BHOOP SINGH @ PAPPU Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to a judgment dated 11.11.2010 of learned Special Judge, NDPS (Central) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 09/2009 arising out of FIR No. 318/2008 PS Pahar Ganj by which the appellant ­ Bhoop Singh @ Pappu was convicted under Section 20(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act'). By an order dated 16.11.2010, the appellant was was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine ' One lac.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant as reflected in the charge - sheet were that on 24.12.2008 at about 07.25 A.M. he was found in unlawful possession of 2.5 Kg. of Charas at a public place on Rajguru Road, near Imperial Cinema, Paharganj, Delhi. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with facts were recorded. The exhibits were sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short 'CFSL') for examination. After completion of investigation, a charge - sheet under Section 20(b) of NDPS Act was submitted in the Court. The appellant was duly charged and brought to trial. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses to prove its case. In 313 statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. DW -1 (Hukam Chand) was examined in defence. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held the appellant guilty and sentenced him as mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has preferred the appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Material testimony to infer the appellant's involvement in the crime is that of PW -9 (SI Sultan Singh Meena) who along with HC Latoor Singh and Const.Jawahar Singh was on patrolling duty in the area of police station Pahar Ganj on 24.12.2008. They had left to patrol the area at 06.05 A.M. vide DD No.8B (Ex.PW -9/A). When they were present near Imperial Cinema, SI Sultan Singh Meena received a secret information that an individual would come from DBG Road side with heavy quantity of Charas. This information was recorded as Ex.PW - 6/A and sent to SHO through Const.Jawahar Singh. PW -9 (SI Sultan Singh Meena) deposed that thereafter, he requested four or five persons to join the raiding party. One Puran Chand volunteered to join the investigation. At around 07.25 A.M. on the pointing out of the secret informer, the appellant carrying a polythene bag was asked to stop. In the meantime, Const.Jawahar Singh handed over to him the copy of DD entry (Ex.PW -9/B) about the directions by the SHO to carry on the investigation. The appellant was informed about the information about Charas in his possession. He was further informed that he had legal right to call any Gazetted Officer or Magistrate for the purpose of search. Notice (Ex.PW -3/A) under Section 50 of NDPS Act was prepared. Its contents were explained to the accused who put his thumb impression at point 'Q' on Ex.PW -3/A. He refused to call any Magistrate and also refused to take search of the police party. Endorsement about his refusal was recoded at points 'AA' to 'AA -1' on Ex.PW -3/A and the appellant put his thumb impression at point 'Q -1'. Further case of the prosecution is that thereafter, on search of the bag in the right hand of the accused, five packets were found. Each packet contained two strips of Charas. On weighing, each strip was found containing 250 grams of Charas. The total recovery of Charas was 2.5 Kg. 10 grams were taken from each strip as sample. FSL form was filled up. Case property and the FSL form were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW -3/B. PW -9 (SI Sultan Singh Meena) prepared rukka (Ex.PW -9/C) and lodged First Information Report through Const.Jawahar Singh. When ASI Rajan Singh along with Const.Jawahar Singh arrived at the spot, SI Sultan Singh Meena handed over the custody of the accused and the memos to him. In the cross -examination, the witness revealed that he remained at the spot till 10.00 A.M. He denied the suggestion that the appellant was falsely implicated in this case and nothing was recovered from his possession. Apparently, the material facts stated by the crucial witness remained unchallenged in the cross - examination. Nothing was suggested to the witness if there was non - compliance of Sections 42, 50 and 57 of NDPS Act. The appellant did not deny presence of witness - Puran Chand at the spot in whose presence the contraband was recovered from his possession. He even did not disclose as to from where else he was apprehended. Nothing material was elicited in the cross -examination to suspect the recovery of the contraband from his possession. No ulterior motive was assigned to the witness for false implication.