Delhi District Court
Ncb vs . 1 Ajay Pratap Singh on 23 April, 2010
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN
SPECIAL JUDGE: NDPS: PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Date of Institution:06/12/2006
Judgment reserved on: 09/4/2010
Date of pronouncement: 23/4/2010
SC No. N104/08
ID No. 02403R0640902006
NCB Vs. 1 Ajay Pratap Singh
s/o Sh. Yogender Pratap Singh
R/O 179, Naurangabad,
Lakhimpur, Kheri, U.P.
(Proclaimed Offender)
2 Triloki Singh
S/o Sh. Jaymal Singh
R/ O Nuarangabad,
Lakhimpur, U.P.
3 Ashok Kumar
S/O Sh. Chotey Lal Prasad
V & PO Valmiki Nagar
Distt. Betia, Tehsil Baghan, Bihar
JUDGMENT
1. The Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) through its Intelligence officer (IO) Sh. Ajay Kumar filed the present complaint against the accused Ajay Pratap Singh, Triloki Singh and Ashok Kumar.
2. Facts emanating from the complaint are that a secret Page numbers information was received by the Superintendent NCB Sh. R.R. Kumar that three persons namely Ashok Kumar, Ajay Pratap and Triloki Singh were likely to come near Dr. Karni Singh Shooting Range at Suraj Kund Tuglakabad Road to deliver huge consignment of charas to some trafficker on 22/6/2006 at around 1400 hours in a black Scorpio UP31K4455. It was put up before the Zonal Director. Sh. R.R. Kumar called Sh. Ajay Kumar, IO, told him about the information and issued search warrant in his favour. A team under Ajay Kumar went to the spot and reached there at 1:00 p.m. On the spot, one Madan Lal Aggarwal was joined as punch witness. At about 2:00 p.m. they noticed the Scorpio which came from the side of Suraj Kund. It stopped at the gate of the shooting range being driven by the accused Triloki Singh. Accused Ajay Pratap Singh and Ashok Kumar were on the rear seat. The persons on the rear seat got down from the Scorpio and started waiting for someone. When both of them after sitting in the vehicle started moving towards Delhi, the team intercepted the vehicle and encircled all of them. They told them about the information and gave them their introduction and served them notices u/s 50 NDPS Act apprising of their legal right to be searched before a gazetted officer or a magistrate on which they recorded their refusal. They were also shown the search warrant. From the search of the Scorpio, nine white plastic bags which contained black colour solid substance in packets duly wrapped with brown / yellow colour tape total weighing 246.000 kg were Page numbers recovered. A small quantity from all the bags was taken out and tested with the field testing kit which gave positive for charas. The bags were given mark A to I and weighed with the help of spring balance as per the details mentioned in the complaint. Two samples of 25 grams each were taken out from each bag and given corresponding mark A1 A2 to I1 I2. The bags and the samples were sealed with the seal of NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU DZU1 using the paper slips. Test memo in triplicate was prepared on which same seal impression was appended. A temporary RC was also recovered from the dash board. The case property was seized.
3. Summons u/s. 67 NDPS Act were issued to all of them to appear in the NCB office where they tendered their statements admitting their role and their complicity in trafficking of charas. They were arrested. Statement of panch witness was also recorded. The seizing officer and the arresting officer submitted their reports u/s. 57 NDPS Act to the senior officers. The case property was deposited in the malkhana.
The samples alongwith the forwarding letter and test memo were sent to CRCL through Bhavnesh Kumar Sepoy. As per report dated 28/8/2006 the samples mark A1, B1, C1, D1, E1, F1, G1, H1 and I1 were found to be of Charas with its THC content 6.8, 6.0, 6.5, 5.9, 7.0, 6.5, 6.4, 6.7, and 6.5 respectively. After investigation, complaint Page numbers was filed against the accused persons u/s 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act.
4. On the appearance of accused, after complying with the requirements contemplated u/s. 207 CrPC and hearing arguments, a prime facie case was made out. Charge u/s 20 (b) (ii) C and 29 NDPS Act was framed against the accused. Accused Ajay Pratap Singh was also charged u/s 25 of NDPS Act. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During trial, accused Ajay Pratap Singh absconded and was declared proclaimed offender on 7/1/2009.
