Delhi District Court
State vs Jasbir Singh S/O Sh. Satender Singh on 29 August, 2011
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANTOSH SNEHI MANN
SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS (CENTRAL)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SC No. : 80/2009
FIR No. : 25/2009
U/s : 20/61/85 NDPS Act
PS : Ranjeet Nagar
State Versus Jasbir Singh S/o Sh. Satender Singh
R/o RZ - 2190 Shadi - Khanpur, Delhi.
Permanent Address :
Village Bhangela, Post & PS Khtoli,
Distt. Muzafar Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
Date of filing of Charge Sheet : 07.12.2009
Date of taking up matter for the first time : 07.12.2009
Date of conclusion of arguments : 26.08.2011
Date of Judgment : 29.08.2011
Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Ld. Addl. PP for the State
Mr. D. K Santoshi with Mr. S. K Bhardwaj, defence counsels for
the accused
JUDGMENT :
Accused was chargesheeted under Section 20 of the FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 1 of 22 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred as "NDPS Act") to face trial on the allegations that on 30.10.2009 at about 10.15 pm at Pandav Nagar turn on Narain Road, he was found in possession of 200 Grams of "Charas" in contravention to the provisions of the NDPS Act.
2. Brief Facts:
(a) On 30.10.2009 at about 10.15 pm, when Ct. Mahender and Ct. Parvinder Kumar were patrolling in their beat area, they saw accused at Pandav Nagar turn on Naraina road. On seeing the policemen, accused wanted to slip away and therefore on suspicion the Constables followed and apprehended him. On cursory search of the accused, one light blue colour polythene, containing blackish bars (battiya), was recovered from the pocket of his jeans. The substance appeared "Charas" by smell and it was confirmed so by the accused who disclosed that he had brought that for selling. Ct. Mahender informed about the incident at the police station through PCO Booth.
FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 2 of 22
(b) Information was received at the police station vide DD No. 23B dated 30.10.2009, which was marked to ASI Bijender who reached at the spot alongwith Ct. Pradeep. ASI Bijender Singh recorded statement of Ct. Mahender Singh at the spot. He took out 25 Grams of contraband as sample, made separate pullandas of the sample & recovered contraband, sealed them at spot and seized them. On the basis of rukka prepared by ASI Bijender Singh, FIR No. 25/2009 under Section 20 NDPS Act was registered and accused was arrested.
(c) During investigation sample was sent to FSL for examination and after completion of examination chargesheet was filed in the Court.
3. Copies were supplied to the accused. Primafacie offence punishable under Section 20 NDPS Act was found to be made out against the accused. Charge was framed accordingly to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has examined 11 witnesses in all:
PW1 HC Shrigopal was the duty officer at PS Ranjeet FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 3 of 22 Nagar who at about 10.30 pm recorded DD No. 31A (Copy Ex. PW1/A) on the basis of information received from Ct. Mahender about apprehension of a young man with "Charas" at Pandav Nagar turn on Naraina Road.
PW2 HC Mahavir was working as MHC(M) at PS Ranjeet Nagar on 31.10.2009 who had received two sealed parcels alongwith form FSL duly sealed with the seals of 'RS' and 'BS' from SHO Inspector Ravinder Singh, for depositing in Malkhana. He made Entry No. 21 in the Register No. 19 in this regard (Copy Ex. PW2/A). On the same day he had received personal search articles of the accused from ASI Bijender Singh and had made Entry No. 22 in Register No. 19 in this regard (Copy Ex. PW2/B). He testified that on 16.11.2009 while he was on leave, HC Giri Raj was working as MHC(M), who had sent the sample pullanda to FSL through Ct. Thakur Prasad. According to this witness, the remnant sample alongwith FSL result was received on 04.01.2010 through Ct. Satparkash with respect to which he made entry in Register No. 19 (Copy Ex. PW2/E).
