IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] SPECIAL JUDGE, NDPS (CENTRAL); DELHI SC No. 17/09 FIR No.06/2009 PS: New Delhi Railway Station Under [SECTION] of [ACT] In the matter of: [ENTITY] Versus 1. [ENTITY] S/o Late Sh. Sukhvashi R/o Village Sidheshwar Nagar, Behind Gali No. 2, Murar, District Gwalior, [ENTITY] 2. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Suresh R/o Ashok Colony, Murar, PS Murar, District Gwalior, [ENTITY] 3. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. Suresh R/o Ashok Colony, Murar, PS Murar, District Gwalior, [ENTITY] 4. [ENTITY] S/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o Village Sidheshwar Nagar, FIR No. 06/2009 1 Behind Gali No. 2, Murar, District Gwalior, [ENTITY] 5. Smt. [ENTITY] W/o Sh. [ENTITY] R/o Jatav, Gali No. 2, Mohalla Sidheshwar Nagar, Gwalior, [ENTITY] Accused persons. Date of Institution: 07.03.2009 Date of Judgment: 27.04.2012 J U D G M E N T
[ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and Smt. [ENTITY] have been facing trial under 15 [ACT] (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
2. Accusation levelled by the prosecution is that on 05.01.2009 at about 4 PM, all of them, when apprehended at platform no. 23, North side, New Delhi Railway Station were found in possession of Poppy Straw being carried by each one of them in separate bags. Total quantity of contraband came to 91.180 Kgs.
3. On that date, Sub Inspector [ENTITY], [ENTITY] [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] [ENTITY] were patrolling on platform no. 23, New Delhi Railway Station. While patrolling, at about 4.05 PM, when they reached towards Delhi end of the platform, they saw all the five accused persons seen coming, carrying white bags on their shoulders. Suspicion arose against them. They were stopped and enquired about the contents of the bags. There was no satisfactory explanation. So, the SI opted to check the contents of the bags. Checking led to discovery of "Chura Post".
4. SI informed the SHO on wireless and also requested for his arrival at the spot. The SHO expressed his inability to reach there because of other work, but directed the SI to proceed further.
5. SI [ENTITY] made efforts to join persons from public, but every one expressed own difficulty and went away. Thereafter, SI [ENTITY] informed the accused persons that for the purpose of further search Gazetted officer or Magistrate could be called or they could be produced before Gazetted officer or Magistrate. In this regard, notice under [SECTION] of [ACT] was served upon each one of them. The accused persons opted not to be subjected to search in presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, and rather expressed their faith in police. Thereupon, SI initiated further proceedings.
Quantity of poppy straw recovered from each accused
6. The total quantity of Poppy Straw recovered from all the accused came to 91.100 kgs.
Accused [ENTITY] was found in possession of 18.800 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] in possession of 18.900 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] in possession of 12.900 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] was found in possession of 21.300 kgs of Poppy Straw; and accused Smt. [ENTITY] was found in possession of 19.200 kgs of Poppy Straw.
7. It is case of the prosecution that by way of sample, quantity of 1 kg was drawn from the Poppy Straw recovered from each accused. These five sample parcels were sealed by SI [ENTITY] with his seal. The bags containing the residue were also similarly sealed. Form FSL was filled and impression of the seal use was affixed on it. After use, the seal was handed over to [ENTITY].
8. [ENTITY] came to be prepared and handed over to [ENTITY], for getting the case registered. The constable was also entrusted with the sealed parcels, FSL form and copy of recovery memo with the direction that he was to produce the same before the SHO. On reaching police station, the constable [ENTITY] complied with both the directions.
9. The SHO, in his turn, is alleged to have affixed his seals on the case property and also affixed impression of seal on FSL Form. He recorded particulars of the case on the case property.
10. After registration of the case, investigation was assigned to SI [ENTITY]. SI reached the spot, took over investigtion, arrested all the accused persons. They were got subjected to personal search. On return to the police station, the SI produced the accused persons before Inspector [ENTITY], SHO.
11. Report under [SECTION] of the Act was sent to the office of ACP through SHO on 03.03.2009. Sealed sample parcels were sent to FSL where their contents were analyzed.