5. To substantiate its allegations against the accused, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.
PW1 Sh. Ajay Kumar is the complainant. He had headed the raiding team. He was issued the search authorisation ExPW1/A. He had collected the seal NCB DZU 1 from Sh. R.R. Kumar Superintendent after making entry in the seal movement register ExPW1/N and proceeded at the spot. He had issued the notices u/s 50 NDPS Act ExPW1/B, C and D to the accused and conducted the search and seizure proceedings vide ExPW1/G. He had prepared the test memo in triplicate ExPW1/H. He had seized the temporary RC ExPW1/E and the insurance policy of the Scorpio ExPW1/F. He had issued the summons u/s 67 NDPS Act ExPW1/I, G and K to all the accused as well as to the panch witness ExPW1/L to appear in the NCB office. He had deposited the case Page numbers property with the Malkhana Incharge and returned the seal to the Superintendent. He had submitted the seizure report u/s 57 NDPS Act ExPW1/M and filed the complaint after collecting all the relevant documents. The case property and the samples were produced before him which he correctly identified as ExP1 to ExP27. He also identified the Scorpio ExPW28. He stated that the samples were drawn from each packets. They were tested with the testing kit and after getting ascertained that the packets contained charas, he drew two samples each from each of the bags.
PW2 Sh. R.R. Kumar had received the intelligence ExPW2/A on 22/6/2006 at 0800 hours. He had produced it before the Zonal Director. He after discussing issued search authorisation ExPW1/A in favour of PW1. He had issued the seal being the incharge and received the report of seizure from PW1. He had also received the report of arrest of the accused vide ExPW2/B, ExPW2/C and ExPW2/D submitted by Sh. Prem Chand Khanduri qua accused Ajay Pratap Singh, Sh. Avnish Kumar qua accused Ashok Kumar and Sh. Manoj Kumar qua accused Triloki Singh. On 26/6/2006 he had forwarded the samples along with test memos to CRCL vide letter ExPW2/F and received the report ExPW1/M from CRCL on 8/9/2006.
PW3 Sh. P.C. Khanduri was the Incharge Malkhana. He was also the member of the team which had gone to the spot. In his presence all the proceedings were conducted. He had received the case Page numbers property, the samples, test memos and the vehicle and made entry in the register ExPW3/A. He had also handed over the samples to PW2 for sending to CRCL. He had recorded the statement of accused Ajay Pratap on 22/6/2006 ExPW3/B and arrested him vide arrest memo ExPW3/C. He had submitted the arrest report ExPW2/B to PW2.
PW4 Sh. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, was also the member of raiding team. He had recorded the statement of accused Ashok Kumar u/s 67NDPS Act ExPW4/A. PW5 Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal had also participated in the investigation. He had arrested the accused Triloki Singh vide arrest memo ExPW5/A and submitted the report u/s 57 NDPS Act ExPW2/D to PW2.
PW6 Sh.S.K. Mittal was the assistant chemical examiner. In his presence on 26/6/2006 the lab assistant Sh. K.K. Singh had received the samples along with test memo vide receipt ExPW6/A. He had analysed the samples with the help of Sh. T.C. Tanwar, the chemical examiner and given report ExPW1/N. PW7 Sepoy Bhuvnesh Kumar had taken the samples, forwarding letter and the test memo to the CRCL after collecting it from PW2. He handed over to PW8 Sh. K.K. Singh vide receipt ExPW6/A. PW9 Sh. H.K. Pandey had also accompanied the raiding party. In his presence accused Triloki Singh had tendered his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act ExPW9/A. Page numbers PW10 Sh. Avnish Kumar was present when the statement of Ajay Pratap Singh was recorded by Sh. P.C. Khanduri. He was also present when statement of Ashok Kumar ExPW10/A was recorded by Akhilesh Mishra. He had arrested the accused Ashok Kumar vide arrest memo ExPW10/B and submitted the arrest report ExPW2/C to PW2.
6. The accused were examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. No notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was given to them. Accused Triloki Singh stated that during the search of Scorpio, temporary RC and insurance policy were recovered which were seized vide memo ExPW1/G and that he had received the summons. He stated that accused Ajay Pratap Singh had disclosed the NCB officers that he was his driver. He stated that all the documents and the proceedings were manipulated by the officers. At that time, accused Ajay Pratap Singh was driving the vehicle who had called him in the office where he was falsely framed. Accused Ashok Kumar also controverted the prosecution case and stated that he does not know Ajay Pratap Singh or Triloki Singh nor they know him. No recovery was effected from him. He was forced to sign on blank papers. The accused did not lead evidence in their defence.
7. I have heard the arguments advanced by Sh. F. Haq, Ld. counsel for the accused Ashok Kumar and Sh. D.R. Singh, Ld. counsel Page numbers for the accused Triloki Singh and Sh. B.S. Arora, Ld.Special P.P. for NCB.
