9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 53X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the benefit of doubt while returning the finding of acquittal in favour of guilty. As the appellant has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt even during trial or in appeal as well, whereas in the present case, there are doubts after doubts.Therefore, the acquittal order passed is correct. - Appeal dismissed - CRL.A. 787/2001 - - - Dated:- 29-3-2016 - Suresh Kait, J. For the Appellant : Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjiv Kumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.K. Santoshi, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Mr.AdityaWadhwa, Advocate JUDGMENT Suresh Kait, J. 1. The present appeal has been directed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence against the judgment dated 31.10.2001 whereby learned Trial Court acquitted the respondents from the charges leveled against them punishable for the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the NDPS Act). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that a secret information was received by DRI officials that one Ramesh Behl (since deceased) (hereinafter referred as respondent No.1 ) was involved in the smuggling of narcotic dru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the NDPS Act against respondent Nos.1 2. 3. Respondents pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and claimed trial. In support of its case, the appellant examined as many as 16 witnesses during trial before learned Trial Court. 4. As per the deposition of PW1 Shri S.K.Srivastava, who is informant of the FIR a secret information was received on 26.11.1996 at about 10.00 AM in the office which was reduced into writing as Ex.PW1/B. As per said information, respondent No.1 who was dealing in narcotic drug was taking delivery of about 30 KG of heroin from some persons from Azadpur, Subzi Mandi, Delhi in the afternoon on that date and that he would be using his Maruti Van, mentioned above. Accordingly, a raiding team was formed and deployed at Subzi Mandi, Azadpur at around 01.00 PM, who intercepted the said Van at the exit gate of Azadpur Subzi Mandi, Delhi. The said van was being driven by respondent No.1 at that time and respondent No.2 was sitting next to him. The panchnama was drawn in support of the proceedings regarding the seizure of the case property as Ex.PW1/K and as per the noting thereupon the same was concluded at about 11.30PM on said date. 5. Mr.Sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Rohtas Mann, who were working in the Income Tax Department in the drum shape building at ITO and seized the said truck which had cavities concealed in the compartment. 11. As per deposition of PW10 and PW11 the panchnama regarding seizure and search of the truck established that Shri K.S. Duhan had gone to Seb Mandi in search of the truck in the afternoon of 26.11.1996 itself whereas the Van is shown to have been intercepted and brought to the office of DRI at about 04.00PM on that date. The said truck bearing registration No.UP81C-9112 was either seized after or around the same time as the Van was seized on that date and was not seized pursuant to the disclosure statement of respondent No.2 on 27.11.1996. 12. It is further the case of the prosecution that as per statement of PW4 Shri B S Bakshi it was on the same date i.e. 26.11.1996 he was informed by the Assistant Director about the recovery of about 29 KG heroin from said Van possessed by respondent No.1 and his two associates. He was asked by the Assistant Director to conduct the search of the shop of respondent No.1 at 1408 Jhajjarwala Katra, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Accordingly, he conducted the search of said shop v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o.3 therefrom. However, the evidence adduced shows that shop of respondent No.1 was searched by PW4 and other officials of DRI on 26.11.1996 in the afternoon. It is also a matter of record that said truck was seized by PW6 Shri K S Duhan in the presence of PW10 and PW11 in the afternoon of 26.11.1996 itself. 14. The appellant failed to explain on record that as to how the DRI officials searched the shop of respondent No.1 and seized the truck from Seb Mandi on 26.11.1996 when the seizure and sampling was still going on in the office of DRI in the presence of respondent Nos.1 2, who had not made any statement till that time and had not made any disclosure about the aforesaid facts. Thus, it was emerged that the truck had allegedly been seized at same point of time when the Van was intercepted. 15. The recovery of contraband from respondent Nos.1 2 could not be proved, but it was also established that said Tata Truck was found abandoned in the area of Azadpur Subzi Mandi, Delhi by DRI officials in the afternoon of 26.11.1996 at the same time of interception of Van itself. It was emerged on record from the evidence adduced by the appellant before learned Trial Court that wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from respondent No.1 and other accused persons were roped in later on. Accordingly, learned Trial Court had given benefit of doubts to all respondents and acquitted them from all the charges leveled against them. 19. In view of the settled proposition of law that during the trial proceedings if there are two views possible, the view favouring the prosecution is to be adopted, however, the position is reverse at the final disposal upon conclusion of trial that the view favouring accused charged with any offence has to be granted the benefit of doubt while returning the finding of acquittal in favour of guilty. 20. The appellant has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt even during trial or in appeal as well, whereas in the present case as noted above, there are doubts after doubts. Therefore, I do not find any discrepancy in the judgment dated 31.10.2001 passed by learned Trial Court whereby the respondents were acquitted. 21. Consequently, finding no merits in instant appeal, same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. 22. As noted above, pursuant to death of respondent No.1 the proceedings already stood abated vide order dated 07.04.2015 and his s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
