Delhi District Court
State vs . 1. Mohd. Owolabi Adigun on 31 August, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE 04
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS: NEW DELHI.
CNR No. DLND010000062011
FIR No. 20/2011
SC No. 8425/16
PS Special Cell
u/s 21 (c) r/w section 29 NDPS Act
And
Section 14 Foreigners Act
State Vs. 1. Mohd. Owolabi Adigun
S/o Sh. Wajab Adigun
R/o Kosebinu Street Wagas
Nigeria
2. Akanbi Olamilekan Mohemmed
S/o Late Akanbi Ojora
R/o 13 Aje Street Ilasamaja Oshodi
Osolo Logao, Nigeria
3. Shoban Mittal (Approver)
S/o Shiv Prasad Mittal
R/o 5, Queens Park Flat no. 2,
NW Kolkata
State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 1/42
Date of Institution : 06.08.2011
Date of Arguments : 21.07.2017
Date of Judgment : 31.08.2017
JUDGMENT:
1. The chargesheet in the present case has been filed against the aforementioned accused persons under section 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'NDPS Act') and section 14 of Foreigners Act.
2. Briefly stated the allegations that can be culled out from the contents of the chargesheet and the documents filed with the same are as follows:
(a) On 29/3/2011 at about 02:3002:40 P.M. one secret informer came to the office of SI Ombir Singh at Special Cell, NDR and informed him that some Nigerians are indulging in the sale of cocaine and that one Shobhan Mittal is purchasing it from the said Nigerians and further selling the same to his friends and that Shobhan Mittal would be coming on the said day between 4:004:15 p.m. near Nehru Stadium to supply cocaine to some person.
(b) DD entry no. 11 was lodged in this regard by SI Ombir Singh, he put up a copy of the same before Insp. S.K. State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 2/42
Giri, who after verifying the same, conveyed the information to ACP Sh. Bhisham Singh who instructed to conduct a raid. As per directions of the ACP, a raiding team comprising of Insp. S.K. Giri, SI Ombir Singh, ASI Hardwari Lal, HC Puran Chand, HC Udaiveer and HC Harish Chander along with secret informer left the office of Special Cell alongwith IO kit, testing kit and electronic weighing scale at about 3:15 PM, in a govt. gypsy bearing no. DL1CJ 4858 and DD no. 12 was lodged in this regard.
(c) On the way at Mehar Chand Market service lane, SI Ombir Singh requested 56 public persons to join the raiding team but all of them except one Omender Singh refused to join the raiding team. Thereafter the raiding team reached the spot along with public person Omender Singh and parked the official vehicle near the Barapullah gate of Nehru Stadium and at about 3:50 p.m. the raiding team did nakabandi.
(d) At about 4:10 p.m. one white Range Rover SUV bearing no. DL1CM 3636 came from Kotla Mubarakpur and stopped around 30 meters ahead on a service road. A person with blue jeans and coloured check shirt alighted from the driving side of said vehicle and stood on the road near the State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 3/42vehicle. The secret informer identified him as Shobhan Mittal. Secret informer then left the spot. That person impatiently started waiting for somebody and after about 5 minutes he went forward to board his car. At this moment the raiding party intercepted him.
(e) IO SI Ombir Singh then introduced himself and the members of the raiding team to the accused and on enquiry he revealed his name as Shobhan Mittal. He was then informed about the secret information received and was also apprised about his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was also issued to the accused and he was explained its contents. He refused to call a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and informed the IO that his search may be taken by the police officials themselves.
(f) Thereafter, SI Ombir Singh conducted the search of accused Shobhan Mittal. During search one white polythene pouch was found from the right pocket of his pant. On opening, it was found to contain off white colour powder which on testing with the field testing kit came positive for cocaine. The said recovered substance was then weighed and its weight came out to be 2 grams.
State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 4/42(g) The recovered cocaine was converted into cloth parcel as sample and was sealed with the seal of OS and was given mark S. Form FSL was also filled up and seal of OS was also affixed on it. The recovered cocaine was seized. Seal after use was handed over to Insp. S.K. Giri. Insp. S.K. Giri informed SI Karamveer to reach at the spot for further investigation.
(h) Thereafter IO prepared the rukka and handed over the same to HC Harish Chander alongwith form FSL and copy of seizure memo with directions to register the case and deposit the case property with SHO. Further investigation was handed over to SI Karamvir who came to the spot and prepared the site plan, arrested the accused Shobhan Mittal and interrogated him. Disclosure statement of accused Shobhan Mittal was recorded in which he disclosed that he can get arrested one Nigerian from whom he had purchased the said cocaine. The vehicle of accused Shobhan Mittal was also seized. The accused Shobhan Mittal was then produced before SHO, PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony and personal search articles of accused were deposited with the malkhana.
(i) In pursuance of disclosure statement of Shobhan State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 5/42Mittal SI Karamvir along with Insp. S.K. Giri, ASI Hardwari Lal, HC Puran, HC Nareshpal, HC Udaibir, HC Lacchi, HC Harish Chander, Ct. Rajpal Singh and Ct. Upender Singh alongwith Shobhan Mittal left the office of Special Cell at about 11:20 p.m. in a govt. gypsy and Scorpio for Max hospital, Saket. After reaching the Max hospital accused Shobhan Mittal informed to Insp. S.K. Giri that Nigerian national namely, Ola was standing at the out gate of the Max Hospital. SI Karamvir requested two persons to join the raiding team but both of them refused to join the raiding team. At the instance of Shobhan Mittal he was apprehended with the help of raiding team.
