LAWS(DLH)-2006-12-118

SIDDIQUE Vs. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU

Decided On December 12, 2006
SIDDIQUA Appellant
V/S
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, challenging the judgment dated 31st January, 2002 of the Special Judge, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act( in short 'the NDPS Act') whereby the learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of offence under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and against the order on sentence dated 4th February, 2002 whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1 lac and in default, the appellant to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for purposes of deciding this appeal are as under. The Assistant Director, Narcotic Control Bureau (NCB) Mr. S. Sharma received a secret information, which he reduced into writing (Ex.PW1/B) on 25.3.1998, that one woman named Siddika would be reaching outside Zoological Garden, Mathura Road at around 2 pm to deliver a consignment of 5 kg of heroin. He, thereafter, put up this information before his immediate superior officer, Deputy Director Mr. Mukesh Khullar, who directed him to organize a surveillance and take action on the basis of information. Mr. Shrama instructed Sh. D.C. Mishra, Superintendent, NCB to organize a team and reach the Zoo and mount surveillance. Mr. D.C. Mishra constituted a team consisting of himself, Lady Intelligence Officer Ms. Suman Kumari and 3-4 other officials of NCB and reached the gate of Zoological Garden and mounted surveillance. At around 2.30 pm a lady, as per the description given in the secret information, was seen standing outside the Zoo, having a black leather bag and white polythene bag in her hands. She waited for about half an hour and then took an Auto Richshaw and started moving towards the Delhi Public School, Mathura Road. The NCB Team followed that auto rickshaw and intercepted it near Sunder Nagar. The auto rickshaw with passenger was taken to nearby taxi stand. The auto driver and one independent witness from the taxi stand were associated in the proceedings and the NCB officials disclosed their identity to the appellant and disclosed about the information with them and told her that if she wished to get herself searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, the same would be arranged. A notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, Ex.PW1/C, was served upon her by the Lady Officer Ms. Suman Kumari. The appellant, however, stated that she could be searched without a Gazetted Officer. Her personal search did not result into the recovery of any contraband. However, the leather bag and polythene, carried by her, were also searched, while nothing incriminating was recovered from the leather bag, the polythene carried by her contained light-brown/brown coloured powder in 5 polythene bags, kept below some clothes. The appellant confessed that the packets contained heroin. The contents of the packets were tested with help of Field Testing Kit on the spot and packets tested positive for heroin. The packets were weighed and each packet weighed 1 kg. Two samples of 5 gms were drawn from each of the packet. A Panchnama Ex.Pw1/D was prepared about the recovery. The packets and the samples were sealed with paper slips bearing the signatures of the Panch witnesses and of Ms. Suman Kumari and Mr. D.C. Mishra. The seals were affixed in such a manner, on all corners of the envelops, that the property could not be taken out without destroying the seals. The samples were marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D1, D2 and E1, E2, while the packets containing the brown powder were marked as A to E. The seals affixed on the samples and the case property was also affixed on the panchnama. The case property along with the appellant was brought to the NCB Office, where the appellant made a disclosure statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. The case property and the samples were deposited in Malkhana on the very same day. A report Ex.PW1/5 under Section 57 of the NDPS Act was sent by an Intelligence Officer Ms. Suman Kumari to her superior Officer Mr. D.C. Mishra. Mr. D.C. Mishra forwarded it to his superior officers. The appellant in her statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act disclosed her address as S-19, Greater Kailash. A search of this house vide memos Ex.PW 2/F and PW 3/A was conducted but nothing incriminating was recovered. The report of search is Ex.PW1/F. The samples along with test memos were sent to CRCL, New Delhi for testing and confirmation on 26th March, 1998 i.e. on very next day, in intact condition. PW4 had carried the samples for delivery to CRCL. The forwarding letter has been proved as Ex.PW4/A. The seizure memo as Ex.PW4/B. The receipt issued by the CRCL is Ex.PW4/C. The samples were tested at CRCL and Mr. K.S. Rathore, Sr. Analyst proved the chemical analysis report as Ex.PW5/A. The samples were found to contain diacetyle morphine(heroin). PW6 Mr. A. Alam of CRCL testified about receipt of five samples, each sample having lakh lakh seals of NCB, the seals being intact and tallying with the specimen of sample seals. PW9 Mr. Rajender Yadav, a panch witness, supported the prosecution case of recovery of five polythene packets and testing of contents of each polythene packet by the staff of NCB with Field Testing Kit and the finding that it was heroin. He also testified about the weight of heroin recovered from the appellant being 5 kg and sending of each sample and packet. He identified the case property as well as his signatures on the documents. His testimony was silent about some facts and, therefore, he was cross examined by the Public Prosecutor and in his cross examination, He admitted five paper slips Ex.PW1/K to PW1/0, having been affixed on five packets with seal of NCB and also sealing of sample pouches vide paper slips which bore his signatures.

(3.) All the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case of recovery of 5 kg of heroin from the possession of the appellant, taking of samples, sealing of samples and case property and appellant was identified by the independent witness in the court as well being the same woman from whom heroin was recovered.