Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2368
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Ajay - Appellant
Versus
State (GNCT of Delhi) - Respondent
Crl.A. 1715 of 2014 & Crl.M.B. 11208 of 2014
Decided On : 18-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Biswajit K. Patra
For the Respondent: Mr. Amit Gupta
The judgment emphasized the importance of scrutinizing testimonies of police officials, the relevance of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the significance of the recovery of contraband in reaching a fair and proper decision.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - Summary of Acts and Sections: NDPS Act, Section 20(b)(ii)(C) - The court discussed the prosecution's case, the evidence presented, and the appellant's defense. It highlighted the importance of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the relevance of recovery of contraband, and the significance of the appellant's explanation for the incriminating circumstances. The court emphasized the lack of valid reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of the police officials and the rejection of the appellant's defense. The judgment was based on the fair and proper appreciation of the evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for possessing 'Ganja' without a license. The prosecution's case detailed the circumstances of the appellant's apprehension and the recovery of the contraband. The appellant denied involvement and pleaded false implication. The defense was based on the appellant's explanation for the recovery of 'Ganja' and the involvement of a Proclaimed Offender.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no valid reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of the police officials and rejected the appellant's defense. It emphasized the lack of material inconsistency in the witnesses' testimonies and the rejection of the appellant's plea for false implication. The judgment was based on fair reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the prosecution's evidence, the appellant's defense, and the credibility of the testimonies of the police officials. The court also considered the relevance of notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the significance of the recovery of contraband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of scrutinizing the testimonies of the police officials with great care and caution in the absence of independent public witnesses. It highlighted the lack of material inconsistency in the witnesses' testimonies and the rejection of the appellant's defense. The judgment was based on fair reasoning and proper appreciation of the evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal lacked merits and was dismissed. The sentence order based on fair reasoning deserved no modification.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 24.05.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.12A/2011 arising out of FIR No.200/2011 PS Malviya Nagar by which the appellant – Ajay was convicted for committing offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act. By an order dated 27.05.2014, he was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs.1 lac.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge-sheet was that on 25.05.2011 at about 05.40 a.m. at Police Picket Shivalik Road, near Jal Bord Office, Malviya Nagar, the appellant -Ajay was found in possession of 161.200 Kg. of ‘Ganja’ without licence.
3. On 25.05.2011, PW-9 (SI Amit Chaudhary), PW-1 (HC Netrapal) and PW-11 (Const. Suraj Vir Tomar) were present at Anti-Snatching Picket, Shivalik Road. At about 05.40 a.m. one red colour Maruti Zen without number plate was seen coming from Panchsheel flyover side. On being signalled to stop, SI Amit Chaudhary made enquiries from the appellant driving the said car and asked him to produce relevant documents. The appellant did not furnish the documents. The car was found loaded with bags; two bags were lying in the front seat. On checking one bag, smell like ‘Ganja’ was found coming out of it. On further enquiries, it was found that the bags total numbering eight loaded in the car had ‘Ganja’ contained therein. Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act (Ex.PW-9/C) was served upon the appellant. Weighing machine was arranged and the total weight of the ‘Ganja’ came to be 161.200 kg. Two samples of 250 grams each were taken out the eight bags. Necessary proceedings were conducted. Ex.PW-9/A was prepared and sent for lodging FIR. Subsequent investigation was taken over by ASI Vijay Singh. The appellant was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Exhibits collected during investigation were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. He did not examine any witness in defence. The Trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been preferred.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the file. Appellant’s counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. No independent public witness was associated at any stage of the investigation despite their availability. Number of material infirmities have emerged in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Delay in sending the samples to Forensic Science Laboratory has not been explained. Possibility of tampering with the case property can’t be ruled out. Certain material witnesses were not examined. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor controverting the arguments urged that there are no valid reasons to disbelieve the testimonies of the police officials in the absence of any material inconsistency.
5. The occurrence took place on 25.05.2011 at around 05.40 a.m. when PW-9 (SI Amit Chaudhary) along with his police staff PW-1 (HC Netrapal) and PW-11 (Const. Suraj Vir Tomar) was present on patrolling duty in the area. When they were in the process of checking the vehicles, it was found that a Maruti Zen without number plate was approaching from the side of Panchsheel flyover. When the appellant driving the said vehicle failed to furnish the documents and answer satisfactorily, further enquiries were made. The vehicle was found loaded with eight bags. On suspicion, the bags were checked and these were found to contain ‘Ganja’. Notice under Section 50 (Ex.PW-1/A) was served upon the accused. Vide reply (Ex.PW-1/B), he declined to be searched in the presence of Metropolitan Magistrate/Gazetted Officer. Admit