(j) IO SI Karamvir then introduced himself and the members of the raiding team to the accused and on enquiry he revealed his name as Akanbi Olamilekan Mohd. He was then informed about the disclosure statement given by accused Shobhan Mittal and he was also apprised about his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was also issued to the accused and he was explained its contents. He refused to call a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and informed the IO that his search may be taken by the police officials State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 6/42themselves.
(k) Thereafter, SI Karamvir Singh conducted the search of accused Akanbi. During the said search from right side pocket of blue colour jeans worn by accused Akanbi one white colour polythene, mouth of which was tied with rubber band was recovered. On opening, it was found to contain white colour powder which on testing with the field testing kit gave positive result for cocaine. The said recovered substance was then weighed and its weight came out to be 10 grams along with polythene.
(l) Thereafter two samples of 2 grams each were taken out from the recovered cocaine and were kept in two separate transparent polythene pouches, mouth of same were tied with the help of rubber band and thereafter converted into two separate cloth pullandas and given mark A and B. The polythene containing the remaining cocaine was also tied with the help of rubber band and then converted into cloth pullanda and given mark C. Form FSL was also filled up and seal of KVS was also affixed on it. The recovered cocaine was seized. Seal after use was handed over to Insp. S.K. Giri. Site plan was prepared. IO SI Karamvir Singh arrested the accused Akanbi State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 7/42Olamilekan Mohd. and interrogated him. Disclosure statement of accused Akanbi was recorded in which he disclosed that one of his Nigerian friend namely Mohd. Owalabi Adigun with whom he was staying at D167, Khirki Extension had supplied him the cocaine out of which 2 grams of cocaine was recovered from accused Shobhan Mittal and 10 grams were recovered from his possession and he can get him apprehended.
(m) In pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Akanbi, he led the police party to D167, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. On reaching the house accused Akanbi opened the door of the house and identified one Nigerian sitting there as Owalambi Adigun.
(n) IO SI Karamvir then introduced himself and the members of the raiding team to the said person and on enquiry he revealed his name as Mohd. Owolabi Adigun. He was then informed about the disclosure statement given by accused Akanbi and was also apprised about his legal right to be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. Notice u/s 50 NDPS Act was also issued to the accused and he was explained its contents. He refused to call a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and informed the IO that his search State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 8/42may be taken by the police officials themselves.
(o) Thereafter search of accused Mohd. Owolabi was conducted by SI Karamvir Singh. During search from right side pocket of pant worn by him one transparent polythene, mouth of which was tied with rubber band was recovered. On opening, it was found to contain white colour powder which on testing with the field testing kit gave positive test for cocaine. The said recovered substance was then weighed and its weight came out to be 110 grams along with polythene
(p) Two samples of 2 grams each were taken out from the recovered cocaine and were kept in two separate transparent polythenes and mouth of same were tied with the help of rubber band and thereafter converted into two separate cloth pullandas and given mark D and E. The polythene containing the remaining cocaine was also tied with the help of rubber band and then converted into cloth pullanda and given mark F. Form FSL was also filled up and seal of KVS was also affixed on it. The recovered cocaine was seized. Seal after use was handed over to Insp. S.K. Giri. Site plan was prepared. IO SI Karamvir Singh arrested the accused Mohd. Owolabi Adigun and State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 9/42interrogated him. Disclosure statement of accused Mohd.Owolabi was recorded.
(q) Thereafter the accused persons along with the members of the raiding team reached PS. Report u/s 57 NDPS Act pertaining to the seizure and arrest of accused persons were submitted to the ACP. During investigation accused Mohd. Owolabi Adigun and Akanbi Olamilekan Mohd. were asked to produce their documents for staying in India but they could not produce any document for their stay in India.
(r) During the course of investigation, the sample pullandas of this case were sent to FSL, Rohini and after receiving the report from FSL, the present chargesheet was filed.
3. On the basis of material placed on record, charges were framed against accused Shobhan Mittal by the Ld. Predecessor of this court for the offences punishable u/s 21
(a) of the NDPS Act and against accused Akanbi Olamilekan and Mohd. Owolabi Adigun u/s 21 (c) r/w section 29 and u/s Section 14 of The Foreigners Act. Accused Shobhan Mittal pleaded not guilty and claimed immunity from prosecution. Accused Akanbi and Owolabi pleaded not State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 10/42guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial.
4. Vide order dated 27.04.2013, an application u/s 307 Cr.PC for grant of pardon to accused Shobhan Mittal was allowed and he became approver witness in the present case. So the charges remained only against accused Akanbi Olamilekan and Mohd. Owolabi Adigun.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 16 witnesses in all.