PW3 Ct. Thakur Prasad had received a sealed pullanda bearing seals of 'BS' and 'RS' from HC Giriraj, MHC(M) on 16.11.2009 vide RC No. 02.21.2009 for depositing at FSL. After FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 4 of 22 depositing the sample at FSL he handed over the FSL receipt to the MHC(M).
PW4 Ct. Arun Kumar produced the record from the office of ACP Patel Nagar. According to which on 30.10.2009 an information under Section 57 NDPS Act (Ex. PW4/B) was received from SHO PS Ranjeet Nagar vide Entry No. 4199 in the diary register (Copy Ex. PW4/A). According to this witness original information was placed before the ACP who made endorsement with his signatures after seeing the report at pointX. PW5 HC Giri Raj was working as MHC(M) at PS Ranjeet Nagar on 16.11.2009 as HC Mahavir Singh MHC(M) (PW2) was on leave. According to this witness he had handed over a sealed pullanda alongwith form FSL both bearing seals of 'BS' and 'RS' to Ct. Thakur Prasad Singh (PW3) for depositing at FSL vide RC No. 02/21/09 (Copy Ex. PW2/C) and had made endorsement in this regard in Register No. 19 at point P to P1 in the entry (copy Ex. PW2/A).
PW9 HC Sunil was the Duty Officer at police station Ranjeet Nagar on the intervening night of 30/31.01.2010 from 12.00 pm in the night to 08.00 am. According to him, he had received tehrir of ASI Bijender Singh from Ct. Pradeep. He made FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 5 of 22 endorsement on the tehrir vide Ex. PW9/A and registered the FIR vide Ex. PW9/B. PW8 Ct. Mahender and PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar are the witnesses of recovery.
PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh was the SHO PS Ranjeet Nagar on the date of incident. PW7 ASI Bijender Singh is the investigating officer (IO) and PW11 Ct. Pradeep had joined the investigation with IO.
5. All the incriminating evidence was put to the accused. He denied the incriminating evidence and claimed that nothing was recovered from his possession. According to the accused he was apprehended by the police from Shadipur Metro Station and claimed ignorant as to why the case was made against him. He did not desire to lead evidence in defence.
6. I have heard Mr. Rajiv Mohan, Addl. PP for the State and Mr. D. K Santoshi & Mr. S. K Bhardwaj, defence counsels for the accused. I have carefully perused the record.
7. PW8 Ct. Mahender Singh has testified that on 30.10.2009 he alongwith Ct. Parvinder Singh (PW10) was patrolling in the area. At about 10.15 pm they were present at Naraina road when they saw accused standing on the side of road FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 6 of 22 in suspicious circumstances. According to him accused tried to slip away on seeing the police party and therefore on suspicion they apprehended him.
8. According to PW8 Ct. Mahender Singh, on search of the accused, a light blue colour polythene was recovered from the pocket of his jeans. The polythene contained black colour battis (bars) which smelled like "Charas". Witness testified that he reported the incident at the police station from nearby PCO Booth and ASI Bijender Singh alongwith Ct. Pradeep reached at the spot.
9. PW8 testified that he handed over the custody of the accused alongwith recovered contraband to ASI Bijender Singh, who recorded his statement (Ex. PW7/C). According to this witness a notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act was given to the accused by ASI Bijender Singh vide Ex. PW7/A and accused was also told about his legal right to give his search before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, as there was possibility of more contraband in his possession. According to PW8, accused refused to avail this offer and his refusal was recorded vide Ex. PW7/B.
10. According to PW8, total weight of "Charas" was found 200 Grams out of which ASI Bijender Singh took out 25 Grams as sample, which was kept in a separate polythene and was FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 7 of 22 converted into a pullanda. The remaining "Charas" was kept in the same light blue colour polythene and converted into a separate pullanda. According to PW8, form FSL was filled at the spot and the pullandas were sealed with the seal of 'BS', the same seal was affixed on FSL form. The contraband was seized vide memo Ex. PW7/D.