8. Ld. counsel Sh. F. Haq contended that the only evidence against the accused Ashok Kumar is his statement recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act. No recovery was effected from him or at his instance. There are material contradictions as regards their sitting arrangements when they were allegedly apprehended. Accused very well knew Hindi but the offices did not get his statement recorded from him. No independent witness was produced in the witness box to corroborate the testimony of NCB officials. The contraband allegedly recovered or the vehicle belonged to the accused Ajay Pratap Singh who has absconded.
9. Ld. counsel Sh. D.R. Singh contended that the accused was the driver of Ajay Pratap Singh. He was not driving the Scorpio at the relevant time. He was called from his house and was falsely implicated. No recovery was effected from him. He did not have any knowledge about the contraband.
10. Ld. SPP per contra argued that the prosecution has proved its case to the hilt. All the material witnesses have entered into the witness box. They have fully supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated one another on each and every aspect of the case. The link Page numbers evidence is also found to be in existence. All the relevant documents and entries have been duly proved. Due compliance u/s 42, 50, 55 and 57 of NDPS Act was made. The accused were in conscious possession of the contraband. Presumption u/s 35 and 54 of the NDPS Act is in favour of the prosecution which the accused failed to rebut. They did not retract from the statements at the earliest available opportunity nor appeared in the witness box to prove that their statements were not voluntary. The facts narrated by them prove their complicity in trafficking of drug. There is nothing on record to show that their statements were extracted by use of force or threat. The contradictions pointed out by Ld. counsel are minor and do not touch the root of the matter. In view of the law laid down in the case M. Prabhulal vs. A.D. DRI 2003 (3) JCC 1631 SC, Rehmatulla Vs. NCB - 2008 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 174, Kanhaiya Lal vs. UOI 2008 (1) JCC (narcotics) 23, their statements under section 67 are sufficient to base conviction. Further in the instant case, there is enough material to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.
11. I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the voluminous evidence and the documents on record. I have also perused the case laws relied upon by the prosecution as well as the defence.
12. The accused have been charged u/s. 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act. Section 20 reads as whoever, in contravention of any provision of Page numbers this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder Produces, manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports interState, exports interState or uses cannabis shall be punished....
Section 29 provides punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy. A person abets the doing of a thing, who engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing. Criminal conspiracy is defined u/s. 120A Indian Penal Code which reads as "when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
13. In the instant case, PW2 had received the intelligence ExPW2/A which was very specific about all the accused that they would come near the shooting range Tuglakabad at around 1400 hours on 22/6/2006 with a huge quantity of charas in black Scorpio UP 31 K 4455. He had reduced the information in writing in typed form and produced it before the Zonal Director. The information was received at 0800 hours and it bears the signature of the zonal director. PW2 has stated that he had discussed the information with PW10 and issued him the search authorisation ExPW1/A which fact is admitted by PW1. Thus due Page numbers compliance u/s 42 NDPS Act was made.
14. PW1 has stated that after getting the search authorisation ExPW1/A, he constituted a search party comprising of P.C. Khanduri, Manoj Kumar, Akhilesh Kumar, N.S. Yadav, R.K. Yadav, H.K. Pandey and Havaldar Jagdish Chand. He had collected the seal NCB DZU 1 from PW2 which fact was also stated by PW2 in his testimony. PW2 stated that they reached at the Shooting range at 1:30 p.m. and joined one Madan Lal Aggarwal to witness the proceedings. He stated that at 1400 hours they noted the Scorpio in which three persons were sitting. He correctly narrated the sitting plan of each of the accused in Scorpio when they were intercepted. He stated that the persons on the rear seat had got down from the jeep and waited for someone. After sometime when they sat on the seat and were about to move, they encircled the Scorpio, disclosed their identity to them, told them about the information and showed the search authorisation. He proved the notices ExPW1/B to D given to the accused vide which the accused were apprised of their legal rights to be searched before a gazetted officer or a magistrate which they declined. His testimony is duly corroborated by PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW9, the other members of the search team.
15. PW1 has stated that from the search of the Scorpio nine white plastic bags containing packets of black solid substance were recovered.
