Sudhir & Anr. vs State
2010 Latest Caselaw 4659 Del

         THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                      Judgment Pronounced on: 04.10.2010

+            CRL.A.802/2000

SUDHIR & ANR.                                  ..... Appellants

                             - versus -
STATE                                         ..... Respondent

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant : Mr. Vishwa Wadhwa, Adv. for Ms. Saahila Lamba, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr Navin Sharma, APP

CORAM:-

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No

V.K. JAIN, J (Oral)

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated

27.11.2000 and Order on Sentence dated 29.11.2000,

whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section

29 of the NDPS Act and were sentenced to undergo RI for 10

years each and to pay fine of Rs. 1 lakh each or to undergo

RI for six months each in default. The appellant Sudhir was

further convicted under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and was

sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1

lakh or to go undergo RI for six months in default. The

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution produced as many as 13

witnesses in support of its case. No witness was produced

in defence.

3. PW-3 Head Constable Suresh Kumar stated that

on 10th October, 1999 he, along with SI Ramesh Kansal,

Constable Amar Pal and Constable Sunil Kumwar, was on

duty at the bus stop of Taj Enclave for checking the

passersby. At about 2.15 p.m., a bus, plying on Route No.

317, stopped there and the accused Sudhir alighted from

the rear gate alongwith the accused Raj Kumar. The

accused Raj Kumar was carrying a bag in his hand. When

SI Ramesh Kansal asked him to hand over the bag to him

for the purpose of checking it, he threw the bag towards the

accused Sudhir, suggesting that they should run way from

there. The accused Sudhir caught hold of the bag and

started running away. The accused was chased by them and

was apprehended alongwith the bag. Raj Kumar had already

been apprehended by SI Ramesh Kansal. On checking the

bag, it was found to contain charas in 4 rectangular shape

slabs, in a shirt. On weighing, charas was found to be

1.850 kgs. 100 grams of charas was taken as sample from

all the four slabs, which were found in the bag. The sample

as well as the balance quantity of charas was duly sealed

with the seal of RK and VS. Form CFSL was filled on the

spot and the entire case property was seized.

4. The testimony of PW-3 has been corroborated by SI

Ramesh Kansal, who stated that he was on the front gate of

the bus, alongwith Constable Amar Pal, whereas Head

Constable Suresh Kumar and Constable Sunil, were on the

rear gate. He further stated that on seeing them, Raj Kumar

threw the bag towards Sudhir and asked him to run away.

He was chased and apprehended. On checking the bag, it

was found to contain 4 slabs of charas in a shirt. After

taking samples, the charas was sealed. The sample as well

as the remaining quantity of charas were duly sealed with

the seal of RK of IO and seal of VS, which belonged to the

SHO, who has come on the spot.

5. PW-6 Constable Sunil Kumar and PW-9 Constable

Amar Pal are the other police officials, who were present at

the spot when the appellants were apprehended and charas

was seized. They have fully corroborated the testimony of

PW-3 and 4.

6. PW-13 Head Constable Zahoor Ahmed is the

official who was posted as MHCM at PS Geeta Colony on

10.10.1999. Accordingly to him, two parcels duly sealed

with the seals of VS and RK alongwith documents and FSL

Form were deposited on that day. He further stated that the

sample was sent to the laboratory on 17.12.1999 and there

was no tampering with the case property as long as it

remained in his custody.

7. PW-8 Head Constable Bijender Kumar is the police

official who took the sealed parcels along with Form CFSL

from Munshi Constable Rajesh Kumar and deposited the

same with FSL Malviya Nagar. Munshi Constable Rajesh

Kumar came in the witness box as PW-7 and stated that the

sealed parcels along with Form CFSL were sent by him

through Head Constable Bijender Kumar to FSL.

8. In their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the

appellants denied the allegations against them.

9. I see no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the

police officials who apprehended the appellants and

recovered the bag containing charas. There is no enmity or

ill-will between them and the appellants. Their testimonies

cannot be discarded merely because they happen to be

police officers, particularly when they have successfully

withstood the test of cross examination. No material

discrepancy in their testimony has been brought to my

notice.

10. The conduct of the appellant Sudhir in catching

hold of the bag thrown towards him by his co-appellant Raj

Kumar and then trying to run away from the spot along

with the bag, clearly indicates that the charas found in the

bag was in joint possession of the appellants. Link evidence

has also been produced by the prosecution to prove that

there was no tampering with the case property till it was

received in the laboratory. A perusal of the report of FSL

Ex.P-X, would show that the substance sent to the

laboratory was found to be charas.

11. The learned counsel for the appellant states that

considering the voluminous evidence produced against the

appellants during trial, he does not have much to say, as far

as the merits of the case are concerned.

12. Taking into consideration all the facts and

circumstances of the case, the conviction of both the

appellants under Section 29 of NDPS Act and the conviction

of appellant Sudhir under Section 20 of the NDPS Act are

maintained. There is no scope of reduction of the

substantive sentence, awarded to them. It is however

directed that in default of payment of fine, imposed under

Section 29 of NDPS Act, the appellant shall undergo RI for

five months each. The appellant Sudhir in default of fine,

imposed on him under Section 20 NDPS Act will undergo RI

for 5 months.

The appeal stands disposed of. One copy of this

order be sent forthwith to the Superintendent of the

concerned jail for information and necessary action.

(V.K. JAIN) JUDGE

OCTOBER 04, 2010 BG