6. PW4 Insp. S.K. Giri, PW15 HC Harish Chander and PW16 SI Ombir Singh are members of the raiding team which had apprehended the accused Shobhan Mittal. They have deposed on similar lines and have reiterated more or less the assertions made in the charge sheet. As per their depositions, the secret information received by PW16, reduced into writing vide DD no. 11 has been exhibited as ExPW14/A. The notice issued to Shobhan Mittal u/s 50 of the NDPS Act has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/A and the refusals written by the approver at point X to X on his notice. The seizure memo prepared with respect to the recovery of the cocaine from approver has been exhibited as Ex.PW4/A. PW15 HC Harish Chander and PW16 SI Ombir State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 11/42Singh has also deposed regarding the investigation conducted by PW12 SI Karamvir who was the second investigating officer of the present case. PW12 SI Karamvir has inter alia deposed that on reaching the spot he had met PW16 SI Ombir Singh who produced accused Shobhan Mittal and documents before him. As per this witness he had thereafter prepared the site plan Ex.PW12/A and had arrested accused Shobhan Mittal vide arrest memo Ex.PW12/B. Seizure memo of car of accused Shobhan mittal has been exhibited as ExPW12/D. Disclosure statement of Shobhan Mittal has been exhibited as ExPW4/B. According to this witness in pursuance of disclosure statement of Shobhan Mittal he along with raiding party reached Max Hospital where accused Akanbi was apprehended. The notice issued to Akanbi u/s 50 of the NDPS Act has been exhibited as Ex.PW4/C and the refusal written by the accused has been exhibited as ExPW4/D. The seizure memo prepared with respect to the recovery of cocaine from accused Akanbi has been exhibited as Ex.PW4/E. As per this witness he had thereafter prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW12/E and had arrested accused Akanbi vide arrest memo, Ex.PW4/F. State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 12/427. Disclosure statement of accused Akanbi has been exhibited as ExPW4/I. According to this witness in pursuance of disclosure statement of accused Akanbi he along with raiding party reached D167, Khirki Extension where accused Owalabi Adigun was apprehended. The notice issued to Owalabi Adigun u/s 50 of the NDPS Act has been exhibited as Ex.PW4/K and the refusal written by the accused has been exhibited as ExPW4/L. The seizure memo prepared with respect to the recovery of the cocaine from accused Owalabi Adigun has been exhibited as Ex.PW4/M. As per this witness he had thereafter arrested accused Owalabi Adigun vide arrest memo, Ex.PW4/N. This witness has also inter alia proved the report prepared by him u/s 57 NDPS Act as Ex.PW4/T.
8. PW1 Shobhan Mittal (approver who was granted pardon vide order dated 27.04.2013) has inter alia deposed that he had met accused Akanbi in a discotheque in Ashoka Hotel and that accused Akanbi had informed him that he can supply him cocaine and that he is usually available outside Max hospital. PW1 has further deposed that on 30/3/2011 there was a cricket match between India and Pakistan and that he had planned to watch the said match State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 13/42in Mohali and he had planned to leave Delhi in the night of 30.3.2011 by road and that before starting for Chandigarh he had gone to Max hospital at about 3:003:30 p.m. in the afternoon and had parked his vehicle outside Max hospital and while he was sitting in SUV vehicle and waiting for accused Akanbi, he came near his vehicle and knocked on the car window and then on his asking accused Akanbi supplied him two grams of cocaine and he paid Rs.7,000/ for the same. PW1 Shobhan Mittal has further deposed that thereafter he went to JNU stadium to meet a friend of his and there he was apprehended by the police officials and 2 grams of cocaine that accused Akanbi had supplied to him was recovered from his person by the police officials. He then informed the police that he can take them to Max hospital and identify accused Akanbi. The Notice issued to Shobhan Mittal u/s 50 of NDPS Act has been exhibited as ExPW1/A and the refusal written by him at points X to X on notice.
9. PW2 ASI M. Baxla has deposed that he was posted as MHC(M) at PS Special Cell on 29/3/2011. This witness has proved the entries in the malkhana register maintained by him with respect to case property, pullandas, etc deposited State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 14/42with him by the investigating officials.
10. PW3 Sh. Satish Chander has inter alia deposed that he has brought the original record pertaining to vehicle bearing no. DL1CM 3636 and as per record maintained by them the registered owner of the vehicle is Green Ply Industries Ltd. The certificate issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector has been exhibited as ExPW3/A.
11. PW5 Bhopal Dutt, Superintendent, Ministry of External Affairs has brought the records regarding verification of Visa no. Y 299039 and Y298641 issued to Mohd. Owolabi Adigun and as per record the said visas were issued on 17/10/2007 and 17/9/2007 and valid upto 16/11/2007 and 16/10/2007.
12. PW6 Insp. R.S. Sehrawat, has interalia deposed that on 29/3/2011, he was posted as SHO, PS Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, New Delhi and on said day, HC Harish had produced before him, one sealed pullanda mark S, one FSL Form and carbon copy of seizure memo. As per the deposition of this witness, he had put the FIR number, his initials and his seal of 'RSS' on the pullanda and the FSL form and had then got the said property deposited in the Malkhana by I/C Malkhana and had lodged DD no. 9, State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 15/42ExPW6/A in this regard. This witness has further deposed that on 30/3/2011, SI Karambir had produced before him, six sealed pullandas mark A,B,C,D,E and F, two FSL Forms and two carbon copies of seizure memos. As per the deposition of this witness, he had put his initials and his seal of 'RSS' on all the pullandas and the FSL forms and had then got the said property deposited in the Malkhana through I/C Malkhana and had lodged DD no.14A, ExPW6/B in this regard.
13. PW7 Sh. Khubiram has inter alia deposed that in the year 2011 he had rented out his ground floor of house no. D167/3, Khirki Extension, New Delhi to one Akanbi on rent @ Rs.4500/. except water and electricity charges. This witness has further deposed that he had handed over police verification form and photocopy of his passport and the electricity bill and same were seized. Seizure memo has been exhibited as ExPW7/A.
14. PW8 Sh.Dharmender Kaushik has inter alia deposed that about 2 - 2 ½ years back he had rented out his ground floor of house no. S167D, Khirki Extension, New Delhi to one Nigerian named Mohd. Owolabi on rent @ Rs.6000/ except water and electricity charges. This witness State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 16/42has further deposed that he had handed over police verification form and photocopy of his passport, lease agreement and the electricity bill seized vide seizure memo exhibited as ExPW8/A.
15. PW9 Duty officer ASI Bhagwat Prasad has interalia deposed that he was the duty officer on 29/3/2011 and that on that day he had received the rukka of the present case through HC Harish and had registered the FIR Ex.PW8/A and made endorsement in this regard ExPW8/B.
