RAJNI DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.3.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant herein of the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the Act) and sentencing her to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

(2.) The relevant facts leading to the present appeal are that the appellant herein Smt.Rajni Devi was prosecuted by Police Station Narcotic Branch, Kamla Market for the offence under Section 21 of the Act on the allegations that on 14.10.1999 at about 3.15 p.m. near Government Boys Senior Secondary School, she was found in possession of 7 kgms of heroin. She was tried for the said offence in the court of Special Judge, NDPS, Delhi. Charge was framed against her, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all. When she was examined under the provisions of 313 Cr.P.C. the accused pleaded her false implication in the case at the instance of a certain Devinder who was working in the court as a clerk and who had some connection with the daughter of the accused namely Puja and who was arrested at the instance of husband of the accused. She denied recovery of any incriminating substance from her possession and pleaded that the police had planted the adulterated samples of diacetylmorphine on her. The accused, however, did not lead any evidence in support of her defence plea but it appears that towards the end of the trial court, on a prayer made on behalf of the accused, fresh samples out of the recovered and seized case property were got re- examined from CFSL. After examination of the fresh samples, CFSL gave a totally different and discrepant report than the report already obtained by the prosecution during the course of investigation. Despite this discrepancy, the learned trial court on a consideration of the entire evidence and material brought on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. Aggrieved by her conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(3.) I have heard Mr.R.P.Luthra, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mr.Sunil Kapoor, Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and have given my thoughtful consideration to their submissions as also have carefully examined the material obtaining on record. Though in the memorandum of appeal, conviction of the appellant was sought to be assailed on a variety of grounds but during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has primarily confined his attack to only one ground. The ground being that the learned trial court has failed to consider the effect of the second report of CFSL in regard to the examination of the samples and has discarded the said subsequent report on the ground that it was incumbent upon the accused to have got the percentage aspect clarified from the author of the said subsequent report. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of the court to CFSL reports i.e. one dated 19.11.1999 obtained by the prosecution during the course of investigation and the subsequent report dated 28.2.2005 in regard to the examination of the 7 samples taken out from the 7 packets containing the heroin allegedly recovered from the appellant and has pointed out major discrepancies appearing therein in regard to the percentage of diacetylmorphine found in the samples sent for examination on two occasions. The report of the CFSL dated 19.11.1999 and 28.2.2005 found the percentage of diacetylmorphine as under: <FRM>KIS28.781.htm</FRM>