TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 1195X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... merely change their roles while carrying out different investigations. The investigation conducted by the investigating agency is not up-to-the-mark and suffers from apparent defects and material irregularities. Appellant’s conviction on the solitary statement of the Investigating Officer who is interested in the success of his case cannot be sustained in the absence of any independent corroboration. In the light of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court are set aside. The appellant shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case. - CRL.A.167/2013, CRL.M.A.Nos.12446/13 & 3396/17 - - - Dated:- 24-8-2017 - S. P. Garg, J. For the Appellant : Mohd.Faraz, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.Amish Aggarwala, Advocate with Mr.Satish Aggarwala, Advocate ORDER S. P. Garg, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 22.09.2012 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.09A/08 by which the appellant Mohammad Burhan was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 21(c) and 29 of Narcotic Drug and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short NDPS Act ). By an ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 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 the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error to base conviction on the sole testimony of PW-10 (Jyothimon Dethan). No independent public witness was produced for examination to corroborate his version. The appellant was falsely implicated in this case and nothing was recovered from his possession. Learned counsel for DRI urged that there are no valid reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of the police officials who had no prior ani ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n various cases investigated by DRI officials including the present one that names of certain individuals are recorded in the proceedings to have joined the investigation. However, these so called independent public witnesses are not produced during trial. A general excuse is given that the addresses given by such individuals were incorrect and the investigating agency was not in a position at that time to verify it. This explanation does not inspire confidence. The secret information was received at around 05.00 p.m. at the DRI office. The perpetrators of the crime were to arrive at around 09.00 p.m. as recorded in the secret information (Ex.PW-2/A). Apparently, the DRI officials had sufficient and ample opportunity/time to procure independent public witnesses having fixed places 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 subseque ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 the quantity of the contraband being carried by a specific individual. The prosecution has not been able to establish as to from where the appellant and his associate - Arif Butt had originated their journey and when they both came into contact with each other. 9. No Call Detail Records have been placed on record to ascertain if both - the appellant and Arif Butt were acquainted with each other or were in constant touch. It is unclear as to when both of them hatched conspiracy to procure huge quantity of contraband. The investigation is silent as to from where the contraband was procured; by whom it was procured; for what consideration it was purchased. It is also not ascertain as to whom the contraband was to be delivered. The Investigating Officer did not wait to find out as to, to whom the appellant and his associate were to deliver the contraband. Arif Butt was not found in possession of any contraband. His motive to remain present with the appellant is not established. The appellant retr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
