Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In defence, DW1 Gurpreet Singh stated that he is employee of Spice Telecommunications and was requested to produce the record of Telephone No. 9814103727 released in the name of Shri Kant Yadav but that record is not in his office.

DW2 Surinder Pal Singh stated that on 18.8.2005, he was not present at Chandigarh. In fact, he had gone to Sonepat (Haryana). On 19.8.2005, he was summoned by the IO. Then his signatures were obtained on different documents. No recovery from the appellants was effected in his presence.

DW3 Gurdeep Singh Riar stated that he was Loss Assessor- Surveyor of New India Assurance Company and on 18.8.2005, he along with DW2 Surinder Pal Singh had gone to Sonepat in connection with an accident dated 4.1.2000 involving Car No. DL-1C-F-3737.

DW4 Ravinder Kundu, Inspector, CBI, has proved report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. (Ex.DW4/A). As per report, case was registered against Ravi Kant Pawar.

DW5 Deepak Sharma, official from Reliance Company, stated that record relating to demanded mobile telephone numbers was not available in his office.

Learned counsel for NCB argued that on 18.8.2005, IO received secret information and the same was reduced into writing. Secret information was presented before O.P. Sharma, Superintendent, NCB. O.P. Sharma had gone to Ludhiana side to verify the genuineness of secret information, whereas IO after joining two independent witnesses was holding nakabandi near Gaushala, Sector 45, Chandigarh. Later on, O.P. Sharma also joined the raiding party headed by Ravi Kant Pawar. So, there was compliance of Section 42 of the Act. Raiding party was holding nakabandi, then Car No. PB-10-AU-0514 was sighted. Appellants were in the car. After compliance of mandatory provisions of the Act, car was searched. Five packets of heroin were recovered. Due to darkness and security reasons when there was no provision of light to write other documents, then appellants along with the recovered material were brought to the main office. Independent witnesses were with the party. After recovery of 5 kgs heroin from the appellants on 18.8.2005, case property was kept by O.P. Sharma, Superintendent, NCB, in his custody. On the next day, appellants along with case property were produced before the concerned Magistrate. Sample parcels were found to be intact. On the same day, sample parcels were handed over to Constable Balwinder Singh for depositing in the laboratory. Sample parcels were deposited in the laboratory on 22.8.2005. Seals on the sample parcels were found to be intact and this fact is clear from the statement of PW1 D.K.Beri. Independent witnesses were with the party and in case seal after its use was not handed over to the independent witness, then story is not to be ignored. One of the independent witnesses appeared as PW3. Second witness, namely, Surinder Pal Singh appeared as DW2 and he has admitted his signatures on all the documents. No documentary proof that Surinder Pal Singh had gone to Sonepat on 18.8.2005. Oral evidence in the presence of documentary evidence is without any evidentiary value. In case signatures of Surinder Pal Singh were obtained on the documents on 19.8.2005, then he should have sent complaints to the higher authorities but till today, no complaint to any authority. Officials of NCB had no enmity with the appellants. So, there was no reason to implicate them. Confessional statements of the appellants under Section 67 of the Act are admissible in evidence. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon (i) 2008(1) RCR (Crl.) 610, Kanhaiyalal vs. Union of India; (ii) 2009(1) RCR (Crl.) 92, Rehmatullah vs. Narcotics Control Bureau and (iii) 2010 (1) RCR (Crl.) 334, Nirmal Singh Pehlwan vs. Inspector Customs.

Next submission of learned defence counsel for the appellants was that Surinder Pal Singh, who joined as independent witness, appeared as DW2 and categorically stated that there was no recovery from the appellants on 18.8.2005. In fact, he had gone to Sonepat to inspect the record. But statement of Surinder Pal Singh as DW2 inspires no confidence. In examination-in-chief, he stated that he was working as Forensic Expert and Investigator and as per instructions of Vigilance Officer, Vigilance Department, Regional Office, New India Assurance Company Limited, Chandigarh, he along with G.S.Riar, Surveyor, had gone to Sonepat and remained there upto 4.30 PM. They were back to Chandigarh at about 7/8.00 PM on 18.8.2005. On 19.8.2005, on telephone from Ravi Kant Pawar, IO, he had gone to NCB office, where he was directed to sign certain documents. He wanted to put date under his signatures as 19.8.2005 but officials of NCB directed him to put date as 18.8.2005. Rajesh Sharma, another official, had also signed in his presence on 19.8.2005. But in cross- examination, he has admitted his signatures on all the documents. Further admitted that there was no written order from the company to visit Sonepat on 18.8.2005 and on that day, he did not appear before any Court at Sonepat. His presence was not marked by any officer. Surinder Pal Singh is well educated. In case, he was not with the party on 18.8.2005 and his signatures were obtained on all the documents on 19.8.2005, then he should have sent complaints to different authorities that his signatures were obtained on different documents under pressure on 19.8.2005. No application dated 18.8.2005 on the file moved by Surinder Pal Singh. Presence of Surinder Pal Singh was not marked by any Court at Sonepat. He has produced certain receipts issued by Toll Plaza but receipts are not helpful to opine that actually, he had gone to Sonepat. Surinder Pal Singh as owner of any vehicle can send his driver to Sonepat. While crossing Toll Plaza, driver was expected to make payment. Receipts issued by Toll Plaza could easily be produced in Court to state that actually Surinder Pal Singh had gone to Sonepat because no receipt was signed either by Surinder Pal Singh or G.S.Riar. If Surinder Pal Singh had inspected any file, then application for inspection of file should have been moved by him or by G.S.Riar. Application for inspection was moved by the counsel engaged by the party at Sonepat. But that counsel did not appear in defence to state that Surinder Pal Singh with G.S. Riar was at Sonepat on 18.8.2005. Common experience shows that when there is an effort to join independent witness, then nobody agrees to join the party and if anyone agrees to join the party, then fails to appear in Court. In case, independent witness appears as PW, then fails to support the prosecution story. But in the present case, Rajesh Sharma as PW has supported the prosecution story. Surinder Pal Singh has admitted his signatures on all the documents prepared by the IO on 18.8.2005 but to help the appellants, he appeared in defence to state that recovery was not in his presence. Gurdeep Singh Riar as DW3 stated that on 18.8.2005, he along with Surinder Pal Singh had gone to Sonepat in connection with inspection of file but regarding presence of Gurdeep Singh Riar at Sonepat, no documentary proof on the file. No doubt, after 18.8.2005, Gurdeep Singh Riar submitted report dated 25.8.2005 to the Vigilance Department of New India Assurance Company Limited but the question is whether he had gone to Sonepat on 18.8.2005. There was no order by the Vigilance Department requesting Gurdeep Singh Riar to visit Sonepat on 18.8.2005. He had not appeared before any Court at Sonepat on 18.8.2005. His presence was not marked by any officer. So, in view of report dated 25.8.2005, trial Court rightly opined that he along with Surinder Pal Singh had not gone to Sonepat on 18.8.2005. In Balbir Kaur vs. State of Punjab, 2009(4) Recent Apex Judgments 330, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if independent witness appeared in defence, then story is not to be ignored.