TSR was about to reach the Police Station.
(g) The accused persons were apprehended in the present case at about 5:00 am, however the rukka was prepared at 3:00 pm i.e. after 10 hours, this long delay raises doubts qua tampering and false implication.
(h) TSR driver Sh. Dharmender Kumar could not be examined during evidence as he remained untraceable. Thus, the prosecution failed to examine the only public witness of the recovery in the present case.
(i) The recovery of the contraband as stated above is shrouded with doubts as there is no videography or photography of the search, arrest or recovery proceedings was clicked/ made. No CCTV footage qua presence of the accused persons at the time and place of arrest or their movement towards the spot of arrest has been filed on record.
42. The above-stated discrepancies could not be explained in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. These discrepancies go to the root of the matter as presence of the SI Sohan Pal and Ct. Jitender at the spot at the time of chance recovery has become doubtful. Thus, it can be safely concluded that the very foundation of the present case that the police party was present at the spot at the time of alleged recovery is doubtful.
DLSH010048572019 Page 38 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act Discussion on the point of compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act
43. Section 50 NDPS Act is as under :-
"Conditions under which search of persons shall be conducted.
(1) When any officer duly authorised under section 42 is about to search any person under the provisions of section 41, section 42 or section 43, he shall, if such person so requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.
(2) If such requisition is made, the officer may detain the person until he can bring him before the Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate referred to in sub-section (1). (3) The Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person but otherwise shall direct that search be made. (4) No female shall be searched by anyone excepting a female. (5) When an officer duly authorised under section 42 has reason to believe that it is not possible to take the person to be searched to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate without the possibility of the person to be searched parting with possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance, or controlled substance or article or document, he may, instead of taking such person to the nearest Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, proceed to search the person as provided under section100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) After a search is conducted under sub-section (5), the officer shall record the reasons for such belief which necessitated such search and within seventy-two hours send a copy thereof to his immediate official superior."
(emphasis supplied)
44. As per prosecution case, after apprehension of the accused persons, contraband was seized from the bags carried by them. Thus, nothing recovered in the personal bodily search of the accused persons as contraband was allegedly recovered from the bags carried by them. As regards recovery made from the bags carried by the suspects in a vehicle is concerned, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act do not apply to recoveries other than those made from the person of the accused.
DLSH010048572019 Page 39 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
45. In Saikou Jabbi Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0991/2003 , heroine was found in a bag being carried by suspect. It was held that Section 50 was not applicable as it applies to search of a person.
46. Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh, 2019 INSC 1145 made following observations in this regard :-
"16. As regards applicability of the requirements Under Section 50 of the Act are concerned, it is well settled that the mandate of Section 50 of the Act is confined to "personal search" and not to search of a vehicle or a container or premises.
17. The conclusion (3) as recorded by the Constitution Bench in Para 57 of its judgment in Baldev Singh clearly states that the conviction may not be based "only" on the basis of possession of an illicit Article recovered from personal search in violation of the requirements Under Section 50 of the Act but if there be other evidence on record, such material can certainly be looked into.
In the instant case, the personal search of the Accused did not result in recovery of any contraband. Even if there was any such recovery, the same could not be relied upon for want of compliance of the requirements of Section 50 of the Act. But the search of the vehicle and recovery of contraband pursuant thereto having stood proved, merely because there was non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act as far as "personal search" was concerned, no benefit can be extended so as to invalidate the effect of recovery from the search of the vehicle. Any such idea would be directly in the teeth of conclusion (3) as aforesaid.
18. The decision of this Court in Dilip's case, however, has not adverted to the distinction as discussed hereinabove and proceeded to confer advantage upon the Accused even in respect of recovery from the vehicle, on the ground that the requirements of Section 50 relating to personal search were not complied with . In our view, the decision of this Court in said judgment in Dilip's case is not correct and is opposed to the law laid down by this Court in Baldev Singh and other judgments.
