SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Del) 1215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
Vinod Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State (N.C.T. of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.A. 457/2012
Decided On : 04-03-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. R.N. Sharma, Advocate
Mr. Akshai Malik, APP for the State alongwith SI Bharat from Police Station Hauz Khas

Substantial compliance with legal provisions is sufficient to uphold a conviction under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - [NDPS Act] - [Section 20 NDPS Act] - The court discussed the non-joining of independent witnesses, compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act, competency of the officer carrying out the search and seizure, delay in sending samples to FSL, and compliance with Section 50 of the Act. The court found substantial compliance with the legal provisions and upheld the conviction.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act for possessing Charas. The prosecution's case was based on a raid conducted by the police, during which the appellant was apprehended and the contraband substance was seized.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the non-joining of independent witnesses did not discredit the testimony of the police officials. It also ruled that there was substantial compliance with the legal provisions regarding search and seizure, competency of the officer, and sending samples to FSL. The court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal.

Issues: Non-joining of independent witnesses, compliance with Section 42 of NDPS Act, competency of the officer carrying out the search and seizure, delay in sending samples to FSL, and compliance with Section 50 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the non-joining of independent witnesses did not invalidate the prosecution's case. It also clarified the legal provisions regarding search and seizure, competency of the officer, and sending samples to FSL, finding substantial compliance in each instance.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act was upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Sunita Gupta, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 27.01.2012 and 30.01.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, NDPS, South and South-East District, Saket Courts, New Delhi in Sessions Case No.20A/10 FIR No. 242/10 under Section 20 NDPS Act, Police Station Hauz Khas convicting the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the Act”) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.1 lac in default, to suffer further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was also given to him.

2. Prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 14.07.2010 at about 3.45 pm a secret information was received by ASI Bijender Singh (PW-5) in the police station that one person named Vinod Sharma resident of Himachal Pradesh who used to supply Charas in Delhi from Himachal Pradesh will come at the underpass near AIIMS Hospital i.e., under the road leading towards South Extension Part-II between 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm to supply Charas to someone. The information was conveyed by PW-5 to SHO Inspector Ramesh Kalsan (PW-2) who after satisfying himself regarding the correctness of the information, informed ACP Mehar Singh (PW-10) telephonically. DD No.20A Ex.PW-5/A was recorded by ASI Bijender Singh in this regard and the same was sent to the ACP through the SHO who directed him to proceed further in the matter. A raiding party consisting of police officials reached the spot at about 5.00 pm. Some passersby were asked to join the raiding party but none agreed. At about 8.15 pm, accused came from the side of AIIMS hospital and was going towards South Extension Part-II by holding one rexine bag on his shoulder. He was apprehended. He was informed about the secret information and that his search was required to be conducted. He was further explained that he had a legal right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer. PW-5 also offered his search as well as the search of the other members of the raiding team before taking his search. Notice under Section 50 of the Act Ex.P5 in this regard was served upon the accused, however, vide reply Ex.PW5/C, he declined to be searched before the aforesaid officers or to take search of the police party. Again, some public persons were asked to join the proceedings but none agreed. Contents of the rexine bag were checked. It was found to contain one old cloth bag which was found to contain one white polythene bag containing 36 square “tikkiyas” giving foul smell which on weighing came to 3.5 Kg. From each of the tikkiyas some substance was taken and two samples of 50 gms each were taken out and kept in separate polythene. The remaining Charas was kept in the same polythene and cloth bag. All the three pullandas were sealed by the Investigating Officer of the case with the seal of BS, form FSL was filed up and the same seal was affixed thereon. The pullandas of sample, remaining case property and FSL form were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW5/D. Rukka Ex.PW5/E was sent through PW-8 Head Constable Sanjeev Kumar for registration of the case. He was also handed over sealed pullandas, form FSL and carbon copy of seizure memo for entrusting the same to the SHO. The pullandas and the documents were handed over to the SHO who in turn affixed his own seal of RK and thereafter deposited the same in Malkhana. FIR was registered and further investigation was carried out by SI Narender Kumar (PW-6). He sent the information/report under Section 57 of NDPS Act (Ex.PW-6/C) to the senior officers. Sample pullandas were sent to FSL. The appellant was charged for offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Act and tried.

3. The appellant abjured his guilt. The learned special Judge on an assessment of the evidence adduced by the prosecution accepted the prosecution case and convicted and sentenced the appella























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top