TASSAVUR Vs. DRI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tassavur (A-1) and Mukail Adebayo (A-2) challenge the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 03.03.2012 of learned Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge - NDPS in Sessions Case No. 30A/06 by which they were held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 21(c) of NDPS Act. By an order on sentence dated 06.03.2012, they were awarded RI for ten years with fine Rs. 1 lac, each.

(2.) Allegations against the appellants were that on 20.11.2005 at about 11.00 A.M., an intelligence was received by PW-1 (Sh.K.S.Ratra), Intelligence Officer that one person (A-1) would bring around 3 Kg. of heroin to deliver it to Becky Samuel (since expired) and A-2 at R-22, 2nd floor, Khirki Extension, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi in between 04.00 to 07.00 P.M. The information was reduced into writing and was placed before superior officer who directed PW-1 to mount a surveillance around the said premises. Further case of the respondent / DRI is that around 05.00 P.M., the said premises were raided in the company of two independent witnesses. A-1, A-2 and Becky Samuel (since expired) were found present there. A-1 attempted to flee the spot and caught hold. It is further alleged that one leather bag of "Da Millano" brand and some Indian and Foreign currency were recovered from the said premises. On examination of the bag, it was found to contain two golden fabric pouches and four pairs of ladies sandals. These contained white powder / granules of various weights. The total recovery effected was 2.924 Kg. of heroin. Panchnama (Ex.PW-2/C) was drawn at the spot. In response to the summons dated 20.11.2005 under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, all the three accused persons tendered their statements (Ex.PW-10/B, Ex.PW-2/F and Ex.PW-5/B). All the accused persons were arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. After completion of investigation, a complaint was filed in the Court on 17.05.2006. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence on 19.05.2006; they were duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution / DRI examined 16 witnesses to establish guilt of the accused persons. In their 313 statements, the appellants denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. Mukail Adebayo (A-2) examined himself in defence. It is relevant to note that Becky Samuel expired during trial and the proceedings against her were dropped. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellants guilty for the offence mentioned previously and sentenced them accordingly. It is significant to note that both the appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 29 read with Section 21 (c) of the Act. The prosecution / DRI did not challenge the said acquittal. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, they have preferred the appeals.

(3.) During hearing of the appeals, appellants counsel on instructions stated at Bar that they have opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. They prayed to modify the sentence order as the appellants have already undergone substantial period of substantive sentence awarded to them.