12. On completion of investigation, challan was put in court. Copies of documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused persons free of cost.
Charge
13. Prima facie case having been made out, charge for an offence U/[SECTION] of Act was framed against the accused persons on 01.04.2009, to which they pleaded not guilty.
Thereupon, prosecution was called upon to lead evidence. Prosecution Evidence
14. In order to prove its case prosecution examined, following 12 witnesses: PW1 [ENTITY] To prove receipt of information Ex.PW1/A U/[SECTION] of the Act in the office of ACP, vide entry Ex.PW1/B. PW2 [ENTITY] Witness to arrest and recoveries. PW3 [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Witness to arrest and recoveries. PW4 [ENTITY] Witness to arrest and recoveries and delivery of rukka to Duty Officer and case property with FSL form and copy of recovery memo to the SHO.
PW5 [ENTITY] [ENTITY] Witness to arrest and recoveries and about entrusting of seal used by IO in sealing the case property.
PW6 [ENTITY] J. To prove entry made in register no.19 regarding deposit of case property.
PW7 Lady Home Guard [ENTITY] To prove participation in the investigation on having been called to the spot.
PW8 [ENTITY] To prove recording of FIR Ex.PW8/A. PW9 ASI [ENTITY] To get dispatched five sealed parcels from [ENTITY] to the laboratory on 03.03.09 through [ENTITY].
PW10 SI [ENTITY] Who subsequently took over investigation of the case, even arrested the accused persons.
PW11 SI [ENTITY] Who apprehended the accused persons, made recoveries, sealed the case property and conducted investigation only upto registration of the case.
PW12 Inspector [ENTITY] The concerned SHO.
Jaitely [ENTITY]ment of Accused
15. When examined U/[SECTION] [ACT] the accused persons denied all incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against them and claimed false implication.
The plea of accused [ENTITY] is as under: "I was present at the Railway platform with the other accused on the said date but we were not carrying any bags.
Nothing was recovered from my possession.
We had come to Delhi for work. We were without railway ticket and police implicated in this case falsely." The plea of accused [ENTITY] is as under: "I was caught at the platform with other accused by the police.
We were not carrying any bag.
We all were without ticket. We had come to Delhi for work. Police caught use and falsely implicated in this case. "
The plea of accused [ENTITY] is as under: "I had come to Delhi on that day with other accused, but we were not carrying any bags.
I alongwith other accused had come to Delhi for work. We were without ticket. Police caught us and implicated in this case. "
The plea of accused [ENTITY] is as under: "I alongwith other accused was caught by the police as we were not having tickets. We are not carrying any bags.
I had come to Delhi with other accused for work. We were without ticket and police implicated us in this case." The plea of accused [ENTITY] is as under: "I had come to Delhi pm that day with other accused, but we were not carrying any bags.
We all were travelling without ticket. Police caught us and falsely implicated us in this case."
Despite opportunity, accused persons opted not to lead any evidence in defence.
Arguments heard. File perused.
Discussion
16. As per prosecution version, Accused persons were seen carrying white colour bags.
It has come in the statements of PW2 [ENTITY], PW3 [ENTITY] [ENTITY], PW4 [ENTITY], PW5 [ENTITY] [ENTITY] and PW11 SI [ENTITY] that accused [ENTITY] was found in possession of 18.800 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] was found in possession of 18.900 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] was found in possession of 12.900 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] was found in possession of 21.300 kgs of Poppy Straw; and accused Smt. [ENTITY] was found in possession of 19.200 kgs of Poppy Straw.
It has also come in the statements of prosecution witnesses that by way of sample, quantity of 1 kg was drawn from the Poppy Straw recovered from each accused. These five sample parcels were sealed by SI [ENTITY] with his seal. The bags containing the residue were also similarly sealed. Form FSL was filled and impression of the seal use was affixed on it. PWs have also deposed about handing over of seal. After use, the seal was handed over to [ENTITY].
