RICHPAL Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act) for being found in possession of 2,500 kgs of opium on November 13, 1986, at about 4.40 P.M. at Chowk Barafkhana, Subzi Mandi, vide judgment dated November 20, 1987 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a tine of Rs. 1.00,000 (one lakh) as per subsequent order dated November 21, 1987, by Shri Jaspal Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, has come up in appeal challenging his convction and sentence.

(2.) SI Ved Parkash, when posted at Police Station Subzi Mandi, was patrolling the area accompanied by Constable Onkar Singh (Public Witness 2), Constable Jai Parkash and Constable Bhagirath had reached Indira Market at about 4.30 P.M. he is stated to have received a secret information to the effect that one person in possession of opium would be coming from the side of Mori Gate and would be proceeding towards Barafkhana Chowk: and that he proceeded to the spot after his efforts to join certain passers-by resulted in getting help of one public witness lnder)it Singh (Public Witness 4) and at about 4.40 P.M. the appellant was nabbed on being pointed out by the secret informer. The appellant was stated to be carrying a rexine bag Ex. P2 and he was apprised of his right to get his search done in presence of a gazetted officer or the Metropolitan Magistrate. On his decaing, the appellant was searched and the bag was found to contain opium wrapped in polythene paper and at that moment the S.H.O. of the Police Station (Public Witness 1) also stated to have arrived at the spot and in his presence the opium was weighed and a sample of 50 gms was taken out and the sample and the remaining opium were converted into two separate sealed parcels and the seal of the S.H.O. was used which seal was handed over to Inderjit Singh. The case property was taken into possession vide seizure memo. Ex. Public Witness I/A. The Rukka Ex. Public Witness 5/A was prepared and sent to the Police Station through Constable Onkar Singh and the case was registered vide FIR, copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 3/A. The site plan of the spot was prepared which is Ex. Public Witness 5/B and necessary CFSL form containing the sample seal was duly filled in and later on the case property and the sample were duly deposited in Malkhana and on November 18, 19S6. ihe sample was sent Through Constable Onkar Singh. to CFSL and the report of the CFSL Ex. PA showed that the contents of the said sample were opium.

(3.) The prosecution case is duly supported by Public Witness I S.H.O., PW2 Onkar Singh Constable and Public Witness 4 Inderjit Singh, public witness and Public Witness 5 the Investigating Officer. Nothing came out from their cross-examination to show that the case of the prosecution is in any manner doubtful. No suggestion was given to PWI as to why the appellant has been implicated in this case if the case is not true. Only bald suggestions have been given in the cross-examination that the S.H.O. was not present at the spot and he had not signed the seizure memo at the spot which suggestions, of course, have been denied by the S.H.O. It is pertinent to mention that Inderjit Singh, who is a public witness, was not shown to be in any way interested in the police so as to falsely implicate the appellant in this case. He categorically deposed in cross-examination that he had never been a police witness in any other case. The Additional Sessions Judge, in my opinion, rightly relied on statements of these prosecution witnesses in arriving at the conclusion that the said recovery was duly effected from the appellant. As a matter of fact, counsel for the appellant has not challenged the finding of the Additional Sessions Judge- on merits. Counsel for the appellant has, however, vehemently argued that the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with and thus, the conviction of the appellant is vitiated on that score.