11. PW8 deposed that in the mean time SHO PS Ranjeet Nagar came to the spot, to whom ASI Bijender Singh narrated all the facts and handed over the sealed pullandas alongwith form FSL and copy of seizure memo to him (SHO). SHO is stated to have left the spot after giving instructions to ASI Bijender.
12. PW8 testified that ASI Bijender Singh prepared the rukka and handed over the same to Ct. Pradeep for registration of the FIR, who went to the police station and returned to the spot after about half an hour with the copy of the FIR and original rukka which he handed over to ASI Bijender Singh.
13. PW8 stated that ASI Bijender Singh asked 1015 passersby to join the investigation but none had agreed. According to him, ASI Bijender Singh prepared the site plan vide Ex. PW7/F, arrested the accused vide Ex. PW7/G and conducted his personal search vide Ex. PW7/H. He identified the dark colour FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 8 of 22 bars of solid substance in light blue polythene, produced in the Court in the sealed pullanda, as the "Charas" recovered from the possession of the accused as Ex. P1 and remnant of the sample "Charas" produced in brown envelope as Ex. P2.
14. PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar has deposed on the lines of PW8 Ct. Mahender about the circumstances in which the accused was apprehended and "Charas" was recovered from his possession. He also identified the case property on the lines of PW8.
15. PW7 ASI Bijender Singh, IO has testified that on 30.10.2009 at about 10.35 pm DD No. 31A (copy Ex. PW1/A) was marked to him and he alongwith Ct. Pradeep reached at Pandav Nagar turn of Naraina Road, Delhi where he met PW8 Ct. Mahender and PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar alongwith accused Jasbir Singh in their custody. PW7 has deposed on the lines of PW8 and PW10 about giving a written Notice under Section 50 of NDPS Act (Ex. PW7/A) to the accused after duly informing him about his legal right to have the option to give his search in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, refusal of the accused, which was recorded vide Ex. PW7/B and recording of statement of PW8 by him vide Ex. PW7/C. PW7 has further FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 9 of 22 deposed on the lines of PW8 and PW10 about weighing the contraband, taking sample, making pullandas, sealing the pullandas, filling FSL Form at the spot and seizure of case property vide Ex. PW7/D.
16. According to PW7, he handed over the sealed pullandas of the case property alongwith Form FSL and copy of seizure memo to SHO Inspector Ravinder Singh, who had reached at the spot. He has deposed on the lines of PW8 and PW10 about preparing the rukka, sending PW11 Ct. Pradeep to police station for registration of the FIR, preparation of site plan Ex. PW7/F, arrest of the accused vide Ex. PW7/G and conducting personal search of the accused vide Ex. PW7/H.
17. According to PW7, he sent information under Section 57 of NDPS Act to ACP vide Ex. PW4/B and he had sent sample pullanda to FSL on 16.11.2009 through PW3 Ct. Thakur Prasad. He disclosed that FSL Result was received vide Ex. PX and identified the case property on the lines of PW8 and PW10.
18. PW11 Ct. Pradeep, who had accompanied the PW7 ASI Bijender Singh to the spot, has deposed on the lines of PW7. In addition, he stated that he took rukka to the police station for registration of the FIR and returned to the spot with copy of FIR FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 10 of 22 and original rukka, which he handed over to PW7. He also identified the case property on the lines of PW8 Ct. Mahender, PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar and PW7 ASI Bijender Singh.
19. PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh has deposed that on 30.10.2009 while he was in the field, he received an information about seizure of "Charas" by Beat Constables Mahender (PW8) and Parvinder Kumar (PW10). Consequently he reached at Naraina Road, Pandav Nagar Turn at about 11.20 pm where he met PW7 ASI Bijender Singh alongwith accused and PW8 Ct. Mahender, PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar & PW11 Ct. Pradeep. He has deposed on the lines of PW7 and other police witnesses that he received two sealed pullandas bearing the seals of "BS" alongwith FSL Form bearing the same seal and copy of seizure memo from PW7 at the spot. According to him, after reaching at the police station he affixed his seal of "RS" on the pullandas and Form FSL. Thereafter he mentioned FIR Number on them and deposited them in the Malkhana. He deposed that he signed the entry made in this regard in Register No. 19 (copy Ex. PW2/A) at pointX and made DD No. 4A (true copy Ex. PW6/B) in this regard. According to him, on 31.10.2009, PW7 sent an information under Section 57 NDPS Act (Ex. PW6/A) to ACP FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 11 of 22 through him.