19. Since in the present matter, seven bags of poppy husk each weighing 34 kgs. were found from the vehicle which was being driven by Accused-Baljinder Singh with the other Accused accompanying him, their presence and possession of the contraband material stood completely established."DLSH010048572019 Page 40 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019
(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
47. In view of the law laid down in State of Punjab Vs. Baldev Singh, (1999) 6 SCC 172 and State of Punjab Vs. Baljinder Singh, 2019 INSC 1145 as well as other judgments cited above, it is held that the compliance of Section 50 NDPS Act is not mandatory in the present case, as the recovery was effected from the bags carried by accused persons in a TSR and not from the person of the accused.
However, lackadaisical approach of the police in the investigation of the present case it is apparent from the fact that the original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act given to accused Nasruddin could not be proved on record as allegedly the same was mistakenly released by the MHC(M) to the accused Nasruddin only at the time of releasing his personal search articles, be that as it may, original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act given to accused Nasruddin was never brought before the undersigned.
48. It is deposed by PW-5 Inspector Sunil Kumar that he was SHO of P.S. Jagat Puri. He had reached the spot where SI S.B. Sharan handed over six sealed parcels, FSL form and copy of seizure memo to him. After confirming FIR number he counter-sealed the parcels with the seal of 'SK' and thereafter he took the parcels to the Police Station and got the same deposited in maalkhana. However, his signatures are not there on the register no. 19 qua said deposit, it is stated by him that he had injuries on his right palm due to which he could not DLSH010048572019 Page 41 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act sign, but nothing mentioned qua said injury or his inability to put signature on register no. 19 in the register no. 19.
Furthermore, when the case property was produced in the Court during testimony of PW-2 HC Jitender, the same was not containing seal (SK) of PW-5 Inspector Sunil Kumar on the Ex. P-4, Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6. In these circumstances, a doubt arises qua due compliance of Section 55 NDPS Act.
49. Section 57 of the NDPS Act which requires that :-
"Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure, under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior."
50. In the present matter, no report U/s 57 NDPS Act was prepared by any police officials. No police officials have mentioned about preparing of any such report U/s 57 NDPS Act. Infact PW-5 Inspector Sunil Kumar has categorically mentioned in his cross-examination that no report U/s 57 NDPS Act regarding arrest or seizure of the contraband was placed before him, he further mentioned that he has not therefore forwarded any such report to the senior officers. No ACP or Reader of ACP has been examined in the Court qua receipt of any such report. Thus, it can be held that Section 57 NDPS Act has not been complied with in the present case at all.
DLSH010048572019 Page 42 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act Discussion on the point of compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act
51. As a matter of fact, in the present case the sampling proceedings were conducted, but not before the Ld. Magistrate U/s 52A of the NDPS Act, rather by PW-13 SI Shyam Bihari Sharan at the spot.
52. It is contended by Ld. Defence Counsel that the entire recovery proceedings are vitiated due to non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. However, Hon'ble Apex Court in a recent judgment titled as Bharat Amble Vs. State, Crl. Appeal No.250/25 of Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the law on compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act as under :-
"50. We summarize our final conclusion as under: -
(I) Although Section 52A is primarily for the disposal and destruction of seized contraband in a safe manner yet it extends beyond the immediate context of drug disposal, as it serves a broader purpose of also introducing procedural safeguards in the treatment of narcotics substance after seizure inasmuch as it provides for the preparation of inventories, taking of photographs of the seized substances and drawing samples therefrom in the presence and with the certification of a magistrate. Mere drawing of samples in presence of a gazetted officer would not constitute sufficient compliance of the mandate under Section 52A sub-section (2) of the NDPS Act.
(II) Although, there is no mandate that the drawing of samples from the seized substance must take place at the time of seizure as held in Mohanlal (supra), yet we are of the opinion that the process of inventorying, photographing and drawing samples of the seized substance shall as far as possible, take place in the presence of the accused, though the same may not be done at the very spot of seizure.
(III) Any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance prepared in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to be mandatorily treated as primary evidence as per Section 52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act, irrespective of whether the substance in original is actually produced before the court or not.