16. PW10 Sh.Rajender Singh, Asst. Manager, Admn. in Green Ply Industry Ltd. has inter alia deposed that he had received an authority letter from his Chairman Shiv Prakash Mittal regarding release of vehicle no. DL1CM 3636 make Range Rover and two mobile phones make Black Berry and he had received the abovesaid vehicle and two mobile phones make Black Berry on superdari as per order of Court. The abovesaid authority letter and copy of Superdarinama have been exhibited as ExPW10/A and ExPW10/B respectively. The photographs of the vehicle have been exhibited as ExPW10/C and ExPW10/D.
17. PW11 HC Yashveer Singh has deposed that on 20/04/2011 he had taken three pullandas along with one State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 17/42FSL form from MHC(M) and had got the same deposited with FSL, Rohini, obtained receipt and handed over the same to MHC(M).
18. PW13 ASI Ramesh Chander has merely deposed that in the year 2011 he had brought the FSL report and remnant sample of the present case from FSL, Rohini and on the instruction of IO Karamveer he had handed over the result to the IO and had deposited the remnant samples in the malkhana.
19. PW14 Sh. Bhisham Singh, ACP, has inter alia deposed that on 29/3/2011 Insp. S.K. Giri gave him information telephonically at about 3:00 p.m. regarding a drug supplier and he directed to constitute a raiding party and to apprehend the person. On the same day in the evening information u/s 42 of NDPS act and on 30/3/2011 the report u/s 57 of NDPS Act were received in his office and put up before him and he endorsed the same. Same have been exhibited as ExPW4/V, ExPW4/T and ExPW4/U respectively.
20. The report of the FSL expert Subha Kumar Paul tendered in evidence u/s 293 CrPC shows that the samples analysed by the said expert were cocaine having percentage State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 18/42of 60.12%, 62.38% and 63.88%.
21. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence, all the incriminating facts and circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence were put to the accused Akanbi and Owalabi u/s 313 Cr.PC which have been denied by both the accused persons in toto. Both of them have claimed that they are innocent and they have been falsely implicated and that no contraband was recovered from them. Both of them took a defence that they were not arrested in the manner as claimed by the prosecution.
22. In his statement Accused Akanbi stated that he had come to India in February, 2011 on a business visa and he was staying in D - 167, Malviya Nagar on rent. He was in the business of exporting clothes from India to Nigeria. After coming to India, he also took admission in Asian Film Institute, Sector 16, Noida. He does not remember the exact date of his apprehension. It was either 28/3/2011 or 29/3/2014. On the said day at about 6:30 p.m., he was standing outside Select City Walk mall when around 12 persons in civil clothes surrounded him and tried to forcibly push him in a big white colour gypsy/vehicle that was parked nearby. They were asking him whether he knew any State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 19/42person by the name of Prince and despite his telling them that he did not, they forced him to sit in the vehicle and took him away to some office which was later on revealed to him as the office of Special Cell. Since he was arguing with the said persons when they forcibly took him in the vehicle, one of them had pointed out a gun at him and had told him to accompany them quietly. He was also handcuffed by the said persons during the journey. On reaching the office his ankles were also put into chains. After sometime some police officials came and questioned him about his residence, his occupation and one of them even made a call to the Asian Film Institute and they confirmed that his application for getting admitted in the said institute was under process. He had also told the said official that he was into acting and they had googled his name on the net and had confirmed that he had done some movies in Nigeria. They then told him that they can allow him to go if he pays them some bribe. He told them that he has 1800 dollars in the bag that he was carrying and another Rs.20,000/ is there at his residence. On their asking he revealed the address of his tenanted premises to them but they later told him that they had gone to his premises and had not found State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 20/42any money. For two days he was kept in the said office and when he could not give them the money they were asking for, he was beaten up with the a big stick and the butt of a gun and was forced to sign many documents and write the refusal. It is only in the office of special Cell that he had seen Shobhan Mittal for the first time. He has further stated that no contraband was recovered from him. He had never supplied any cocaine to Shobhan Mittal and Adigun had also never supplied any cocaine to him.
23. In his statement accused Mohd. Owolabi Adigun has stated that he has polio and he also suffers from diabetes and hyper tension and had come to India in the year 2007 to receive medical treatment. He had come on a business visa which was valid only for a month but he remained here even after that without getting his visa extended as he wanted to complete his medical treatment. His wife used to send him money for his living expenses in India. He knows Akanbi as he is also from Nigeria and he is his family friend. He was apprehended in this case either on 28 th or 29th March, 2011. On the said date, he had gone to visit a friend of mine called Maureen who used to reside at D163, a few blocks away from his apartment. At about 9:3010:00 State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 21/42p.m. 89 persons barged into the house of his friend (Maureen) and asked him (Owolabi) "where is the money?"
and when he had asked them what money were they talking about they started searching the house of his friend and when they could not find anything relevant, they forcibly took him (Owolabi) and Maureen to some office in Lodhi Road. He cannot say what happened to Maureen thereafter but next morning he saw accused Akanbi in the PS. When he asked the officials why was he being detained, they informed him that drugs had been recovered from his house. The house from which they had picked me was not his house and that even otherwise nothing had been recovered from the said house. He disclosed his residential address to police and on their instructions he took them to his residence and in their presence opened his house with his key. They then searched his house thoroughly but nothing incriminating was recovered from his house also. Despite the said fact they brought him back into their office at Lodhi Road and then detained him for 23 days and during the said time they kept slapping him around and beating with a stick. They forced him to sign many blank documents and to write the refusal. He was never in the State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 22/42
business of dealing with cocaine and had never supplied cocaine to Akanbi and that no contraband had been recovered from his residence.
