Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. This court first proposes to examine the evidence on record regarding the arrest and search as much of the arguments of the appellants centre around these aspects. In his examination-in-chief PW-2 states that both appellants after being apprehended were informed about the secret information received by the police leading to their arrest and were offered choice being searched in the presence of either a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The search memo in respect of each of the appellants has been exhibited. Each of them contains a signed statement by each of the appellant that they do not want to either call any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer to carry out the search nor do they want to carry out the search of the said witness Inderjeet Singh. The witness PW-2 further stated that the sample of the smack recovered from the appellant Makrand Prabhakar given to him by appellant Ramesh was kept in a pullanda and sealed with the seal of ISB. The remaining quantity of smack was filled up and also sealed with the seal of ISB. The packet carrying the currency notes totaling Rs. 1 lakh was also sealed with the seal of ISB and recovery memo was prepared as exhibit PW-2/F. He states that the seal was handed over to SI Anil Kumar. Thereafter a detailed rukka exhibit PW2/G was prepared by PW-2 and sent with ASI Hari Ram along with the rukka two copies of the recovery memo, the case property and the FSL Form instructing him to hand over to SHO and the rukka to duty officer for registration of the case. PW-2 further stated that while preparing rukka, SI Bhagwan also reached the spot, took over the investigation and prepared the site plan. The cross examination of this witness has not yielded much for the accused. A reply was elicited from the witness that he did not record the names and addresses of the persons belonging to the public who were asked to join the raiding party. He also admitted that the fact of requesting the shopkeepers of Palika Bazar and their refusal to join the investigation was also not recorded in the rukka. He stated that he began the writing work exactly 6.45 pm after apprehending the accused. According to him the CFSL Form was filled up by him at 7.30 pm and prepared in duplicate. He retained only the carbon copy and handed it over to SI Bhagwan Singh before 9.30 pm. The original CFSL Form was handed over to ASI Hari Ram at about 9 pm. ASI Hari Ram left the spot before the arrival of ACP L.N. Rao.

11. PW-15 ASI Hari Ram more or less corroborated what was said by PW-2 about the recovery of the smack from appellant Makrand Prabhakar after handing over the packet to appellant Ramesh Rajput. He also speaks about SI Inderjeet Singh affixing the seal of ISB on three pullandas, filling up three forms and the seizure memo and the rukka. He confirms that the pullandas, CFSL Form and seizure memo were handed over to him along with the rukka. He then states that both accused persons were brought to the Lodhi Colony Special Cell. He states that he reached at police station at about 9 pm.

This Court is satisfied on a reading of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses that every effort was made to associate witnesses from the public. Also, that the raid itself had to be organized in a very short time. The submission of the appellants regarding Section 50 NDPS Act is therefore also without merit.

18. The central plank of the argument is about whether the CFSL Form was drawn up at all and whether it was sent along with the packet containing the sample to the CFSL for testing. The case of the appellants is that if indeed the CFSL Form was drawn up, it should form part of the case record but it does not. The only inference therefore is that the sample which was sent for testing was not the same sample which was drawn at the time of the arrest. It is also stated that the link evidence is not established in as much as the movement of the seal was not spoken to by the witnesses. It is submitted that the evidence does not speak of the seal being handed over to any superior officer which meant that PW- 2 and PW-13 had the seals with them and use it subsequently to fabricate the evidence. PW-10 Dr. Madhulika Sharma only mentions receiving the parcels bearing the seals of BS and VSP and not with the seal of ISB and therefore what was sent for testing is not what was recovered. Further, it is contended that this strengthens the submission that the delay of 13 days in sending the samples for testing was fatal to the case of the prosecution.

19. This Court has examined the evidence on this aspect. PW-2 speaks of the seals being handed over by him to SI Anil. The rukka also corroborates this. PW-8 speaks of finding both the pullandas and Form CFSL was prepared by PW-2 to be intact. Thereafter he put his own seal as BSP. The seals were checked by the MHCM Siri Niwas PW-5 who also entered entry No. 2360 in Register 19. This Court has also perused the road certificate for evidencing the dispatch of the seals to the CFSL, New Delhi at Malviya Nagar. Much was made about what was received at the CFSL by referring to the writing on the reverse of the road certificate. The endorsement reads retained 2 (two) sealed parcels in Division. It was sought to be contended that since only two sealed parcels were received the CFSL Form obviously did not accompany it whereas on the front portion of the road certificate there is mention of a CFSL Form for each of the parcel. The evidence of PW 10 is also referred to in this behalf to contend that the CFSL Form was never sent along with the parcels. This Court is unable to agree that the mere endorsement extracted hereinabove actually talks of the absence of CFSL Form. It only talks of the receipt of the parcels and not of the non-receipt of the CFSL Form. Significantly there was no cross-examination of either PW-10 Dr. Madhulika Sharma or the witness who received the parcels at the CFSL that no CFSL Form was received with those parcels. Therefore this Court is unable to come to the conclusion that no CFSL Form accompanied the parcels. While it is true that CFSL Form did not form part of the case record, it appears that at least one such Form was retained in the CFSL itself. At one stage of the proceedings, this Court appears to have asked the CFSL to send to this Court the copy of the forwarding letter which is from the police station bearing the seal impression. It was sought to be argued that this document ought not to be looked into by this Court since it was not part of the case record. Suffice it to say that this does indicate that for some reason the CFSL form was retained at the CFSL itself. As regards the seals, again nothing has been elicited by the defense in the cross-examination of PW 10 to disbelieve her statement that she compared the seals and satisfied herself as to their authenticity. Consequently, there is no force in the contention of the appellants regarding the link evidence in connection with the seal movement.