RAPHEAL Vs. DEVENDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prosecution case, as detailed in judgment dated 09.05.2013 passed by learned Special Judge NDPS/South District, Saket Court, Delhi, is as follows:

(2.) It is further alleged that two public witnesses were called at about 7.00 PM on the same day and they were told about the intelligence. A team of the DRI Officers, accompanied by the two public witnesses, left the office of DRI at about 7.30 PM and reached the above spot at about 8.30 PM. Surveillance was kept at the spot. At about 9.15 PM, one person of African origin, carrying a black zipper bag, came at the above spot and when the DRI Officers started approaching him, the said person tried to flee away from the spot and started running towards the Karkardooma Court on the sub-lane of ITO and Karkardooma Court Road. However, the members of the DRI team intercepted that person with the above black zipper bag. They disclosed their identities to the said person. The public witnesses were also introduced to him. The identity of the above person on enquiry was revealed to be the accused Rapheal, a permanent resident and native of the State of Nigeria residing at 254, Munirka Village, Near Anupam Restaurant, New Delhi. On enquiry, the accused admitted that he was carrying six packets containing about 7 KG of heroin in his above black zipper bag.

(3.) It is also alleged that a crowd gathered at the spot and PCR van was called to control and to disperse the mob. The complainant/IO Devender Singh also served a notice U/s 50 of the NDPS Act Ex. PW9/A upon the accused and the accused replied in writing on the said notice itself that he did not require the presence of any Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate of DRI and his search and the search of his bag can be conducted by any officer of DRI. He also requested DRI Officers that his search may not be carried out at the above crowded place and the same may be taken in the DRI Office. As the mob still had not dispersed and the above place was not considered safe for carrying out the detailed search and other proceedings, the accused was taken by the DRI Officers to their office, alongwith the above black zipper bag. In the personal search of the accused conducted there, one wrist watch of Kawa make, one Indian 50 rupee note, one yellow metallic ring and a paper slip bearing telephone call details dated 22.09.2005 pertaining to phone numbers 094173840608, 09417384060 and 01884265273 was recovered. The above black zipper bag of the accused was having a stitched sticker of 'TM-ROW-JEANS' written on it and in the search of the above bag, six packets were found therein which were wrapped in brown adhesive tapes. On removing these brown tapes and on further examination, the above packets were further found to contain a transparent polythene packet each, which were heat sealed and the above packets were marked from A to F for the purposes of identification. On cutting open, the said polythene packets were further found to contain light brown powder/granules and a pinch of the said powder/granules from all the packets was tested with the help of a UNO Field Drug Test Kit and the same gave positive result for heroin. The gross weight of the above six packets was found to be 7.094 KG and the net weight of the contraband substance contained therein to be 7.006 KG, as mentioned in detail in Ex.PW9/C to the panchnama Ex. PW9/B drawn at the spot. The complainant/IO seized the above contraband substance and its packing material and the above bag etc for violation of the provisions of the NDPS Act. He also drew three representative samples of 5 gms each from the contraband substance of the above packets and the samples were correspondingly marked A1-A3 to F1-F3. The above samples were kept in separate transparent polythene pouches and the same were stapled and were further kept in separate paper envelopes sealed with the DRI seal over a paper slip pasted on each of the envelopes which were signed by the accused, the complainant/IO as well as the panch witnesses. The remaining contraband substance of the above packets was put back in the same polythenes and these polythenes were further put in separate paper envelopes, which were also similarly sealed and signed by the above signatories over similar paper slips pasted thereon. The packing material, i.e. brown adhesive tapes were separately sealed in an envelope in the similar manner and then these sealed packets of the remaining case property and all the packing material, alongwith the above black zipper bag, were further put in a steel trunk and the same was locked, wrapped and stitched in a white cloth and then sealed in the similar manner. The IO/complainant also prepared a site plan Ex. PW9/D of the place of the interception of the accused, a detailed panchnama Ex. PW9/C regarding the above proceedings and also the test memos in triplicate, including the test memos Ex. PW9/H & PW9/J to N. The facsimile of the above DRI seal was also affixed on the above panchnama and test memos.