24. Both accused persons chose not to lead any evidence in defence.
25. I have heard arguments addressed by learned Sh. S.K. Kain, Addl. PP for State and Sh. Yogesh Saxena, learned Advocate for accused persons and have also gone through the material available on record.
26. Learned Addl. PP for State has submitted that prosecution has successfully proved its case against both accused persons beyond reasonable doubt and accused persons have failed to lead any defence in their favour. He has also submitted that there would be a little variation in the deposition of witnesses which is quite natural. However, no benefit of same can be given to accused persons. He has relied upon the judgment in the case of Iqbal Moosa Patel Vs State of Gujarat (2011) 2 SCC 198, to submit that proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond shadow of doubt and that the law would fail to protect the community if it permitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. He has further relied upon the judgment State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 23/42in the case of Sucha Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab (2003) 7 SCC 643, to submit that exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt must not nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and thereby destroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice according to law.
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
27. Charges against both accused persons are two fold.
The first part of the charge against both accused persons is that on or before 30.03.2011 they entered into a criminal conspiracy for illegal trafficking of cocaine and pursuant thereto accused Owolabi was found in possession of cocaine weighing 110 gms and accused Akanbi was found in possession of cocaine weighing 10 gms. Thereby both of them committed offences u/s 21 (c) and 29 NDPS Act. The second set of charge against both accused persons is that at the time of their arrest they were unable to furnish any valid document for their stay in India and thereby State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 24/42committed offence punishable u/s 14 Foreigners Act.
28. So far as, offence u/s 14 Foreigners Act is concerned, learned defence counsel has fairly admitted that both accused are Nigerian nationals. He has further admitted that at the time of their respective arrest they were not having any valid document for their stay in India and their respective Visas were already expired. PW5 Sh. Bhopal Dutt, Superintendent PVII Section, CPV Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House, appeared in the witness box and testified that as per record visa of accused Akanbi was valid upto 20.03.2011 and visa of accused Owolabi was valid upto 16.11.2007. Accused persons were staying in India till 30.03.2011 prior to their arrest. Both accused are therefore liable to be convicted u/s 14 of Foreigners Act.
29. Now coming to the offences alleged against accused persons under NDPS Act.
30. Learned defence counsel submitted that both accused are entitled to acquittal and following points for determination are emphasized by him :
1) Whether prosecution is able to prove the conspiracy between the accused persons for alleged trafficking of State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 25/42cocaine ?
2) Whether there is compliance of section 42 (1), section 50, section 52 and section 55 of NDPS Act ?
3) Whether there are material contradictions/lacunas in prosecution case, if so its effect?
WHETHER PROSECUTION HAS ABLE TO PROVE THE CONSPIRACY BETWEEN THE ACCUSED PERSONS FOR ALLEGED TRAFFICKING OF COCAINE :
31. It is submitted by learned Addl. PP for State that conspiracy is hatched in secrecy and no direct proof of same is possible. Learned Addl. PP for State has further submitted that Akanbi was apprehended from near Max Hospital and on his disclosure statement accused Owolabi was apprehended for having found in possession of 110 gms of cocaine. Hence, it sufficiently reflects the conspiracy between both accused persons for illegal trafficking of cocaine in India.
32. Court is however, in agreement with the submissions of learned defence counsel that prosecution has not been able to prove the existence of conspiracy between both the accused persons. Though accused Owalabi was apprehended State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 26/42at the instance of accused Akanbi but there was no statement of accused Akanbi regarding any knowledge of further recovery of cocaine. The disclosure statement of accused Akanbi did not lead to any discovery of fact except the arrest of coaccused Owolabi Adigan, rest of his statement is hit by section 2425 of Indian Evidence Act.
33. In his disclosure statement accused Akanbi had stated that in February, 2011 he stayed with his friend i.e. coaccused Md. Owolabi who was supplying cocaine in Delhi and after procuring it from Mumbai and Goa. After 2 days he took a separate room on rent in the same building and to meet his expenses he also started supplying cocaine to different persons. His friends had given him cocaine to supply it to different persons. He had also gone to Goa to collect cocaine from his friends where he met one Bobby and brought 20 gms of cocaine from Goa. He used to contact his customers through his mobile phones as directed by his friend i.e. coaccused Owolabi. He further stated that he can get arrested coaccused from his house in Saket Khichdi Extension and supplier Bobby from Goa.
34. From this disclosure statement, only this can be inferred that accused Akanbi was having knowledge that State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 27/42accused Owolabi was involved in illegal supply of cocaine. He had categorically stated that he had brought 20 gms of cocaine from Goa and his friends had given him cocaine to supply it to different persons. In the facts and circumstances it cannot be inferred that cocaine recovered from the possession of accused Akanbi was supplied by accused Owolabi. Accused Akanbi had stated that he used to contact customers through his mobile number as directed by his friend Owolabi but there is no evidence in the form of call detail records of accused Akanbi or of approver Shobhan Mittal or of accused Owolabi though separate mobile phones were recovered from the possession of these accused persons. There is nothing to suggest that both accused persons had any common phone contact list and accused Akanbi or accused Owolabi had contacted any person at the behest of one another. No investigation is conducted that they ever had any common contact to whom they supplied cocaine or contacted for the said purpose. Rather both accused in their respective disclosure statements took name of different persons as their suppliers. Adverse inference should be drawn against the investigators for not producing the call detail records when the accused Akanbi specifically State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 28/42disclosed that at behest of accused Owolabi Adigam, he used to contact customers. The same could have established the alleged conspiracy link.