Page numbers Small quantity of substance was taken out from each packet and tested with the field testing kit which gave positive result for hashish. He stated that the bags were weighed with the help of spring balance and thereafter the samples were drawn from each of the bag. He stated that the case property and the samples were sealed using the paper slips with the seal of NCB DZU2 vide ExPW1/G. The proceeding bears the signature of the accused as well as that of the witness Madan Lal Aggarwal. PW1 has also stated that he had read over the seizure memo to all the accused who after understanding had put their signatures. He stated that from the Scorpio, the RC and the insurance policy were recovered which fact is also admitted by the accused Triloki Singh in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C.
16. In the instant case the accused Triloki Singh has taken the defence that he was not driving the Scorpio at that time and he was called from his house and falsely implicated. This is contradictory to what he has stated in his statement wherein he had admitted that the during the search of the Scorpio, a temporary RC was recovered from the dash board vide ExPW1/E and ExPW1/E1 along with the insurance policy ExPW1/F. Had he not been present at the spot, how could he admit this factum of recovery from the Scorpio. It shows that his defence is after thought and not worth believing.
Page numbers
17. PW1 has stated that on the spot the summons were given to the accused vide ExPW1/I, J and K, the case property was taken to the office where it was deposited with PW3 which fact is admitted by PW3 in his testimony who also made the relevant entry in the register vide ExPW3/A. He has stated that he had received the case property, samples, test memos and the vehicle. The recovery and the seizure proceedings are duly corroborated by PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW9. Not an iota of contradiction has come in their testimony to doubt their presence at the spot or their participation in the recovery proceedings.
18. As per the seizure memo ExPW1/G there were packets in the bags A to I. It has come in the testimony of PW1 that small quantity was taken out from each of the packet which was tested with the field testing kit and after getting the positive result, two samples of 25 grams each were drawn from each bag and given corresponding mark A1A2 to I1 I2. The packets contained black colour solid substance which were wrapped with brown/yellow colour tape. Perusal of panchnama ExPW1/G reveals that small quantity was taken out from each of the packet and tested with the field testing kit. The bags were weighed with the help of spring balance. From it, small quantity was taken as sample. The panchnama also gives the details of number of packets recovered from each bag and the gross weight of the bag i.e. 246.00 kg.
Page numbers
19. The case property was produced before PW1 which he correctly identified as ExP1 to ExP28. During evidence the seal was found intact. Slight discrepancy in colour was observed in the cross examination of PW1. The packet produced in the court contained brown colour substance though in the recovery memo, the colour of the substance has been given as black. In this regard, the observations of the chemical examiner on the report ExPW1/N is relevant. As per the report and the testimony of PW6, the samples were in intact condition and the seals on the samples tallied with the facsimile seal on the test memos. He had found the substance in the form of greenish brown colour mass. Further slight variation in colour may be due to error in human observations. No much emphasise can be given on this point. Ld. counsel has failed to demonstrate at any stage of the proceedings that the samples or the case property were tampered with in any manner.
20. In this case the prosecution has examined all the link witnesses i.e. PW1 the seizing officer, PW3 the malkhana incharge, PW7 who had taken the samples to CRCL, PW2 who had forwarded the samples, PW8 who had acknowledged the sample and given the receipt and the PW 6 the chemical examiner. All the witnesses have stated that the seals were intact.
21. During arguments Ld. counsel contended that as per the Page numbers seizure memo ExPW1/G, the information was qua the two persons namely Ajay Pratap Singh and Ashok Kumar but the information ExPW2/A discloses the names of three persons. To this effect, PW1 has stated that the secret information was received by PW2 who did not give him the copy of the same. He stated that PW2 had discussed the information with him and it was conveyed to him that two persons would be travelling in the Scorpio. Admittedly, there is some discrepancy on this aspect but it has come in the testimony of prosecution witnesses who were party to the raid and seizure proceedings that three persons had come in the Scorpio. All of them were apprehended at the spot. They were given notices u/s 50 NDPS Act and were summoned u/s 67 NDPS Act pursuant to which they had appeared in the NCB office and tendered their statements ExPW3/B, ExPW9/A and ExPW10/B. The reports u/s 57 NDPS Act also show that all the three accused were apprehended at the spot and the contraband was recovered from the Scorpio in their occupation.
