Datu Ram vs State
1996 Latest Caselaw 116 Del

JUDGMENT

Jaspal Singh, J.

(1) In the Stale of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram 1980, C.C. Cases 83, the Supreme Court observed that the prosecution has to prove all the links starting from the seizure of the samples till the same reached the hands of the Public Analyst so that the court could conclude that the seals remained intact throughout. Unfortunately, this warning seems to have fallen on deaf ears at least as far as this case is concerned.

(2) The facts fall into a short compass. Allegedly, on November 12, 1975 the petitioner was found in possession of 2.620 Kgs of charas out of which sample weighing 20 gms. was taken out and put in a parcel which was thereafter sealed with the seal of R.G. It is in the statement of the Moharir Malkhana Raghuvans Narain (Public Witness -2) that the said parcel was deposited with him by Asi Ram Gopal (who was the Investigating Officer in the case) and that so long as the parcel had remained in his custody it was not tampered with. He further states that on November 25, 1976 he had handed over that parcel to Constable Chandra Gopal. The prosecution has examined Constable Chandra Gopal (Public Witness -1) also who tells us that on November 25, 1975 after having obtained a parcel bearing the seal of Rg, he had deposited the same with the C.F.S.L. and that he too had not tempered with the same. Then comes the report of the C.F.S.L. It needs to be reproduced. This is how its relevant portion goes:

"THEInspector, Intelligence Section

(CID)Crime Branch, Curzon Road,

NEWDelhi.

YOUR letter No.557 dated 14.11.75 regarding One sealed parcel in connection with the case No.573 dated 12.11.75 under section 611/14 Excise Act per messenger and duly received in this office n 25.11.75.

DESCRIPTION of the parcel & condition of seal

ONE sealed parcel with the seal impression as per specimen enclosed intact.

DESCRIPTION OF articles contained in parcel

20.0gms. (approximately brownish green sold substance marked exhibit No.1

RESULT of Analysis

EXHIBITNo.1 gave positive tests for Charas"

(3) What is more to be noticed is that the Investigating Officer has no where deposed that the parcels were deposited by him or that he had not tampered with the same.

(4) Does the evidence) as noticed above satisfy the requirement highlighted by the Supreme Court in Daulat Ram's case? The answer, to my mind, has necessarily to be in the negative.

(5) The parcels were allegedly sealed at the spot by the Investigating Officer and if the Moharer Malkhana is to be believed the same were deposited with him by the said officer. However, the Investigating Officer no where says so. In any case, even if it be taken that the parcels were actually deposited by him, was it not for him to assure the Court that so long as they had remained in his possession they had not been tampered with? This, however, is riot the end of the matter. The Investigating Officer nowhere says that he had filled the C.F.S.L. form nor is there anything, either in his statement or in the statement of the Moharer Malkhana or even in the entry made in the Register, that any such form was ever deposited. The Constable who took the sample parcel also no where speaks of his having deposited any such form with the C.F.S.L. There are judgments of this court in which it has been held that absence of such evidence would be fatal to the prosecution. Reference, in this connection may be made to Chameli Devi v. State, 1993 Jcc 293, Moot Chand v. State 1993 (2) Delhi Lawyer 14, Anoop Joshi v. State 1992 (2) Cc Cases 314, Jagdish Prasad v. State and Munni Lal v. The State 1994 Iv Ad (Delhi) 1099.

(6) Last, but not the least, the report of the C.F.S.L. itself, the relevant portion of which has already been reproduced above, cannot be considered to be such as to inspire the confidence of the Court with regard to the seals on the sample parcel. As would be apparent though it does show that the parcel received was having "the seal impression as per specimen enclosed intact" we are not told as to what was the "specimen enclosed". This further takes away the sting from the prosecution version.

(7) For the reasons recorded above, the revision is accepted and as a consequence, the conviction and sentence stand set aside.