35. In the case of Masoom and Ors (Mohd) Vs State of NCT of Delhi 2015 III AD (CRI) (DHC) 349, it was held :
23. The prosecution has not given any explanation as to why cellular evidence was not brought on record. It has come on record that A 2 had conversation on mobile in his possession at IGI Airport. Personal search memo (Ex.PW11/C) shows recovery of two Nokia Mobiles (IMEI Nos. 3560540378346 and 35435000560360); with Vodafone and Idea chips. Similarly on personal search of A1 vide Ex.PW11/D, one mobile make Fashion with two SIMs was recovered. The Investigating Officer did not attempt to collect call detail records pertaining to these mobile phones to ascertain as to with whom, at what time and place the appellants were in regular and constant touch. Call Details Records were relevant to ascertain appellants? Location at the relevant time and their nexus with themselves and others."
36. In the entire disclosure statement of accused Akanbi there is not an iota that any further recovery of cocaine or State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 29/42contraband can be made from accused Owolabi Adigan. He merely stated that he can get arrested his coaccused Owolabi and one supplier Bobby from Goa. Therefore the recovery allegedly made from Owolabi cannot be fastened upon him under any criminal conspiracy. In the facts and circumstances both accused can at the best be held liable for the individual recovery made from them and one cannot be made liable for the recovery allegedly made from the other accused.
37. Prosecution has therefore failed to prove the conspiracy for illegal trafficking of cocaine as alleged in the charge.
COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 42 (1) OF NDPS ACT:
38. As per section 42, authorized officer may enter and search any building, conveyance or place between sunrise and sunset. In the case in hand as per chargesheet accused Akanbi led to the house of accused Owolabi at around 2.30 am in the night. It is rightly submitted by learned counsel for accused, which has further been admitted by PW4 Inspector S.K. Giri and PW12 SI Karamveer that raiding State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 30/42party could not have entered into the house of accused Owolabi after sunset and before sunrise without obtaining a search warrant or without recording their reasons of belief, as required under 2nd proviso of section 42 (1) of NDPS Act. In the entire chargesheet or in their respective statements u/s 161 Cr.PC, official witnesses have not stated that they had any reason to believe that a search warrant or search authorization of the house of accused Owolabi could not have been obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence or facility for the escape of the offender. Except in such a case police team could not have entered into the house of accused Owolabi at 2.30 am. In such case also, as per the requirements of 2nd proviso to section 42 (1) of NDPS Act, recording of grounds of such believe of police officer was necessary. The same has not been done in the present case. Official witnesses have been confronted with the chargesheet and their statements u/s 161 Cr.PC where they have not recorded any grounds as required u/s 42 (1) of NDPS Act. PW4 and PW12 attempted to improve their testimonies qua the compliance of section 42 (1) of NDPS Act by submitting that they telephonically informed concerned ACP PW14 in this State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 31/42regard but the same has not been recorded by them in any document. Even the concerned ACP PW14 Bhisham Singh did not state in his examination in chief that he received any call from PW4 Inspector S.K. Giri, explaining him the urgent reasons for the entry and search of hourse of accused Owolabi during night time or that he directed anyone in police team to take necessary legal action qua the same. Hence, it can be said that there was noncompliance of provision of section 42 of NDPS Act qua the entry and search of house of accused Owolabi. Accused was present in the house itself. Therefore entire recovery from accused Owolabi is vitiated.
39. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs Balbir Singh (1994) 3 SCC 299, held : The object of NDPS Act is to make stringent provisions for control and regulation of operations relating to those drugs and substances. At the same time, to avoid harm to the innocent persons and to avoid abuse of the provisions by the officers, certain safeguards are provided which in the context have to be observed strictly.
Therefore these provisions make it obligatory that such of those officers mentioned therein, on receiving an information, should reduce State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 32/42the same to writing and also record reasons for the belief while carrying out arrest or search as provided under the proviso to section 42 (1). To that extent they are mandatory. Consequently, the failure to comply with these requirements thus affects the prosecution case and therefore vitiates the trial.(emphasis supplied) COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 50 NDPS ACT:
40. Learned defence counsel has relied upon the cross examination dated 29.05.2012 of PW12 SI Karamveer. At page no. 8 this witness stated "Whatever was disclosed to the accused Ola by virtue of notice u/s 50 NDPS Act has been recorded in the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act in English language. I cannot tell orally as to what was communicated to accused Ola by notice u/s 50 NDPS Act. I cannot tell as to how much time was taken by me in completing the proceedings u/s 50 NDPS Act."
41. He has submitted that in view of the aforesaid cross examination section 50 of NDPS Act was not complied with and as such accused persons are liable to be acquitted.
42. Court is however, in agreement with the submissions of learned Addl. PP that notice Ex.PW4/C served upon the State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 33/42accused Akanbi and Ex.PW4/K served upon accused Owolabi are selfexplanatory and contained all necessary ingredients qua the information given to accused about their legal rights. Both the notices are written in English. This is not the case of accused persons that they do not understand English. They had written their respective replies upon the notices in English itself. In the facts and circumstances mere statement of PW12 that he cannot orally tell as to what was communicated to accused Owolabi and Akanbi makes no difference and compliance of section 50 NDPS Act cannot be doubted.
COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 52 (3) AND SECTION 55 NDPS ACT:
43. As per requirement of section 52 (3) NDPS Act every person arrested and articles seized u/s 41, 42, 43 and 44 is to be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officer Incharge of nearest PS. In the case in hand it is not mentioned in the chargesheet that accused were so produced. None of the witnesses of prosecution has stated that accused persons were produced before any SHO after their arrest. PW6 Inspector R.S. Sehrawat was working as State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 34/42concerned SHO of Special Cell during the relevant time. He categorically stated in his crossexamination dated 29.09.13 that accused persons were never produced before him. Therefore there was noncompliance qua production of accused persons u/s 52 (3) NDPS Act.
