The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of truthful confessional statements and the need for reliable evidence from law enforcement officials in drug-related cases.

Introduction

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 9th July 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge-NDPS/South District, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi in Sessions Case No. 46A/00 convicting the Appellant, Ambrose, for the offence under Section 21(c) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (‘NDPS Act’) for having been found in possession of 19 kg of heroin and the order on sentence dated 20th July 2013 whereby for the aforesaid offence he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs 1 lakh and in default, to under simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for a period of six months.

2. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that there were two accused in the case. The Appellant herein was Accused No. 1 (‘A-1’) and Ajmer Singh was Accused No. 2 (A-2). Criminal Appeal No. 1171 of 2013 of A-2 was dismissed by this Court on 28th August 2014 on account of his failure to appear before the Court after being on bail.

The case of the DRI

3. The case of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (‘DRI’) is that on 7th February 2009 Madan Singh, Intelligence Officer (‘IO’) [PW-1] had received a secret information “that a person of Indian origin, around 30 years of age, 5 feet 7 inches tall, sporting trimmed beard, wheatish complexioned with medium built, wearing sky blue coloured striped T-shirt would be handing over some narcotic substance to a medium built African person in the evening hours between 7.30 pm to 8 pm on that day in the parking area outside the Majnu Ka Tila Gurudwara, Delhi.” The secret information (Ex.PW-1/A) was recorded on 5.30 pm on that very day and was placed before Mr. K.K. Sood, (PW-7), Assistant Director, DRI Headquarters. Mr. Sood then called IO, Mr. D.P. Saxena, [PW-9] and directed him to take appropriate action.

The raid proceedings

4. On the above basis, PW-9 along with a team of DRI officers consisting of himself, Mr. Ashok Kumar, Senior Tax Assistant, [PW-5], Mr. Yogesh Kumar Choudhary, the then IO and two or three sepoys. They left the DRI office at about 6.30 pm on 7th February 2009 in a government vehicle and reached at the spot at about 7 pm and kept vigilance for the next 45 minutes. It has come in the evidence of PW-5 and PW-9 that at around 7.45 pm/7.50 pm they noticed a person matching the description contained in the secret information, who was carrying two shoulder bags was apparently waiting for someone at the spot. At about 8 pm they also noticed a person of African origin who came there and met the above mentioned person. The person who was already standing with two bags handed over the two bags to the African origin person. At that time the raiding team apprehended them and introduced themselves by showing their identity cards. PW-9 stated that he specifically asked both the persons as to whether they were carrying any narcotic substances on their person or in the two bags, to which both of them replied in the negative.

5. PW-9 stated in his evidence that when he told both the accused persons to introduce themselves, they disclosed that they were Ajmer Singh, a resident of Taran Taaran of Punjab and Ambrose Aligbogu a resident of Zimbabwe. The two accused, including the Appellant, along with their bags were escorted to the DRI office at I.P. Estate, New Delhi. After reaching the DRI office, PW-9 called two panch witnesses “from the nearby area through a Sepoy of DRI who was present in the office at the point of time.” The two panch witnesses were Arun Kumar Sahni and Arjun Dev Bhatt. In the presence of the said two panch witnesses, notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act were served upon both the accused individually by PW-9 who explained to each of them that it was their right that they may get their person/bags searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. Both the accused are stated to have given in writing that their search and the search of their bags could be conducted by any