SAYED AHMED Vs. DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the impugned judgment, dated 20th February, 2016, and order dated 23rd February, 2016, the appellant Sayed Ahmed stands convicted, under clause (c) of Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act"), and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 13 years, along with fine of Rs. 1,50,000/-, with default simple imprisonment of one year. The learned Special Judge (NDPS) has found the appellant to have been in illicit possession of 51.865 kg of diacetylmorphine (heroin). Clause (c) of Section 21 of the NDPS Act may be reproduced, for ready reference, thus:

(2.) With the above preface, it would be appropriate, at the outset, to view the impugned judgment, of the learned Special Judge, in prà ((THELAW))cis.

(3.) According to the impugned judgment, pursuant to receipt of secret information, a team of officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI, the respondent herein) comprising PW-2 J. P. Raju (the Investigating Officer, referred to, hereinafter, as "the IO"), along with PW-4 Ajay Bhasin, PW-5 Kamal Kumar and PW-15 Rajpal Singh (all of whom were Intelligence Officers in the DRI), as well as two public witnesses, namely Sharvan Shay and Shankar Kumar (neither of whom was co-opted as a prosecution witness), intercepted a Toyota Corolla car, bearing registration no. DL 8 CJ 4621, at about 3:30 AM on 16th November, 2010, at the Singhu Border, as it was entering Delhi. On being questioned by the aforesaid raiding team of the DRI, the driver of the car introduced himself as Sayed Ahmed, i.e. the appellant before this Court, and claimed to be an Afghan national. He initially denied carrying any narcotics, though he is alleged to have subsequently capitulated. He was shown the search authorisation, issued in favour of the IO (PW-2), and was also served with a notice, under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, written in Hindi, as the appellant claimed to be unfamiliar with the English tongue. The appellant attested to an endorsement, on the body of the said notice, electing to have the search of his person and vehicle conducted before a Gazetted officer of the DRI. The appellant, alongwith his car, was escorted to the parking area of the office of the DRI, located at D- Block, I.P. Bhawan, I. P. Estate, New Delhi, where PW-9 V. S. Pandey, Senior Intelligence Officer in the DRI, who was a Gazetted officer, permitted the search of the appellant and vehicle to be conducted in his presence.