9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 765X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 21.05.2013, a specific intelligence was received by the DRI officers that (1) Kiran Bhandari of Mumbai, Maharashtra, (2) Rajesh Sharma (co-accused), (3) Surender Kumar Verma (co-accused) and (4) Somnath Pal (present petitioner) were engaged in trafficking of contraband psychotropic substance i.e. Ketamine, Ephedrine, and Methaqulaone etc. and premises situated at 35/15, G.T Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Phase-B, Near Telephone Exchange, Derawal-Model Town, Gurudwara, Delhi is being used by this syndicate for storage purpose. Specific inputs were received that some deal regarding a drug consignment is likely to be carried out in one Honda City car bearing registration No. DL-4C-NC5873 near Tagore Market, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi at around ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that he has a godown located at 35/5, G.T Karnal Road, Industrial Area, Phase-B, Near Telephone Exchange, Derawal, Model Town Gurudwara, Delhi, where he alongwith the petitioner was secretly keeping psychotropic substances received from the co-accused Rajesh Sharma and others. 6. It is further the case of the prosecution that vide authorization dated 23.05.2013, Sh. S K Nath, SIO DRI has authorized Sh. Devender Singh (IO) to search the premise of the petitioner i.e. BF-35, Shalimar Bagh (E), Delhi. In pursuance of the said authorization, Sh. Devender Singh called two witnesses namely Deepak Kumar and Amar Singh and searched the premise bearing No. BF-35, Shalimar Bagh. During the course of search of the said premises a number of incrimina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h the test memos were deposited with the CRCL. Further, on 04.07.2013, CRCL Delhi in its report confirmed presence of Ephedrine/Pseudoephedrine Hydrochloride in these samples. However, the other recovery allegedly mentions as 3,4-Methylenedioxphenyl-2 Propanone is concerned it was stated that the same could not be analyzed as the reference standard was not available with CRCL. It was advised to forward the same to CFSL Hyderabad for testing. 9. Vide summon dated 24.05.2013 the statement of the petitioner under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded on 24.05.2013. The respondent (DRI) after conducting the in-depth investigation has launched the prosecution on 24.07.2013 for the offence under Sections 21/ 25A and 29 of the NDPS against (1) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was not present at the said house at the time of recovery. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that the statement recorded U/s 67 of the NDPS Act is not admissible in evidence and he has placed reliance upon Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamilnadu 2020 SCC 882. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the rent agreement of the alleged premises in question which according to the prosecution was taken on rent by the petitioner. He further submitted that the veracity of the prosecution case is doubtful and the mode and manner of investigation is also questionable. 14. It is further submitted by the Ld. counsel for the petitioner that in so far as the recovery of controlled substance is concerned, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged U/s 22C, 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act R/w section 135 of the Customs Act . It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. SPP that the recovery was effected from the rented premises of the petitioner. He further submitted that the CFSL Hyderabad vide its report dated 21.11.14 had opined that the exhibits sent gave positive test for "Methamphetamine". He further submitted that the amount of Rs. 8,40,000/- which was recovered is the sale proceeds of the drugs. 17. It is further submitted by the Ld. Sr. SPP that the recovery was made at the instance and in the presence of the petitioner as well as other co-accused and in the voluntary statement dated 25.05.2013, coaccused Rajesh Sharma stated that a cash of Rs. 3,50,000/- recovered from his residen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on account of huge recovery mentioned hereinabove and the two involvements of the petitioner in the same offence under NDPS Act while he was on bail. At this stage of the case, all that could be seen is whether the statement made on behalf of the prosecution witnesses, if believable, would result in conviction of the petitioner or not. But at this juncture one cannot say that the petitioner/accused is not guilty of the offence if the allegations made in the charge are established. The evidence is still not complete before the trial Court and therefore, one cannot say that there were no grounds to hold that he was not guilty of such an offence. The liberty of a citizen has got to be balanced with the interest of the society. In cases where n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
