9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 1 lac each under Sections 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act. The sentences were to operate concurrently. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the complaint was that on 17.08.2007 at about 05.00 p.m. Kamal Kumar, Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (in short 'DRI') received a secret information on phone that two persons of the given description would arrive at Yamuna Vihar Bus Stop on Wazirabad road at about 09.00 p.m. by a U.P. Roadways bus bearing registration No. UP 14M 6752 and they were in possession of narcotic drug in a shoulder bag. This information was recorded in writing (Ex.PW-2/A) and placed before senior officers. Complainant - Jyothimon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conversant with the facts were recorded. The appellant and his associate - Arif Butt were arrested; they recorded their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Upon completion of investigation, a complaint case was filed against the appellant and his associate - Arif Butt. It is relevant to note that during pendency of the trial, Arif Butt defaulted in appearance and finally he was declared Proclaimed Offender vide order dated 05.08.2010. 4. To establish its case, the prosecution examined total fourteen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eam, apparently, to avoid inconsistencies or contradictions emerging in their cross-examination. PW-1 (R.Roy) to whom search warrant (Ex. PW-1/A) for search of the premises at V-96, Gali No.1, Khajurwali Gali, Arvind Nagar Mohalla, Brahmpuri, Delhi was issued by PW-2 (Pankaj Kumar Singh) appeared as a witness. He deposed that he had searched the said premises on 19.08.2007; however, nothing incriminating was recovered from there. PW-1 (R.Roy) did not claim if he was member of the raiding team at the time of recovery of the contraband from appellant's possession on 17.08.2007. The prosecution also examined PW-5 (S.K.Sharma); he had issued DRI seal No.10 to IO Jyothimon Dethan on 17.08.2007. He did not depose beyond issuance of the DRI seal N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of residence or work; it was not done so. The raiding team without associating any independent public witness from the nearby place proceeded to the spot. Only at the spot, two individuals whose identity is unknown were purportedly joined in the investigation. Strange enough, these two individuals were available to the Investigating Officer for recording their statements under Section 67 NDPS Act subsequently. However, when turn came to record their statements before the Court they were not traceable and available. Seemingly, no such individual was associated during the investigation and only their names were incorporated to obviate the contention that independent public witnesses were not joined at the time of recovery. Joining of indepe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e register is not mandatory, however, to ensure that such an information was received and to attach certain sanctity to it, it is impressed in number of cases that such an important information should be recorded in a duly maintained register having serial number. This is never done by the Investigating Officers for the reasons known to them. PW-3 (Kamal Kumar) informed that the secret information was not received by him from the secret informer directly; it was received in the control room of the office. It is unclear as to why the secret information was received only by PW-3 (Kamal Kumar) when other senior officers were available in the office. The secret information did not reveal the names of the culprits. It is silent as to what was th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used to reach the spot. For no plausible reasons, log books pertaining to the vehicles used for apprehension of the appellant were not produced or proved. 10. The sole testimony of the Investigating Officer - PW-10 (Jyothimon Dethan) is not enough to prove the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The offences under the NDPS Act are punishable with stringent sentence and the prosecution is required to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt irrespective of the weakness of the appellant's case. All the proceedings were conducted at the DRI office so much so the panchnama dated 17.08.2007 is computer typed. Notices under Section 50 NDPS Act (Ex.PW-10A & Ex.PW-10/B) appear to be a mere formality; they seem to have been prepared ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
