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) 4586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
S.P. GARG, J.
Anita @ Ruby - Appellant
Versus
State Nct. of Delhi - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 1332 of 2013
Decided On : 06-05-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Vimal Puggal, Advocate with Ms. Rekha Dey and Mr. Siddharta, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Amit Gupta, APP.

Delay in sending samples and minor discrepancies do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution case.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Conviction under Section 21 (c) - 1985 NDPS Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - The court discussed the compliance of mandatory provisions under Sections 42, 50, and 57 of the NDPS Act, the delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the impact of minor discrepancies on the prosecution case. The court referred to legal precedents to establish that delay in sending samples and minor discrepancies do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution case.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was found in possession of 1 kg of heroin without a license or permit. The prosecution case was based on the recovery of heroin from the appellant's possession at a specific location.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of committing an offence punishable under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and the recovery of heroin from the appellant's possession.

Issues: The issues included the compliance of mandatory provisions under the NDPS Act, the delay in sending samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and the impact of minor discrepancies on the prosecution case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in sending samples and minor discrepancies do not necessarily invalidate the prosecution case, citing legal precedents to support this conclusion.

Final Decision: The appeal was disposed of, affirming the appellant's conviction under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act and modifying the sentence order.

JUDGMENT :

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated 24.07.2013 of learned Special Judge (NDPS)/Addl. Sessions Judge (North-East) in Sessions Case No. 03/12 arising out of FIR No. 232/11 PS Crime Branch whereby the appellant Anita @ Ruby was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'NDPS Act'). By an order dated 27.07.2013, she was sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 1 lac.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as unfolded in the charge-sheet was that on 13.09.2011 at about 03.20 p.m. at footpath, ISBT road Shastri Park near IT Park, the appellant was found in possession of 1 kg. of heroin without licence or permit.

3. On 13.09.2011 at around 01.30 p.m. PW-2 (HC Kanwar Pal) received a secret information that the appellant would come at ISBT road near IT Park, Shashtri Park to supply heroin to 'someone'. HC Kanwar Pal produced the secret informer before PW-9 (SI Sunil Kumar) who in turn produced him before PW-5 (Insp.Rajesh Sharma). After recording satisfaction about the secret information, Insp. Rajesh Sharma intimated about this to Addl. DCP/ SIT Joy Tirky. Direction was given to conduct the raid. SI Sunil Kumar recorded DD No.9 (Ex.PW-4/B). A raiding team was constituted and they all reached the spot at about 03.20 p.m. On the pointing out of the secret informer, the appellant was apprehended. She was informed of her legal rights. Notice under Section 50 NDPS Act was served upon her. On search of a bag of violet/golden colour on her left shoulder, it was found containing a transparent polythene bag containing 1 kg. heroin. SI Sunil Kumar took out two samples of 5 grams each. He also prepared FSL form and seizure memos. Investigation was subsequently taken over by PW-10 (ASI Harcharan Singh). 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 for commission of offence under Section 21 (c) of NDPS Act. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied her involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in her conviction as aforesaid. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the instant appeal has been filed.

4. Appellant's counsel urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. It overlooked the fact that no independent public witness including the driver of the private vehicle Innova used in the raid was associated. He pointed out that the quantity of sample reached at FSL was 5.009 grams which is inconsistent to the quantity of 5 grams taken as sample. Five days delay in sending the samples has not been explained. It is unclear as to whom the seal was handed over. No telephone call record was collected. Delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained. The appellant was not involved in any other case. The handbag recovered from her possession was not produced. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor urged that all the mandatory provisions were complied with. Since the recovery was effected from the handbag even compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act was not mandatory. Minor contradictions highlighted by the appellant's counsel are of no consequence.

5. PW-2 (Kanwar Pal) was posted in the office of SIT, Crime Branch, Rohini on 13.09.2011. He was the individual to whom the secret informer conveyed the secret information at around 01.30 p.m. He deposed that he took the secret informer to SI Sunil Kumar who made enquiries from him. Thereafter, SI Sunil Kumar produced him before Insp. Rajesh Sharma who also made enquiries and after satisfying himself about the correctness of the secret information informed Joy Tirky, Addl. DCP/ SIT, Crime Branch. SI Sunil Kumar lodged the secret information vide DD No.9 (Ex.PW


















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