44. Further the production of case property before SHO and compliance of section 55 by the concerned SHO is also under the cloud of doubt in view of the testimony of PW2 ASI M.Baxla, who was working as Incharge Malkhana and PW6 R.S. Sehrawat, SHO PSSpecial Cell.
45. Section 55 of NDPS Act provides as follows :
55. Police to take charge of articles seized and delivered: An officerincharge of a police station shall take charge of and keep in safe custody, pending the orders of the Magistrate, all articles seized under this Act within the local area of that police station and which may be delivered to him, and shall allow any officer who may accompany such articles to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose, to affix his seal to such articles or to take samples of and from them and all samples so taken shall also be sealed with a seal of the officerincharge of the police station.
State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 35/4246. As per the mandate of this section samples, case property, FSL forms etc. were required to be sent to SHO, who was further required to affix his own seal on the same and thereafter the same was required to be deposited in the malkhana. In the present case it is rightly submitted by learned defence counsel that prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the samples, case property etc. were sealed with the seal of SHO before their deposition in malkhana. PW2 ASI M. Baxla, who was working as Malkhana Incharge, in his crossexamination conducted on 16.09.2013 at page no. 3 stated "In this case my statement was recorded u/s 161 Cr.PC on 20.04.2011. I did not disclose in the said statement that on 29.03.2011, I had received one pullanda with the seal of OS and RSS from the SHO. I further did not disclose in the said statement that the pullandas were received by me with the seal of KVS and RSS in respect of recoveries of Akambi and Md. Owolabi Adigun on 30.03.2011 along with FSL forms. Pullandas were handed over to me by SHO on 8.05 pm on 29.03.2011. I did not mention the time of deposit. In the morning of 30.03.2011 at about 5.45 am pullandas were deposited with me by the SHO. I did not put the time of deposit in the State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 36/42register no. 19. I did not record entry Ex.PW2/C, Ex.PW2/D after seeing the pullandas. However, the same were written by me after seeing the seizure memo. I did not mention in malkhana register entry Ex.PW2/A, B C and D that the pullandas were sealed with the seal of RSS." (emphasis supplied).
47. PW6 SHO R.S. Sherawat, also in his cross examination stated "I have gone through all the entries in register No. 19 in respect of the present case and thereafter I put my signature. I do not remember if in the entries of Malkhana register, it was mentioned that the pullandas were sealed with the seal of RSS. Vol. I can say only after seeing the entries. Vol. Earlier it was the practice that the entries in register No. 19 were made by MHCM by copying the contents by the seizure memo. At this stage entries Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/C are shown to the witness and after seeing the same witness state that it is not mentioned that the pullandas were sealed with the seal of RSS. My statement u/s 161 Cr.PC was recorded on 30.03.2011 and I disclosed in the said statement that I recorded DD no. 9 and 14 about receipt of pullandas and FSL form and counter sealed the same with the seal of RSS and further putting State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 37/42FIR number on the pullandas. Confronted with the statement Ex.PW6/DA, where DD no. 9 and 14 are not recorded."
48. Hence, it can be said that prior to the deposition of pullandas in malkhana PW2 i.e. Malkhana Incharge did not verify that pullandas of case property/samples are affixed with the seal of concerned SHO. Malkhana Incharge did not even mention the time of deposit of pullandas in the malkhana. Further he made the entries on the basis of seizure memo only without verifying the same physically with seals. In the facts and circumstances it has been rightly submitted by learned defence counsel that there is no guarantee of the safe custody and integrity of samples sent for examination and benefit of doubt needs to be given to accused persons.
WHETHER THERE ARE MATERIAL CONTRDICTIONS/LACUNAS IN PROSECUTION CASE:
49. Learned defence counsel has rightly submitted that no public witness has been examined by the prosecution qua State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 38/42the arrest and recovery from either of accused persons, though accused Akanbi was arrested near Max Hospital, Saket. The said place has chemist shop opposite the hospital which remain open for 24 hours. There are security guards posted at entry and exit gate of hospital. There are also parking attendants and public persons available nearby.
50. Furthermore as per the case of prosecution raiding team visited the spot in the official vehicle but no log book about the movement of official vehicle is proved or produced. None of the member of raiding team stated that they had signed the log book.
51. PW15 HC Harish Chander in his crossexamination dated 01.08.20147 at page no. 2 stated that he had made entry in the log book but he further stated that he did not recollect if the said log book was signed by PW16 SI Ombir Singh. He further stated that he had handed over copy of log book to PW12 SI Karamveer but no log book was produced by any witness. Specific question was asked from the IOs regarding nonproduction of log book and specific suggestions were made that the same was not produced State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 39/42because police officials did not visit the spot as alleged by them.
52. In the case of Ram Prakash Vs State 2014 (146) DRJ 629, Hon'ble Delhi High Court while appreciating the evidence, opined that the production of log book joined in the investigation will go long way to prove or disprove a criminal case and observed as under: "24. It is also in the above context with the failure to produce the log book for the movement of the vehicle of the raiding party and the failure to examine the driver Rajesh assumes significance. There should have been no difficulty at all in producing such evidence if needed the raiding party moved to the spot from their office in a government vehicle driven by Constable Rajesh Kumar."