In his statement PW2 [ENTITY] has deposed about plastic bags. Learned counsel has referred to cross examination of PW5 [ENTITY] [ENTITY] and pointed out that on that day when case property was produced in Court, on opening the five parcels containing the case property, two parcels were found to be of jute bags (in which five sealed parcels of case property were produced), and two parcels were of plastic bags. The contentions raised by learned defence counsel that this creates doubt in the version of prosecution that accused persons were actually carrying white plastic bags or if the same included jute bags.
On the other hand, learned Addl. PP has submitted that the case property, having been infested by insects, had to be produced in plastic bags, and further that this is not a case of substitution or mis description of the case property. So the contention is that prosecution has explained production of five white colour plastic kattas.
Five plastic kattas were produced in Court on 23.07.2010 at the time of cross examination of PW5 [ENTITY] [ENTITY]. The constable deputed by MHC(M) produced the case property. It is in the statement of PW5 [ENTITY] [ENTITY] that five sealed parcels of case property were being kept separately in these plastic kattas, the reason being that substance had been badly infested by insects.
The constable deputed by the [ENTITY] produced before the Court on that date, two parcels of jute bags and three of white plastic kattas were taken out of five plastic kattas.
So, the case property produced in Court was in consonance with the version of the prosecution from the very beginning that all the give accused persons were seen coming towards police party while they were carrying white colour bags.
17. All the prosecution witnesses to the recovery and arrest of accused persons have deposed about recovery of bags Ex P1 to Ex P5. While appearing in Court as PW11 SI [ENTITY] has stated that all the parcels containing the residue were given Sl. No. S1 and S2 whereas parcels containing the sample drawn from each bag were given Sl. No. S1 and S2. So, the plastic bags were given Mark S, S1 & S2 whereas the jute bags were given Mark as S3 and S4 at the spot itself.
A perusal of cross examination of PW2 [ENTITY] would reveal that in his cross examination, he admitted that on that date i.e. 02.06.2010 (when his statement was recorded in Court), two jute bags bearing seal of the Court were produced and these jute bags Marked S3 and S4 were inside the white colour plastic bags. Three plastic bags bearing marked S, S1, S2 and S3 also produced.
This fact finds mention at Sl. No. 3089 Ex PW6/A made by MHC(M) in register no. 19.
In view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the contention raised by learned counsel for the accused that prosecution has failed to establish recovery of bags i.e. two jute and three plastic bags from the accused on the aforesaid date, time and place.
Handing over of seal used in sealing the case property
18. It is case of the prosecution that after the case property was sealed with the seal bearing impression JSM at the spot, seal was handed over to [ENTITY].
The argument advanced by learned defence counsel is that while appearing in Court as PW2 [ENTITY] nowhere stated that after use seal was handed over to him.
Further it has been contended that there is nothing on record to suggest that even if case property was sealed, what happened with the seal, and as such prosecution has not been able to rule out possibility of tampering.
While appearing in Court as PW11 SI [ENTITY] has stated that all the parcels containing the residue given Sl. No. S1 and S2 whereas parcels containing the sample drawn from each bag were given Sl. No. S1 and S2. All these parcels were sealed with the seal of JSM. Impression of this seal was affixed on FSL form and then the seal was then handed over to [ENTITY].
PW2 [ENTITY] also stated about sealing of the sample parcels and the parcels containing the residue with the seal bearing impression JSM and about their seizure vide memo Ex PW2/F. Recovery memo Ex PW2/F bears attestation of [ENTITY] [ENTITY] [ENTITY], [ENTITY] [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. Their attestation coupled with their oral testimony as to the manner in which the accused persons were arrested, recoveries were made, documents were prepared, case property was sealed and despatch of rukka from the spot, lends corroboration to prosecution version about their presence on the given date, time and place.
After use seal was handed over to [ENTITY]. This fact finds specific mention in recovery memo and the rukka Ex PW11/A which came to be despatched from the spot at 7.20 pm through [ENTITY].
Had the seal not been entrusted to [ENTITY], this fact would not have got incorporated in the aforesaid two documents prepared at the spot and the statements of PW11 SI [ENTITY] and other witnesses.
