9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 21X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ain Matiala Road, Uttam Nagar on 28th June 2008 between 8 to 9 pm and that the contraband would be carried in one colour Indica car belonging to her associate Rakeshnath Tiwari, Accused No. 3 (A-3) [Respondent No. 2 herein]. 3. Pursuant to the aforesaid information, PW-1 issued a search authorization on 28th June 2008 in favour of the Intelligence Officer, Mr. Y.R. Yadav (PW-2) for the search of the car and another search authorization in favour of Mr. P.C. Khanduri (PW-8) for the search of the house of A-2 at No. 294, DDA, Pocket-1, Phase-II, Dwarka. At around 6.45 pm on 28th June 2008, a raiding team comprising PW-2, PW-8, Jai Bhagwan, Ajay Kumar (PW-3) and Ms. Rajni Karki (PW-5) left the office of NCB and reached the spot at main Matiala Road, Uttam Nagar at about 8 pm. It is stated that two public witnesses, Ramkaran s/o Mr. Gagan Singh and Shiv Dayal s/o Late Mr. Ram Swarup had voluntarily agreed to join the NCB team as independent witnesses. 4. It is stated that at about 8.30 pm one African woman came on foot from the Najafgarh road side and stopped in front of Shop No. D-6, Kiran Garden, Uttam Nagar and that after about ten minutes one white colour Indica car came from the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eek of June on the instructions of A-4, A-2 had received 3 kg of heroin from someone in Punjab and that she had handed over it to one Nigerian lady at Uttam Nagar. She had again received 4 kg of heroin from the Punjab supplier. On the morning of 28th June 2008 she had received payment of US$ 30,000 from the Nigerian lady at Metro Station, Nawada and that in the evening, A-2 along with her cousin (A-3) had gone to Matiala Road to deliver the heroin to the Nigerian lady. It was at that stage that A-2 was intercepted by the NCB officials. 9. In his statement under Section 67 NDPS Act, A-3 is stated to have revealed that after reaching the main Matiala Road A-2 handed over one bag to one Nigerian lady. He disclosed that A-2 had told him that she was carrying some illegal articles with her and therefore, he should run away. The three accused were arrested on the basis of the seizure of the contraband and the samples drawn from the substance recovered were sent to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory ('CRCL'). 10. The further case of the NCB is that the independent witnesses were also summoned and their statements under Section 67 NDPS Act were recorded. All the incriminating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... statement of A-2 under Section 67 NDPS Act, particularly when the conduct of the NCB officials proved on record was "not beyond reproach." 15. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. Rajesh Manchanda, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, learned counsel for the Respondents. 16. The main thrust of the submissions of Mr. Manchanda was that even if the NCB was unable to get the independent witnesses to depose in Court the conviction could be based on the corroborated testimonies of the official witnesses. Mr. Manchanda placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Gita Lama Tamang v. State of (GNCT) of Delhi 2006 (3) JCC (Narcotics) 197, and of the Supreme Court in Sarjudas v. State of Gujarat AIR 2000 SC 403 and Iqbal Moosa Patel v. State of Gujarat (2011) 2 SCC 198. 17. A perusal of the statement of Ram Karan s/o Shri Gagan Singh under Section 67 NDPS Act (Ex.PW-2/M) shows that his address is given as A-95, Kiran Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. The address given in the statement under Section 67 NDPS Act by Shiv Dayal on 30th June 2008 (Ex.PW8/J) is A-4/35, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. According to Mr. Manchanda, since both were residents of U ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not needlessly implicate the Respondents if they were not in fact involved in the crime. 23. The Court would like to observe that conviction cannot depend only on the fact that a huge quantity of heroin is shown to have been seized. Also, the argument that the prosecution will not needlessly implicate innocent persons does not impress the Court. The NCB has to discharge the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that it is the Respondents who are guilty of the offences with which they have been charged. Since the NCB has presented a version in which independent witnesses are stated to have participated throughout the raid, the NCB has to satisfactorily explain how and why the addresses given for such witnesses has turned out to be non-existent and they have not been produced in Court. No effort appears to have been made by the NCB to ascertain the correct addresses and summon the independent witnesses. That was not the responsibility of the Court. In the circumstances, the only inference that was possible to be drawn was that the said witnesses and their addresses did not exist. 24. Turning to the seizure of the US$ 30,000, one of the independent witnesses to its seizure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