20. As per the evidence on record, a blue colour polythene containing "Charas" bars was recovered from the pocket of jeans worn by the accused, when he was searched on the basis of suspicion by PW8 Ct. Mahender and PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar, patrolling in the area. Testimony of these two witnesses have been noted in the earlier part of the judgment. They have deposed consistently and corroborated each other on the fact of recovery.
21. Ld. Defence counsel has assailed the recovery on the grounds that search was illegal as it was not done in accordance with Section 50 of NDPS Act; search was conducted by unauthorized persons and there is no public witness of the search.
22. According to Section 50 of NDPS Act, it is an obligation of the authorized officer under Section 42 of NDPS Act before conducting search of a person, on the basis of prior information, to inform him that he has the right to require his search being conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. However, Section 50 of NDPS Act would be attracted only when there is a prior information with the authorized officer conducting search of the accused and also when personal search of the accused is involved for the purposes of recovery. {Reliance is FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 12 of 22 placed on Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in "State of Punjab V/s Baldev Singh (1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 172"}.
23. As per evidence on record, there was no prior information with PW8 Ct. Mahender and PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar, who conducted search of the accused that accused was in possession of any contraband. They had searched the accused in discharge of their routine police duty on suspicion without any prior information. Therefore, Section 50 of NDPS Act was not attracted in this case.
24. As regards contention of the defence counsel that PW8 Ct. Mahender and PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar were neither authorized nor empowered under the NDPS Act to conduct search of the accused, as already observed above, accused was searched by PW8 and PW10 in discharge of their routine police duty. They had no prior information that accused was in possession of the contraband.
25. As per Section 51 of NDPS Act, the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "Cr. P. C.") are applicable in so far as they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the NDPS Act, to warrants, arrests, searches and FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 13 of 22 seizures made under the NDPS Act. As per evidence, when accused was searched by PW8 and PW10, they were not acting under Section 41, 42 or 43 of NDPS Act as there was no prior information with them. They had conducted search of the accused under the Cr. P. C. and immediately after recovery of contraband from possession of the accused, PW8 had informed at the police station and PW7 ASI Bijender Singh, who is an empowered officer under Section 42 of NDPS Act vide Government Notification No. F.10(76)/85 Fin.(G) dated 14.11.1985, reached at the spot and conducted further proceedings including seizure and arrest of the accused under the NDPS Act.
26. Since PW8 and PW10 had no prior information about the contraband in possession of the accused, the search of the accused by them was not under the NDPS Act, but was under the Cr. P. C. and when they found that accused was in possession of Narcotic Substance, PW8 immediately informed at the police station and further investigation including seizure and arrest was done by PW7 ASI Bijender Singh, an empowered officer under the NDPS Act. Therefore, there is no illegality in the search conducted by PW8 and PW10. To arrive at this finding, reliance is placed on Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 14 of 22 "Baldev Singh (supra)".
27. Issue of nonjoining of independent public witnesses during search, recovery and seizure under the NDPS Act has been raised before Superior Courts in many cases. The settled legal position in this regard is that testimony of police witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground that there is no independent public witness to corroborate their version. Testimony of police witnesses can be relied and made the basis for conviction of accused, if it is found credible and trustworthy. The Superior Courts have observed that public witnesses are generally reluctant to join police proceedings and if they do not join the investigation despite efforts made by the police, the version of the police witnesses can be believed if found trustworthy {Reference to Apex Court's decision in "Ajmer Singh V/s State of Haryana, 2010(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 99" and decision of High Court of Delhi in "Ramesh Kumar Rajput V/s State of NCT of Delhi, 2009(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 289" and "Gopal V/s State, 2009(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 301"}.