22. As regards their statements u/s 67 NDPS Act I find that the accused had given certain personal information which should only be revealed by them. The accused Ajay Pratap had disclosed that he had purchased the Scorpio and employed Triloki Singh as driver. He met the accused Ashok Kumar who told him that that he could earn lot of money in trafficking of charas. He had accompanied Ashok Kumar to Bihar, Page numbers collected Charas from there to supply it to one Surender in Delhi. Accused Triloki Singh in his statement stated that he used to drive the vehicle in which the accused Ashok and Raj Kumar used to carry charas. Accused Ashok Kumar had stated that his brother was also involved in a case under NDPS Act. He went in this business and asked the accused Triloki Singh to arrange vehicle for supplying charas. Their statements clearly show their complicity in trafficking of charas. The MLCs do not show that the accused were subjected to any torture or beating as there were no signs of injury on their persons. The accused did not complain of their beating or obtaining their signatures on some blank papers when they were produced before the court at the time of their judicial remand. No complaint was made to the senior officers or the authority that they did not give any statement or their signatures were obtained on some blank papers. The facts and circumstances show that it were their voluntary statements. As regards writing of statement by accused Ashok it has been stated by PW4 that accused had stated that he cannot write the statement properly which he had conveyed in writing. On the perusal of the statement ExPW4/A I find that this fact has been mentioned.
23. Hon'ble High Court in the case of Rehmatullah v. NCB supra made reference to the judgments concerning the interpretation of section 67 NDPS Act and also referred the case of Raj Kumar Karwal v. Union Page numbers of India 1991 CrLJ 97 (SC) was held that such statements made to the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence were not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
24. In M. Prabhulal v. Assistant Director, supra it has been held that if the confessional statement is found to be voluntary and free from pressure, it can be accepted.
25. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afasan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600 (vide para 34) it was held "A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made."
26. In the instant case all the accused had come in a Scorpio Car. From the car the contraband/charas was recovered. Their statements recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act show that they knew one another from before and they knew that they were carrying charas in the vehicle. All these facts show their complicity in the commission of offence.
27. In a case of criminal conspiracy or abetting, the direct evidence is seldom available. Generally, a conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and it may be difficult to adduce direct evidence of the same. The prosecution often relies on evidence of acts of various parties to Page numbers infer that they were done in reference to their common intention. The conspiracy can undoubtedly be proved by such circumstantial evidence. In the case of Eran Eliav V. State 2008 Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 98 it was observed - Both abetment and criminal conspiracy are fiendishly difficult to establish by virtue of direct evidence, it can be established by indirect or circumstantial evidence which is of an impeccable nature.
28. In the present case besides their statements recorded u/s 67 NDPS Act, there is a recovery of 246 kg. of charas from their possession. Further, it is highly unconceivable that the NCB authorities would plant such a quantity of charas with a view to falsely implicate the accused.
29. In the case of State of Punjab Vs. Balwant Rai 2005(1) JCC (Narcotics) 103: "The quantity was large, it was held that the question of implanting does not arise". In the case of Sanjiv Kumar Vs. State of H.P. 2005(1) Crimes 358 (H.P.) it was observed: "It is not believable that the police would implicate an innocent person to such a serious case by planting a huge quantity of charas on his person...... police had no axe to grind in implicating the accused".
30. It was held in the case of Madan Lal and another vs. State of Himachal Pradesh 2003 (3) JCC 1330 that once the possession is Page numbers established the person who claimed that it was not the conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within its special knowledge. Section 35 of the Act give a statutory recognition to its possession before of a presumption available on record and similar is the position in terms of section 54 where also presumption is available to be drawn from the possession of illicit articles. In that case the contraband was seized from a car in which five accused were travelling. It was a private vehicle. All the five accused were known to each other. Accused did not show that they were not in conscious possession. It was held that the word conscious means awareness about a particular fact. It is state of mind which is deliberate and intended. Reference was also made to a case Gunwantlal vs. The state of M.P. AIR 1972 SC 1756 where it was held that possession in the given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive having power and control over the article in case in question, while the person whose physical possession is given holds it subject to that power or control. This view was also retrierated in the case of State of Punjab vs. Hari Singh and anrs. 2009 (4) SCC 200. In the instant case the accused by preponderance of probability of evidence failed to prove that they were not in conscious possession of the same.
31. As regards examination of panch witness, the summons were sent to the panch witness but he was not found traceable at the given Page numbers address. It is not the case that his presence was intentionally withheld. In the present case I find the testimony of prosecution witnesses consistent and cogent which is sufficient to base conviction of the accused. In Delias Christopher v. Customs 2004(3) JCC 147 it was held " It is true that public witnesses inspire more confidence and enable the court to return findings with added confidence but the law is well settled that a conviction may be based on the testimonies of official witnesses even.