PW2 [ENTITY] could be crossexamined by the defence on the point of seal. It is significant to note that in his cross examination, PW2 [ENTITY] was not subjected to cross examination on the point of entrustment of the seal. Therefore, even if this witness did not state in his chief examination about entrustment of the seal to him by the IO at the spot, same does not adversely affect the case of prosecution. As regards return of seal by PW2 [ENTITY], SI [ENTITY] IO of the case was not cross examined on this point.
In absence of any cross examination on the aforesaid points and having regard to the material available on record, there is no merit in the contention of learned defence counsel that prosecution has failed to establish return of seal and to rule out possibility of tampering with the case property.
As to possibility of tampering with case property, after the deposited by the SHO having sealed the same with his own seal.
19. Case of prosecution is that it is [ENTITY] MHC(M) who received the case property from the SHO at the police station after it was sealed by him, but entry in register No.19 was made by [ENTITY] constable. As to how entry came to be made by [ENTITY], case of prosecution is that [ENTITY], though on leave, visited the police station in connection with some work and made the entry.
Learned defence counsel has referred to statement of PW6 [ENTITY], MHC(M) wherein in his cross examination, he admitted that on 05.01.2009 he was not on duty and rather it is [ENTITY] who while on duty, received the case property and further that entries in the maalkhana register were made by [ENTITY].
Learned defence counsel has further referred to reexamination of this witness wherein, he stated that on 05.01.2009 he was on leave but he had come to the police station for some work, and as such the SHO handed over ten sealed parcels and FSL form to [ENTITY], for being kept in safe custody in maalkhana, and further that he made entry no. 3089 in register no. 19 in this regard.
The contention raised by learned defence counsel is that no reliance should be placed on testimony of this witness in view of his statement earlier recorded on 03.02.2010 that on 05.01.2009 case property was received by [ENTITY] and entry was made by [ENTITY].
Ex PW6/A is copy of relevant entry no. 3089 regarding deposit of the case property with the MHC(M) on 05.01.2009 by Inspector [ENTITY].
File reveals that in order to prove deposit of the case property in [ENTITY] on 05.01.2009 by Inspector [ENTITY], prosecution examined PW6 initially on 03.02.2010. Subsequently, he was recalled for further examination at the request of prosecution, allowed under [SECTION] [ACT], to explain the entry in register no. 19 regarding deposit of the case property.
It appears that prosecution felt the need to recall PW6 [ENTITY] also for reexamination as in his cross examination earlier recorded on 03.02.2010, he stated that on 05.01.2009, he was not on duty and actually [ENTITY] was on duty in his place and he had received and deposited the case property.
While appearing in Court for reexamination on 12.11.2010, PW6 [ENTITY] reiterated that on 05.01.2009, he was on leave but added that [ENTITY] was looking after his work.
It is significant to note that aforesaid entry no. 3089 in register no. 19 regarding deposit of this case property on 05.01.2009 is admittedly in the handwriting of PW6 [ENTITY] V. J. When PW6 was on leave on 05.01.2009, prosecution was required to explain as to under what circumstances he made this entry on 05.01.2009.
In order to explain this fact as well, prosecution has examined PW6 [ENTITY] J. According to PW6, on 05.01.2009, he had come to police station for some work and on that date Inspector [ENTITY] had come with ten sealed parcels and form FSL and handed over the same to [ENTITY] for deposit in [ENTITY]. He further stated that as he (PW6) was present there and working as MHC(M), he made this entry in register no. 19.
PW12 Inspector [ENTITY] is the concerned SHO who deposited the case property in the malkahan on 05.01.2009. Had the Inspector stated that he had deposited the case property with HC [ENTITY] V. J., then the matter would have been otherwise. But the Inspector has not named the concerned MHC(M), as he could not recollect orally. Record is very much available at the police station. The SHO could come prepared and depose about the name of the MHC(M), but very candidly when his memory did not help him, he came forth with the reply that he could not recollect name of the MHC(M) who had received the case property from him.
The fact remains that entry Ex PW6/A in register no. 19 is in handwriting of [ENTITY], who was attending the job of MHC(M) instead of [ENTITY] V. J. (who was on leave).
