TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 487X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reduced into writing and was sent to the police station through Constable Naresh Kumar. After joining Bahadur Singh (PW6) and Angrez Singh in the police party, a naka was laid. The appellant was seen coming from the side of Bitta Petrol Pump with a briefcase in his hand at 9-10 PM. On seeing the police party, he made an attempt to turn back but was apprehended. The appellant was then served with a notice to tell whether he wanted to be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, because he was suspected of having smack in his briefcase. The appellant opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Consequently, DSP Vijay Pal Singh was called at the spot, who also served the appellant with a similar notice, in reply to which the appellant opted to be searched by the said DSP. Thereafter, the briefcase was opened and smack weighing 2.570 kilograms wrapped in a blue colour plastic bag was recovered. Besides this, ₹ 60,000 one passport and a packet of empty plastic pouches were also found in the briefcase. 100 grams of the smack was extracted as sample and was put into a separate parcel. The sample and the residue smack were separately sealed and taken into possession. S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spot where ASI Dilbagh Singh and DSP Vijay Pal Singh were present besides other witnesses. He had prepared the rough site-plan at the spot. He had affixed his seal on the parcels. 15. Angrez Singh was given up as having been won over by the appellant. Some other formal witnesses were also given up as unnecessary. 16. The stand of the appellant as emerges from the statement recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that he has been falsely implicated in this case; that no recovery was effected from him; that a sum of ₹ 80,000 and other amount shown as Jama Talashi was taken from his house by SI/SHO Om Parkash, who had raided his house in his absence and on receiving telephone from his wife, he had reached the house; Om Parkash had given the house to Dr. Obisisqsang Ojo, Amadhi and David through the appellant and since they could not pay the rent and as the appellant was a mediator, the Inspector compelled him to pay the rent which he denied; The inspector misappropriated ₹ 20,000 out of ₹ 80,000 recovered from the house of the appellant as adjustment of rent; that the appellant had filed a complaint (Exhibit DF) to the Home Secret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y. According to the learned counsel, this offer would be termed as a partial offer and as such would amount to non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act. The learned counsel thus contends that there is no signature of the appellant is the consent memo. Exhibit PB/1 and similarly in another consent memo, prepared by DSP Vijay Pal Singh Exhibit PC/1 so much so that while issuing notice Exhibit PC, DSP Vijay Pal Singh did not disclose to the appellant that he is a Gazetted Officer. 24. Mr. Rajput has further contended that the names of the independent witnesses is not mentioned in the initial ruqqa Exhibit PA/1 and that even the FIR is not lodged on the basis of the said ruqqa. In the same breath, he contended that the prosecution should have produced the secret informer in the Court. All these infirmities are fatal to the prosecution case, Mr. Rajput asserts. 25. It is further contended by learned counsel that the compliance of Sections 42 and 52A(2) of the Act has also not been done in the present case and the appellant deserves acquittal on this count 26. Lastly, in the alternative Mr. Rajput has prayed that the sentence awarded to the appellant i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the FIR. It was just entered in the DDR at serial No. 45 dated 19.11.1998 at 8-30 PM. The formal FIR was registered on the basis of a subsequent ruqqa Exhibit PE, which was sent after effecting recovery in this case. A perusal of this ruqqa would show that the said intimation was entered in DDR at serial No. 52 on 19.11.1998 at 11.00 PM. vide which formal FIR No. 145 of 1998 Exhibit PE/1 was registered. This argument of learned counsel is thus without any substance. We may also observe that there is no requirement of law to produce the secret informer in the Court during trial. The prosecution is not supposed to disclose the name of the secret informant in any document which is sent for registration of the First Information Report. 32. The other contention of learned counsel regarding non-compliance of Section 42 of the Act is also without any substance and against the records for a very simple reason that in the present case the secret information was reduced into writing, which is Exhibit PA and was sent to the SHO, police station, Mani Majra, as is evident from the endorsement Exhibit PE/1. Mr. Rajput wants to blow hot and cold in one breath. On one hand he wants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