28. As per testimony of PW8 Ct. Mahender and PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar, it was a chance recovery and thus there was no occasion for them to join any public witness during search. FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 15 of 22 Moreover, the time of incident is about 10.15 pm when availability of public persons is generally very less. Though, it has come in the crossexamination of PW7 ASI Bijender Singh that when he reached at the spot at about 10.4010.45 pm, public persons were moving and passingby, but it is a common knowledge that public persons are generally reluctant to join the police proceedings, that too the moving population.
29. As held by the Superior Courts, absence of independent public witnesses is no ground to discard the testimony of police witnesses. Though in such a situation, it is the responsibility of the Court to scrutinize their testimony more carefully. PW8 and PW10, police witnesses of recovery not only have deposed consistently, they have withstood the crossexamination. There is nothing on record to create any doubt about their credibility. Moreover, PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh, SHO PS Ranjeet Nagar, had reached at the spot at about 11.20 pm on receiving information about recovery of contraband. Nothing has come in his crossexamination to create any doubt about his presence at the spot. Presence of a senior police officer at the spot adds to the credibility of evidence. In view of the above, there is no force in the defence arguments that in the absence of independent public FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 16 of 22 witness, evidence of police witnesses should be discarded.
30. The defence counsel also argued that testimony of witnesses is not believable as PW8 Ct. Mahender, who claims to have called at the police station from PCO, could not tell the telephone number of the PCO; PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar did not remember the time when the information was sent to the police station and lastly that while PW8 Ct. Mahender stated that PW7 ASI Bijender Singh reached at the spot at around 10.30 pm, PW7 deposed that he reached at the spot at about 10.4010.45 pm.
31. It is a settled legal position that inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of recovery witnesses if any, which do not in any manner affect the substratum of the case and the offence alleged against the accused, will not have any bearing on the merits of the case. {Reference to Apex Court's decisions in "State of Punjab V/s Lakhwinder Singh & Another, 2010(1) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 192" & "Dalel Singh V/s State of Haryana, 2009(2) Drugs Cases (Narcotics) 289"}. Inconsistencies pointed out by the defence counsel are too insignificant to have any bearing on the merits of the case. They are inconsequential and can be safely ignored.
32. As per testimony of PW7 ASI Bijender Singh FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 17 of 22 corroborated by PW8 Ct. Mahender, PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar and PW11 Ct. Pradeep, total weight of "Charas" recovered from the possession of the accused was found to be 200 Grams. Their evidence is consistent on the fact that 25 Grams of "Charas" was taken out as sample and thereafter sample and recovered contraband were sealed separately in pullandas by PW7 ASI Bijender Singh with his seal of "BS" at the spot. PW7 has deposed specifically that Form FSL was filled at the spot on which he affixed the same seal. Nothing has come in his crossexamination to create any doubt about his testimony on this fact. Testimony of PW8 Ct. Mahender, PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar, PW7 ASI Bijender Singh and PW11 Ct. Pradeep is consistent on the fact that pullandas of the contraband were seized by PW7 vide memo Ex. PW7/D.
33. Testimony of PW7 ASI Bijender Singh and PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh, corroborated by other witnesses present at the spot, show that sealed pullandas of the case property alongwith Form FSL and copy of seizure memo were handed over by PW7 to PW6 at the spot. Nothing has come on record to shake their testimony on this fact. The evidence on record shows due compliance of Section 55 of NDPS Act, which requires that FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 18 of 22 seized contraband be given in charge of SHO.
34. The evidence of PW7 ASI Bijender Singh and PW11 Ct. Pradeep, corroborated by PW8 Ct. Mahender and PW10 Ct. Parvinder Kumar, shows that tehrir Ex. PW7/E was prepared by PW7, which was handed over to PW11 for registration of the FIR. The evidence of PW11 Ct. Pradeep and PW9 HC Sunil, Duty Officer proves that FIR was registered by PW9 vide Ex. PW9/B on the basis of tehrir.