(IV) The procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in DLSH010048572019 Page 43 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.FIR No. 112/2019
(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein.
(V) Mere non-compliance of the procedure under Section 52A or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not be fatal to the trial unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence rendering the prosecution's case doubtful, which may not have been there had such compliance been done. Courts should take a holistic and cumulative view of the discrepancies that may exist in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and appreciate the same more carefully keeping in mind the procedural lapses.
(VI) If the other material on record adduced by the prosecution, oral or documentary inspires confidence and satisfies the court as regards the recovery as-well as conscious possession of the contraband from the accused persons, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed to hold the accused guilty notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act.
(VII) Non-compliance or delayed compliance of the said provision or rules thereunder may lead the court to drawing an adverse inference against the prosecution, however no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
(VIII) Where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in proving the same, it will not be appropriate for the court to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record.
(IX) The initial burden will lie on the accused to first lay the foundational facts to show that there was non-compliance of Section 52A, either by leading evidence of its own or by relying upon the evidence of the prosecution, and the standard required would only be preponderance of probabilities.
(X) Once the foundational facts laid indicate non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the onus would thereafter be on the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that either (i) there was substantial compliance with the mandate of Section 52A of the NDPS Act OR (ii) satisfy the court that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt."
(emphasis supplied) DLSH010048572019 Page 44 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
53. Though, in the present case there is no compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act, as the sampling proceedings were done by the IO, however, in view of the judgment in Narcotics Control Bureau Vs. Kashif, 2024 INSC 1045, decided on 20.12.2024 and Bharat Aambale (supra), the said fact by itself does not vitiate the trial. As held by the Hon'ble Court in absence of compliance U/s 52A NDPS Act the onus is upon the prosecution to prove by cogent evidence that such non-compliance does not affect its case against the accused, and the standard of proof required would be beyond a reasonable doubt.
54. In the present case, there are following discrepancies qua sampling and proving the recovered contraband in the Court :-
(a) At the time of producing the case property in the Court, bags recovered from the accused persons Ex. P-4, Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 were not bearing the seal 'SK' of Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW-5). The same were only bearing the seal 'SBS' of PW-13 SI Shyam Bihari Sharan.
(b) PW-2 HC Jitender who exhibits the case property could not tell which bag recovered from which accused.
55. Upon reviewing the evidence, particularly the failure of the Investigating Agency of subjecting the recovered contraband (Poppy straw) to sampling proceedings under Section 52A NDPS Act and failure of prosecution to produce the entire recovered substance in its intact form as it was recovered DLSH010048572019 Page 45 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 STATE Vs. NASRUDDIN & ANR.
FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act and sealed at the spot, the prosecution has failed to prove the foundational facts against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption under Sections 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act cannot be raised in this case against the accused persons, as the recovery of contraband could not be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion
56. In the present matter, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the presence of police party at the time of recovery on the spot of recovery; there is non-compliance of Section 55 & Section 57 NDPS Act; further, there is non-compliance of Section 52A NDPS Act coupled with the fact that recovered contraband was produced in the Court without due seals as the case property produced in the Court without seal of SHO Inspector Sunil Kumar (PW-5), all these contradictions raises serious doubts in the mind of the Court as regards the story of the prosecution. In the opinion of the Court, it cannot be said beyond doubt that there is no material contradiction in the story of the prosecution. Therefore, in the opinion of the Court, the benefit of doubt would go in favour of the accused persons.
57. Accordingly, accused persons namely Nasruddin and Riasat are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act. Accused persons are directed to comply Section 481 BNSS (earlier Section 437- A Cr.P.C., as per rules.
DLSH010048572019 Page 46 of 46 SC No. 349/2019 FIR No. 112/2019(Jagat Puri) U/s 15(b) NDPS Act
58. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally
GAJENDER signed by
SINGH GAJENDER
Announced in the open Court NAGAR SINGH
on 22nd January, 2026 NAGAR
(Gajender Singh Nagar)
Special Judge (NDPS Act)
District Shahdara
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi