Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAMDAYAL BISHNOI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 155 of 1994
Decided On : 09/12/2000
NDPS Act - Non-deposit of CFSL Form - Section 50, NDPS Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the significance of depositing the CFSL Form with the malkhana and sending it to the CFSL office as required by the NDPS Act. It emphasized the importance of proving the form's proper handling to ensure the integrity of the evidence. The court cited several judgments where the failure to deposit the CFSL Form led to the acquittal of the accused, highlighting the strict standard of proof required in NDPS Act cases.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was apprehended with opium, and the prosecution failed to prove the proper handling of the CFSL Form, leading to doubts about the integrity of the evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the non-deposit of the CFSL Form in the malkhana and its failure to be sent to the CFSL office created a vital lapse in the prosecution's version, entitling the accused to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The key issue was the failure of the prosecution to provide documentary evidence of the proper handling of the CFSL Form as required by the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the proper handling of the CFSL Form to maintain the integrity of evidence in NDPS Act cases, citing previous judgments where similar lapses led to the acquittal of the accused.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 25. 3. 1994 delivered in Sessions Case No. 158/93. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under.
( 2 ) ON 8/03/1990 Inspector Niranjan Singh, SHO Police Station Kotwali at Police Post Red Fort received secret information that one person is scheduled to reach Bhure Shah Mazzar for selling opium. This secret information was recorded vide DD Entry No. 14 by the SHO Niranjan Singh in the Daily Diary of Police Post Red Fort. A raiding party was formed comprising of SI Birjinder Singh, Head Constable Shabuddin, Constable Desh Pal and one public witness Paramjit Singh.
( 3 ) THE accused Ram Dayal who on seeing the police party tried to run away but was apprehended and immediately thereafter the SHO Niranjan Singh told the contents of the secret information to the accused Ram Dayal. SI Sahdev Singh served a notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act in writing to the accused in which an option was given to the accused that if he wants he could be searched before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The accused declined both the options. Thereafter his bag was checked. From the tehmad opium wrapped in polythene paper was recovered. The recovered opium weighed about 8 Kgs. Out of the recovered opium, 250 gms. was taken as sample. The sample opium and the remaining opium were covered with polythene cover and Tehmad was put into different parcel which was sealed with the seal of ss by SI Sahdev Singh. ACP Ashok Chand was summoned at the spot. He verified the facts from the accused Rani Dayal. The two sealed parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo. Seal ss was thereafter handed over to the public witness Paramjit Singh. The CFSL Form was filled in and the case property was delivered to the SHO who put his own seal ns thereon and placed the case property in his safe custody.
( 4 ) ACCORDING to the further case of the prosecution, the case property was deposited in the malkhana by the SHO Niranjan Singh. It is stated that on 15. 3. 1990 Constable Satpal took the sample parcel alongwith the CFSL Form from the malkhana for depositing it in the CFSL, Chandigarh. According to the report of the CFSL the sample examined was found to be opium. After necessary investigation accused Ram Dayal was challanged. The charge was framed against the appellant in which he pleaded not guilty and claimed the trial. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 7 witnesses.
( 5 ) THE short submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, is that the CFSL Form was neither deposited in the malkhana nor the same was sent for malkhana to the CFSL, Chandigarh. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the statement of Public Witness 2 Head Constable Vikram Singh. The relevant portion reads as under:
"on 8. 3. 1990 I was posted as MHC (M) at P. S. Kotwali. On that day SHO Niranjan Singh deposited with me one sealed Pullanda sealed with seals of SS and NS and another sealed parcel was also deposited with me which was sealed with the same seals. On 15. 3. 1990 the sample parcel which was sealed with the seal of SS and NS was given by me to Constable Satpal for depositing the same with CFSL vide Road Certificate No. 247/21. The sample parcel was received back from CFSL on 7th of July, 1990 regarding which I also made necessary entries in the Malkhana Register No. 19. "
( 6 ) IN the statement Public Witness 2 Vikram Singh does not mention that the SHO Niranjan Singh or anyone else had deposited the CFSL Form with him. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar further stated the in the Register No. 19 relevant entry (Exhibit Public Witness2/a) also mentions that one Pullanda of 7. 750 Kgs. , of opium was deposited. It does not mention that the CFSL Form was also deposited alongwith it. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar also submits that there is no entry that the CFSL Form was despatched to CFSL, Chan
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
