9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mr Aggarwal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant that in the present case, the seizure itself is showing different quantities. He states that as per the FIR, 22.5 kgs ganja including the bag was seized from the applicant. At the time of sampling under section 52-A NDPS application, the weight of the contraband was 22.35 kgs including the bag. It is stated that at the time of section 52-A sampling again, the photographs shows the weight of the contraband as 22 kgs with the bag. 4. Mr Aggarwal has drawn the attention of the Court to the status report which shows that on 14.06.2021, four samples weighing 100 grams were drawn from the main parcels. The parcels were deposited with the malkhana and were thereafter sent to FSL. As per the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rosecution. A sample of 200 gms having become 260 gms does not appear to be justified. Benefit of doubt accordingly accrues in favour of the appellant as what was seized and what was finally analyzed to nail the appellant becomes doubtful." 6. He also places reliance on the judgment of Mohd. Ramzan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2005) 82 DRJ 435 and more particularly para 7 and 8 which reads as under: 7. With this position of law, the case cited by the petitioner [Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi (supra)] and the case cited by the counsel for the State [R. Paulsamy (supra)] are to be considered. In the case of Rajesh Jagdamba Avasthi (supra), the facts were that a recovery of charas from the shoes of the accused was alleged to have been made. 100 gms ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was only minimal, in the other the difference in weight was significant. The High Court itself found that it could not be described as a mere minor discrepancy. Learned counsel rightly submitted before us that the High court was not justified in upholding the conviction of the appellant on the basis of what was recovered only from the envelope "A" ignoring the quantity of Charas found in envelope "B". This is because there was only one search and seizure, and whatever was recovered from the appellant was packed in two envelopes. The credibility of the recovery proceeding is considerably eroded if it is found that the quantity actually found by PW-1 was less than the quantity sealed and sent to him. As he rightly emphasized, the question w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; influencing any witness and tampering with evidence. In my view, the same can be taken care of by imposing stringent bail conditions upon the applicant. 11. The applicant has been in custody since 07.06.2021 which is about 1 year and 10 months. Charge-sheet has been filed in the present case and charges have also been framed and the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. The trial is also not likely to conclude in near future and the continued incarceration of the applicant will not serve any purpose. Since the applicant is an under trial prisoner and has already undergone about more than 1 year and 10 months of incarceration and since the applicant has no other previous criminal antecedents, I am inclined to allow the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
