Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 782 (DEL)

RADHEY SHAYAM LANGRA v. STATE OF DELHI

2000-09-07

R.S.SODHI

body2000
R. S. Sodhi ( 1 ) HEARD learned amicus curiae as also learned counsel for the State. With their assistance, I have gone through the material on record. ( 2 ) BY this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge the Judgment and order dated 1. 11. 1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 70/92 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the appellant guilty for offence under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of rupees one lac and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. ( 3 ) THE facts of the case, as stated by the prosecution, are that on 30. 7. 1992, ASI Raj Pal, who was on patrol duty, at around 7. 15 p. m. received a secret information that one Sansi wearing Sleti Colour Safari Suit would be carrying charas. This information was reduced into writing and thereafter a raiding parly was organised. At around 7. 45 p. m. the accused was apprehended at the pointing out of the informer and alter com- plying with the requirements of Section 50 of the NDPS Act search was taken and 1 Kg. of charas was recovered from the bag in his hand. 100 grams of chars was separated as sample, sealed and stamped as required. CFSL form prepared and both the seals were handed over to Public Witness Surinder Singh. Case property was seized and sealed thereafter rukka was sent to the police station for registration of the FIR; on the basis of which FIR No. 126/92 was registered. The recovered case property, sample pullandas and form CFSL were handed over to the SHO for depositing the same in the malkhana. The accused was formally arrested and his formal search was conducted vide memo Ex. Public Witness5/a. Site plan Ex. Public Witness7/c was prepared. SHO deposited the case property in the malkhana. Sample was sent to CFSL Chandigarh through Constable Manmohan Krishan vide RC 34/21, copy of which is Ex. Public Witness7/d. CFSL report EX. Public Witness7/e along with remnant of sample pullanda were received back. ( 4 ) REPORT gave positive test for charas Ex. P3 which was found wrapped in Polythene paper Ex. P2. Sample was sent to CFSL Chandigarh through Constable Manmohan Krishan vide RC 34/21, copy of which is Ex. Public Witness7/d. CFSL report EX. Public Witness7/e along with remnant of sample pullanda were received back. ( 4 ) REPORT gave positive test for charas Ex. P3 which was found wrapped in Polythene paper Ex. P2. ( 5 ) AFTER investigation of this case, final report was submitted on the basis of which the appellant was charged under Section 20 of the NDPS Act. The appellant pleaded not guilty and thereafter the case was put up for trial. ( 6 ) PROSECUTION, in order to substantiate the case examined seven witnesses. HC Rameshwar Dayal (Public Witness 1) was working as HC Moharrar Malkhana at the Police Station Pratap Nagar on 30. 7. 1992 when Inspector R. L. Ralhan, SHO of Police Station Pratap Nagar deposited two pullandas and form CFSL sealed with the seal of RPS and RN against serial No. 433 Register No. 19 in the malkhana. On 7. 8. 1992 sample pullanda along with form CFSL was sent to CFSL, Chandigarh through Constable Manmohan Krishan (Public Witness-4) vide RC No. 34/21. On 14. 9. 92 the result of CFSL and remnant of the pullandas were brought by Constable Arvind Kumar Shri R. S. Dahiya, ACP Patel Nagar (Public Witness-2) reached the spot on receipt of information. After verifying the facts and disclosing his identity to the accused he ordered to effect the search. In his presence incriminating articles were recovered, sample was separated, pullandas were prepared and sealed case property was seized and seals were handed over to Public Witness Surinder Singh. Case property was taken into safe custody by the SHO Rajender Nath Ralhan (Public Witness-2), who also witnessed the recovery and proceedings of the case. Surender Singh (Public Witness-5) is an independent witness to the recovery. Constable Dev Das Sharma (Public Witness-6) and ASI Raj Pal (Public Witness-7), Investigation Officer of this case are witnesses to the recovery. All these witnesses have been cross-examined at length. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment and order dated 1. 11. 1994 found that the prosecution had established the case beyond doubt and, therefore, held the appellant guilty under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and then by the order dated 1. 11. 1994 sentenced the appellant as stated above. ( 7 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment and order dated 1. 11. 1994 found that the prosecution had established the case beyond doubt and, therefore, held the appellant guilty under Section 20 of the NDPS Act and then by the order dated 1. 11. 1994 sentenced the appellant as stated above. ( 8 ) LEARNED amicus has sought to attack the judgment and order dated 1. 11. 1994 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 70/92 on the ground that the CFSL form, which was stated to have been filled up and placed along with the seized articles in the Malkhana was not carried along with the road certificate to the laboratory and from this he infers that the identity of the sample sent to the laboratory could not be ascertained. Public Witness-4 Manmohan Krishan, who is the person, who had taken the sample to the laboratory has very clearly stated that he took the sample along with the CFSL form which he then deposited with the laboratory. This objection, therefore, is of no consequence. ( 9 ) HE also states that as per the register of the malkhana, the deposit of the seized articles has been stated to have been made by the Investigation Officer. This too, cannot detract from the merits of the case, namely, that the goods were deposited in a sealed condition along with the CFSL form in the malkhana. Factum of the deposit in the malkhana intact and removal therefrom intact and further transportation to the laboratory intact, leave no manner of doubt that the sample that was taken at the time of recovery was duly sent to the CFSL, Chandigarh, which was identified and tested positive for charas. ( 10 ) IN this view of the matter, there is no infirmity in the judgment under challenge and, therefore, Crl. A. No. 32 of 1996 is devoid of merits and, therefore, dismissed.