Vinod Kumar Sharma vs Union Of India Through Narcotic Control ... on 24 August, 2020
Vimal Dhaka (PW-5) has stated that he had received an information
on mukhbir which was noted by him and intimated to his senior officer
Vijay Singh (PW-4) who was posted as Superintendent in NCB, Indore
who directed Vimal Dhaka to proceed further. Vimal Dhaka proceeded to
the spot and after intercepting the vehicle, conducted all proceedings but
he specifically stated in para-36 that he had not filed the complaint on
behalf of NCB but complaint had been filed by Farhad, another officer in
NCB, Indore Thus, one can see that the complainant and the investigator
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE
Cr. A. No.1451 of 2019
(Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. State of MP)
are two different persons and therefore, citation of Mohan Lal vs. The
State of Punjab passed in Cr. Appeal No.1880/2011 dated 16.08.2018
would not be applicable in the present case. The defence of appellant to
the effect that his motorcycle was snatched by officers and he was dumped
in a Bolero vehicle has been raised in paras-36 and 37 of the evidence of
Vimal Dhaka (PW-5) and appellant has also adduced evidence to the same
effect. However, appellant in para-8 of his cross-examination has
admitted that he had not filed any report in police regarding his accidented
vehicle. He states that he has purchased four wheeler but his registration
papers have not been submitted by him and he has not called the vehicle
owner in his defence. The statement of appellant under Section 67 of
NDPS are considered in para-34 of the judgement and his evidence has
also been considered by the Trial Court in para-73 of the judgement.