PEERASWMI Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment, I shall dispose of above two appeals preferred against the common judgment dated 10.04.2006 passed by learned Special Judge under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short "the Act") whereby he convicted both the appellants under Section 20 of the Act. Both appellants are husband and wife. Appellant Peeraswmi was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months since the quantity allegedly recovered from him was only .035 gms of smack being a small quantity. The learned Special Judge, however, sentenced appellant Chambai to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1 lac since the alleged recovery of charas made from her was about 5" kg , being commercial quantity.

(2.) Briefly, facts relevant for purpose of deciding these two appeals are that Sub Inspector Raj Kumar, posted in Special Staff South Delhi, received a secret information through a secret informer that Peeraswmi and his wife Chambai used to deal in charas and smack at their residence X-309, Camp No.1, J.J. Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. He reduced this information into writing vide DD No.4 (Ex.PW5/A) and disclosed this information to Inspector Ashok Tyagi, Incharge Special Cell. Inspector Ashok Tyagi conveyed the said information to higher officials and organized a raiding party comprising of police officials and one Lady Head Constable Veena. The raiding party along with the secret informer went to Peera Garhi Chowk where some public persons were asked to join the raiding party and one public person named Subash agreed to join the raiding party. The raiding party along with the public person Subash (PW-4) went to the house of the appellant at X-309, Camp No.1, J.J.Colony, Nangloi, Delhi. Appellant Peeraswmi was standing in the Verandah and he was apprehended at the pointing out of the secret informer. Sub Inspector Raj Kumar told the appellant the they were having information about his having smack and if he would like, he could be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and a notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon him to this effect. It is alleged that the appellant opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer. Inspector Ashok Tyagi contacted ACP Rattan Singh and requested him to reach the spot. At about 1.15 pm ACP Rattan Singh reached the spot. He disclosed his identity of being a Gazetted Officer and on his direction search of the appellant Peeraswmi was undertaken and smack was recovered from under his shirt. On weighing, the smack was found to be 500 gms. Out of this, a sample of 10 gm was taken and sealed and remaining smack was also sealed. At the same time, other appellant Chambai was found present in the side room of the house. She was trying to conceal a bag held by her. Lady Head Constable Veena was keeping a watch on her. A notice under Section 50 of the Act was served upon her. She also opted to be searched before a Gazetted Officer and she was searched before the ACP Rattan Singh. The recovery of 5" kg of charas was made from the bag held by her in her hand. The charas was in the form of slabs. One slab of 500 gms was taken as sample and remaining charas was sealed. The sample was separately sealed. The samples of smack and charas were seized and a rukka was sent for registration of an FIR. Subsequent investigation was handed over to Assistant Sub Inspector Jai Prakash. On completion of investigation and on receipt of report from FSL, the charge- sheet was filed and the appellants were put to trial. During trial, another sample of smack was sent to FSL for determining the percentage of narcotic substance in it and the analysis showed that the percentage of narcotic substance in the seized material was only .007%. Thus the quantity of smack in the brown sugar powder recovered from appellant Peeraswmi was only .035 gm.

(3.) The prosecution in all examined 17 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the appellants. Learned Special Judge, after considering testimony of the witnesses, came to conclusion that the case against the appellants was proved beyond reasonable doubt.