35. Testimony of PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh and PW2 HC Mahavir shows that sealed pullandas of the contraband alongwith Form FSL were deposited by PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh in the Malkhana with respect to which PW2 had made entry in Register No. 19 vide Ex. PW2/A, which was signed by PW6 at pointX and thereafter DD No. 4A (copy Ex. PW6/B) was recorded by PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh to this effect. Testimony of PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh has gone unassailed whereas nothing has come in the crossexamination of PW2 HC Mahavir to create any doubt about this fact. Deposition of sealed pullandas of the case property alongwith Form FSL stands duly proved by oral and documentary evidence.
36. It was argued by the defence counsel that FSL Result is FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 19 of 22 not properly prepared. In order to examine the merit of this contention, it is necessary to go through the evidence in this regard.
37. As observed above, it is proved by the evidence of PW7 ASI Bijender Singh, corroborated by other witnesses present, that he had filled Form FSL at the spot after seizure of case property. Evidence of PW7 ASI Bijender Singh and PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh proves that sealed pullandas of the case property alongwith Form FSL were handed over to PW6 at the spot. It is proved by the testimony of PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh and PW2 HC Mahavir that sealed pullandas of the case property alongwith Form FSL were deposited in the Malkhana. According to PW3 Ct. Thakur Prasad, on 16.11.2009 he had received sealed pullanda alongwith sample seal and Form FSL bearing the seals of "BS" and "RS" from PW5 HC Giri Raj, MHC(M). PW3 has been corroborated on this fact by PW5. Both these witnesses are further corroborated by the document RC No. 2/21/09 (copy Ex. PW2/C). It has come specifically in the deposition of PW3 that he deposited the sealed pullandas intact alongwith Form FSL at FSL Rohini. He is corroborated on this fact by the document, FSL Result (Ex. PX), which clearly mentions that FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 20 of 22 a sealed pullanda bearing the seals of "BS" and "RS", which were intact and tallied with the specimen seals as per forwarding letter (FSL Form) received at FSL Rohini.
38. The above evidence clearly establish the link evidence and rule out any possibility of tampering with the case property at any stage during investigation, till the time sample pullanda deposited in FSL Rohini.
39. Ex. PX is the report of Dr. Madhulika Sharma, Assistant Director (Chemistry), FSL Delhi, which is perse admissible under Section 293 Cr. P. C. Though, in the written submissions filed, it is contended that the report has not been prepared properly, but defence has failed to substantiate this plea.
40. As per FSL Result Ex. PX, the contents of sample pullanda was examined by microscopic, chemical tests, chromatography and instrumental methods. Sample gave characteristic odour of "cannabis". Microscopy revealed the presence of characteristic cystolithic hair, glandular hair, resin glands of cannabis plant and solvent extraction showed resin. Chemical testes and chromatographic analysis of the sample gave positive results for cannabinoids including Tetrahydrocannabinol. On the basis of above examination, the sample contraband has FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 21 of 22 been confirmed as "Charas" vide FSL Result.
41. Compliance of Section 57 of NDPS Act has been proved by PW7 ASI Bijender Singh, who prepared the report Ex. PW4/B, which was forwarded to ACP by PW6 Inspector Ravinder Singh, SHO, PW4 Ct. Arun Kumar, produced the record from the Office of ACP, Patel Nagar, New Delhi to show receipt of this information.
42. In view of the above observation, discussion & findings, based on the evidence on record, prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond all reasonable doubts that 200 Grams of "Charas" was recovered from the possession of accused, for which accused has failed to account. Therefore, accused Jasbir Singh is held guilty and convicted for committing the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(B) of NDPS Act.
Announced in the open Court (Santosh Snehi Mann) th on 29 of August, 2011 Special Judge, NDPS (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi FIR No. 25/2009; PS Ranjeet Nagar; State V/s. Jasbir Singh Page No. 22 of 22