2014 Supreme(Del) 319
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
Jai Yodhad
Versus
State
Crl. Appeal No. 392 of 2010
Decided On : 30-01-2014
For the Appellant:Ajay Verma, Prateek, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Feroz Khan Ghazi, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of compliance with the legal rights of the accused, the procedures for conducting raids, and the requirements for recording and sending secret information under the NDPS Act.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 20 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Sections 20, 29, 42, and 50 of the NDPS Act. It highlighted the legal rights of the accused, the procedures for conducting raids, and the requirements for recording and sending secret information. The court emphasized the importance of compliance with these provisions and the significance of evidence in proving the possession of contraband.
Fact of the Case:
The police received secret information about a person bringing Ganja from Nepal to Delhi. A raid was conducted, and the appellant was found carrying charas. The appellant was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, convicted, and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and pay a fine of Rs.20,000.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty under Section 20 of the NDPS Act based on the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, the seizure of charas, and the compliance with legal procedures during the raid. The court upheld the conviction and the sentence, with a direction for a reduced imprisonment term in case of failure to pay the fine.
Issues: The issues raised included the absence of the official vehicle's log book, the failure to join public witnesses in the raiding party, and a discrepancy in the name printed on the bag carried by the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the non-production of the log book did not invalidate the prosecution's case, emphasized the reluctance of the public to join raiding parties, and deemed the discrepancy in the name printed on the bag inconsequential. The court also emphasized the importance of compliance with the legal rights of the accused and the procedures for conducting raids.
Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, upholding the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, with a direction for a reduced imprisonment term in case of failure to pay the fine.
V.K. Jain, J. (Oral)
1. On 8.7.2008, SI Sunil Jain of Narcotic Branch received secret information that a person named Jai, resident of Nepal, who is engaged in bringing Ganja from Nepal to Delhi and selling the same, in association with one Norbu, will meet Norbu between 6.30 pm to 7 pm on that date at Railway Crossing, Shalimar Village and a huge quantity of Ganja would be supplied. The aforesaid information was brought by SI Sunil Jain to the notice of Inspector M.L. Sharma of Narcotic Branch and he also produced the informer before him. After making inquiries from the informer, Inspector M.L. Sharma brought the information to the notice of the concerned ACP Mr. M.S. Dabas on telephone. The said ACP directed him to conduct a raid as per the legal procedure. The information was then recorded vide DD No.18A of the Police Station at 5 pm and a copy was sent to the ACP. A raiding party consisting of SI Sunil Jain, HC Rajinder, HC Mukesh and Sohan Pal was then organized and equipped with field testing kit, electronic balance etc.
2. The raiding party reached the Railway Crossing, Shalimar Village at about 6.15 pm. On the way to Railway Crossing, Shalimar Village, SI Sunil Jain requested a number of passengers present at the bus stand of Ramesh Park and at Raj Ghat bus stop to join the raiding party, but no one agreed to be associated with the said party. At about 6.35 pm, the appellant – Jay, accompanied by his co-accused Norbu, reached the spot. The appellant was carrying a black colour bag on his shoulder. On being identified by the secret informer, both of them were apprehended and their particulars were verified. Both of them were informed by way of a written notice that they had a legal right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and they could also search the police team as well as the police vehicle. They, however, declined to exercise their right. On search of the bag, which the appellant – Jay was carrying on his shoulder, it was found to contain a polythene bag containing solid powder, which on smelling and testing with the help of field testing kit, was found to be charas. The weight of the substance as found to be 7 kg. After taking out three samples of 100 gm each and duly sealing them, the residual substance was seized after it was duly sealed with the official seal of “5BPS NB Delhi”. The aforesaid seal was also affixed on FSL Form, which was filled on the spot.
3. The appellant was charged under Section 20 of NDPS Act whereas his co-accused Norbu was charged under Section 29 of the Act. Since both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed trial, as many as eight witnesses were examined. No witness was examined in defence.
4. Vide impugned judgment dated 16.11.2009, the appellant was convicted under Section 20 of the Act whereas his co-accused was acquitted. The appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- or to undergo RI for one year in default. Being aggrieved from his conviction and the sentence awarded to him, the appellant is before this Court by way of this appeal.
5. SI Sunil Jain came in the witness box as PW6 and stated that on 8.7.2008, when he was posted at Police Station Narcotic Branch, he received secret information that Jai, a resident of Nepal, was involved in supply of charas in Delhi, in association with one Norbu, who used to bring charas from Nepal. He was further informed that Jay and Norbu would come to Shalimar Village Railway Crossing between 6.30 to 7 pm, to supply charas to someone. After verification of the informer, he produced him before Inspector M.L. Sharma and apprised him of the information. After verifying the information from the informer, Mr. M.L. Sharma informed the concerned ACP Mr. M.S. Dabas on telephone, who directed to conduct a raid. He further stated that the secret information was recorded by him vide DD No.18A, a copy of which is Ex.PW5/B and they left the police station at about 5.15 pm in a gove