LAWS(DLH)-2015-10-18

LAVLESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

Decided On October 06, 2015
Lavlesh Kumar Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Lavlesh Kumar stands convicted by judgment dated 13.01.2011 passed by the learned ASJ/Special Judge, NDPS/South and South-East, Saket Court Complex, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.41A/09 arising out of FIR No.13/09 (P.S.Saket) under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.

(2.) By order of sentence dated 14.01.2011, appellant Lavlesh has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years, a fine of Rs.1 lakh and in default of payment of fine a further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The appellant was apprehended from near the Bus Terminal, Lado Sarai, M.B.Road on 10.01.2009 at about 5.20 pm and was found to be in possession of 22 kgs of Ganja, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act.

(3.) The appellant has assailed the Trial Court judgment of conviction and sentence on various grounds namely that (i) only police witnesses have been examined at the trial and no public or independent witness has been made a prosecution witness or has been made to join the investigation; (ii) the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act served upon the appellant did not state that the appellant also had a right to search the police officials before subjecting himself to the search by the officials; (iii) despite the fact that the appellant Lavlesh Kumar was arrested along with co-accused Upender Singh, instead of one FIR, two separate cases vide two different FIRs were lodged; (iv) the case property namely the sample drawn from the recovered narcotic was tampered with as the FSL report gives the description of the sample parcel weighing 903 grams and 885 grams respectively, when two samples of 1 kg each was drawn by the police officer at the time of the recovery; (v) unusual delay of 20 days in sending the sample to the FSL and (vi) not proving the road certificate which renders the prosecution case of sending the samples to FSL doubtful.