53. Furthermore the receipt of initial secret information and the subsequent police story qua apprehension of approver PW1 Shobhan Mittal, also comes under doubt as according to the secret information PW1 Shobhan Mittal was supposed to take delivery of cocaine from Nigerian named Ola and was supposed to further supply the same from 4 pm to 4.15 pm at near the gate of Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, opening towards Barapullah road. Hence, State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 40/42the name of Nigerian "Ola" was disclosed in the secret information. As per testimony of PW16 SI Ombir Singh, he disclosed the contents of secret information to approver PW 1 Shobhan Mittal but PW1 in his crossexamination stated that the name of Ola was not disclosed by police to him. Rather he had disclosed the name of Ola to police after his apprehension. He also stated that he was not disclosed any information by IO with regard to his taking cocaine in huge quantity from some person namely Ola.
54. The crossexamination of this witness is therefore reflective that the secret information, as alleged by the IO was not disclosed to approver PW1 Shobhan Mittal. This creates a doubt about the receipt of secret information prior to apprehension of approver Shobhan Mittal.
55. It is therefore rightly submitted by learned defence counsel that statement of approver requires corroboration on material aspects and it is not safe to convict a person merely on the basis of approver. He has drawn the attention of the court to illustration (b) of section 114 Indian Evidence Act, which is reproduced as under: "The court may presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 41/42particulars".
56. He has submitted that approver evidence is a very weak piece of evidence and there is every possibility that approver may give false testimony in order to save himself and implicate the accused persons to seek his pardon.
57. The court is in agreement with the submissions of learned defence counsel that accused persons cannot be convicted on the basis of the evidence of approver more specifically when the material aspects of case have not been investigated by police and the relevant facts and record has been withheld from the court.
58. Hence, in view of the above discussion of court both accused persons are entitled to be acquitted of the charges u/s 21 (c) r/w section 29 NDPS Act levelled against them. However, they are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 14 Foreigners Act.
Announced in the open court on the 31st day of August, 2017 ( Ajay Pandey ) Addl. Sessions Judge 04, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/31.08.2017 State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 42/42State VS Md. Owolabi and Anr.
SC No. 8425/16 FIR No. 20/2011PS: Special Cell ORDER ON SENTENCE 31.08.2017 Present: Sh. S.K. Kain, learned Addl. PP for State.
Accused Owolabi produced from JC.
Accused Akanbi on bail.
Sh. Yogesh Saxena, learned Advocate for accused persons.
Vide my separate judgment announced in the open court today, both accused persons are acquitted of the charges u/s 21 (c) r/w section 29 NDPS Act levelled against them. However, they are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 14 Foreigners Act.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard. It is submitted by learned Addl. PP that both the accused persons be sentenced to maximum punishment as they had no valid visa or documents of their entry and stay in India and they were not involved in any legal vocation or business.
State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 43/42Per contra it is submitted by learned Sh. Saxena that convict Owolabi Adigun has already undergone imprisonment for a period exceeding 05 years i.e. the maximum sentence of imprisonment provided for the offence u/s 14 The Foreigners Act, 1946. He has also submitted that accused Akanbi Olamilekan Mohammad is not a previous convict. His valid visa expired just 09 days prior to his arrest and he had remained in custody for a period of about 22 months and 03 days.
Arguments considered.
Accused Owolabi Adigun is a handicapped and is always produced from JC in the court with the help of his walker. He has already undergone a period of imprisonment of 06 years and 05 months. The maximum imprisonment provided for the offence u/s 14 Foreigners Act is 05 years with fine.
Considering the physical condition of accused Owolabi, this court is of the opinion that simple imprisonment for a period of 02 years i.e. already undergone by accused Owolabi Adigun with a fine of Rs.1000/ only, would suffice the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine he would further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 44/42I had come in the testimony of PW5 that second accused Md. Akanbi Ojoro had his visa valid upto 20.03.2011, at the time of his arrest on 29.03.2011. Accused Akanbi had therefore overstayed for about 08 days only. He was released on bail on deposition of cash amount of Rs.1.00 lakh on 02.02.2013. Therefore, he had already undergone imprisonment for 22 months and 05 days. Considering his short period of overstay in India and further considering that it is not alleged that he is involved in any other case, this court is of the opinion that imprisonment already undergone by this accused would serve the ends of justice with a fine of Rs.5,000/. In default of payment of fine he would further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
It is submitted by accused Akanbi that though his visa expired on 20.03.2011 before his arrest on 29.03.2011 but he had applied and got his passport renewed and he was further in the process of extension of his visa, which could not be done due to his arrest in the present case. He has further submitted that before coming to India he got married and during the pendency of this case, he was blessed with a baby girl which is 11 months and 2 weeks old at present. He therefore prays liberty to visit FRRO for State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 45/42extension/regularization of his visa and for making arrangement for taking his wife and daughter to his native country i.e. Nigeria.
Accused is at liberty to approach the concerned authority or the FRRO as deemed fit by him. The concerned authority may consider his request as per their rules and regulations.
Fine paid by both accused persons.
Bonds u/s 437A Cr.PC have already been filed and the same are accepted. The bail bond u/s 437, filed by accused Akanbi during trial stands discharged. It is submitted by accused Akanbi that he is not having any bank account, hence, the amount deposited by him be refunded to him in cash.
Subject to their deportation formalities, both accused are released, if their custody is not required in any other case.
Intimation be sent to FRRO/IO immediately to make arrangements for the deportation of both accused persons to their native country in terms of the directions passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 4663 of 2008 tilted as Gabriel O. Ajisafe and Ors.
Vs Foreigners Regional Registration Office and Ors.
State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 46/42Case property is confiscated to State and the same may be disposed off as per rules and procedures after the lapse of period of filing of appeal.
Copy of judgment and sentence is supplied to convicts free of cost.
File be consigned to record room.
( Ajay Pandey ) Addl. Sessions Judge 04, New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi/31.08.2017 State Vs Md. Owolabi Adigun and Anr.
FIR no. 20/11 Page no. 47/42