32. In the case of Krishna Mochi & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors 2002(2) CC Cases (SC) 58 it was held that :
It is the duty of the Court to separate grain from chaff - when chaff can be separated from grain, it could be open to the court to convict and accused notwithstanding that evidence found difficult to prove guilt of other accused persons - falsehood of particular material witness or material particular would not secluded from the beginning to end - the maxim Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus has no application in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar".
The Court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of the realities of life and can not afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in ivory tower. It is easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not wight with the court so long it does not affect the prosecution case.
Page numbers In a criminal trial credible evidence of even a solitary witness can form basis of conviction and that of even half a dozen witnesses may not form such a basis unless their evidence is found to be trustworthy in as much as what matters in the matter of appreciation of evidence of witnesses is not the number of witnesses but the quality of their evidence.
33. On considering the facts, case laws, the documents and the testimony of witnesses after its detailed scrutiny no doubt is left in my mind that accused Ashok Kumar and Triloki Singh along with Ajay Pratap Singh (PO) were party to the criminal conspiracy in acquiring/possessing charas and in pursuant thereto they were found in conscious possession of charas in contravention of provision of the act rules and order. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore, convict the accused Ashok Kumar and Triloki Singh for the offence punishable u/s 20 (b) (ii) C and 29 r.w.s.20 (b) (ii) C of the NDPS Act.
Announced in open Court
th
on this 23 day of April, 2010 Sanjiv Jain
Special Judge NDPS : New Delhi
Patiala House : New Delhi
Page numbers
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJIV JAIN : SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI SC No. N104/08 NCB Vs.Ajay Pratap Singh and ors.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide separate judgement accused Ashok Kumar and Triloki have been convicted of the offence punishable 20 (b) (ii) C and 29 r.w.s.20 (b) (ii) C of the NDPS Act.
2. Ld. SPP for state has prayed for maximum sentence provided under the statute and submitted that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
3. Ld. Counsels submitted that the accused are poor persons and do not have any record of previous conviction. They be given opportunity to reform and rehablitate.
4. I have considered the submissions.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Kuldeep Singh 2004 Vol. 2 SCC 590 held :
Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be unreally a futile Page numbers exercise. The social impact of the crime e.g. Where it relates to offences relating to narcotics drugs or psychotropic substance, which have great impact not only on the health fabric but also on the social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se requires exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences of taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time or personal inconveniences in respect of such offence will be result wise counter productive in the long run and against social interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of difference inbuilt in the sentencing system. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
5. In the present case, the convicts are involved in the trafficking of charas. The effect of consumption of charas on the society is disastrous. It eats away the life and vigour in the society. Illegal trade of such a high quantity would have adverse impact on the lives of uncountable persons.
6. The incident pertains to the year 2006. The Convict Ashok Kumar is aged about 32 years, married, has three children and does not have any case against him under NDPS Act. He is in custody from the Page numbers date of his arrest. Accused Triloki Singh is also in custody from the date of his arrest. He is aged about 28 years, married and has one daughter. He does not have any other case under NDPS Act.
7. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and the circumstances, antecedents and family background of the convict, I sentence the convict Ashok Kumar and Triloki Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable 20 (b) (ii) C of the NDPS Act. I further sentence the convict Ashok Kumar and Triloki Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable 29 r.w.s.20 (b) (ii) C of the NDPS Act. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. They are given benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. I find sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused Ajay Pratap Singh to proceed against him.
File be consigned to Record Room with the option to prosecution to revive its case as and when it gets any clue.
Announced in open Court Sanjiv Jain
rd
on this 23 day of April, 2010 Special Judge NDPS : New Delhi
Patiala House : New Delhi
Page numbers
NCB vs. Ajay Pratap Singh and ors.
23/4/2010
Present: Ld. SPP Sh. B.S. Arora for NCB.
Both accused Ashok Kumar and Triloki Singh are
in J.C.
Accused Ajay Pratap Singh is P.O.
Vide my separate judgement accused are
convicted.
Arguments heard on the point of sentence.
Vide my separate order, I sentence the convict
Ashok Kumar and Triloki Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable 20 (b) (ii) C of the NDPS Act. I further sentence the convict Ashok Kumar and Triloki Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay fine of Rs.1,00,000/ in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable 29 r.w.s.20 (b) (ii) C of the NDPS Act. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. They are given benefit of section 428 Cr.P.C. I find sufficient incriminating evidence against the accused Ajay Pratap Singh to proceed against him.
File be consigned to Record Room with the option to prosecution to revive its case as and when it gets any clue.
(Sanjiv Jain) Special Judge NDPS/ New Delhi 23/4/2010 Page numbers