The relevant entry bears signatures of Inspector [ENTITY] with date 05.01.2009 and even the next entry at Sl. No. 3092 pertains to the same case being in respect of deposit of personal search items recovered from the accused persons on the same day by SI [ENTITY], the second IO. This rules out fabrication of entry in the register.
[ENTITY] J. having explained as to under what circumstances this entry Ex PW6/A came to be made by him, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.
As to who deposited the sealed parcels at Laboratory
20. Learned defence counsel has submitted that as per prosecution version, sealed parcels were sent to FSL on 03.03.2009 through [ENTITY] but said Head Constable while appearing in Court as PW8, nowhere stated about deposit of the sealed parcel at FSL. Rather in his cross examination, he displayed ignorance if any other proceeding was done in his presence.
The contention raised by learned defence counsel is that prosecution has failed to rule out possibility of tampering with the case property before the same reached FSL after it was deposited with and collected from MHC(M).
It is significant to note that in this case [ENTITY] acted as Duty Officer and recorded FIR of this case. As PW8 he deposed about recording of FIR.
It is case of prosecution that sealed parcels were sent to FSL through [ENTITY]. It is true that [ENTITY] while appearing in Court as PW8 did not state that he had also collected five sealed parcels from MHC(M) on 03.03.2009 and deposited the same at FSL.
What was suggested by learned defence counsel to this witness in cross examination is that that he did not know any other thing about the present case.
Whenever, a witness is to be contradicted regarding his previous statement, as required under [SECTION] of [ACT], the witness is to be confronted with the relevant portion. However, in this case, PW8 was not confronted with his previous statement. Learned defence counsel did not question him in cross examination specifically as to collection of the sealed parcels from the MHC(M) and their deposit at FSL.
This fact of collection samples from [ENTITY] and of their deposit at FSL has come in the statement of PW6 [ENTITY] J. and finds support from copy of road certificate no. 13/21 Ex PW6/C. Name of [ENTITY] finds mentioned in Ex PW 6/C. Entry at point A in register no. 19 Ex PW6/A reveals that the sealed parcels were despatched to FSL, from the [ENTITY] on 03.03.2009 through [ENTITY]. PW6 [ENTITY] J. was not subjected to any cross examination that the sealed parcels were not sent to FSL through [ENTITY].
Even in FSL report Ex PX, it finds specifically mentioned that five sealed parcels were deposited at FSL on 03.03.2009 through [ENTITY]. Had [ENTITY] not deposited the sealed parcels at FSL, his name would not have found mention in any of the above referred to material available on record.
[ENTITY], as per record, collected the sealed parcels from MHC(M) on 03.03.2009 and deposited the same at FSL on the same day. So, there is nothing on record to suggest that there was any possibility of tampering with the contents of the sealed parcels. Therefore, Court does not find merit in the contention of learned defence counsel.
Delay in despatch of sample
21. Learned defence counsel has submitted that as per prosecution version, recovery was made on 05.01.2009 but sealed parcel were sent to FSL on 03.03.2009 and no steps having been taken by SI [ENTITY] for early despatch of the sealed parcels to FSL prior thereto, possibility of tampering with the case property cannot be ruled out.
In support of his contention, learned defence counsel referred to decision in Jarnail Singh v. [ENTITY] of Punjab and Jasvir Singh v. [ENTITY] of Punjab 2008 (4) JCC (Narcotics) 204.
It is true that sealed parcels were deposited at FSL on 03.03.2009, but Learned Addl. PP has rightly submitted that because of numerous samples in such like cases, even priority letters have to be got issued from the senior police officers for deposit of sealed parcels at FSL.
In this case, there was no possibility of tampering with the case property before the sealed parcels reached the safe hands of FSL, There is nothing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses to doubt the recoveries, drawing of samples, the same having been sealed and deposited with MHC(M) and about their despatch from the [ENTITY] to FSL with seals intact. Therefore, late despatch of samples for FSL does not create any kind of doubt in the prosecution version. Reports given by experts of FSL supports prosecution vesion that "poppy straw" was recovered from the accused.
Recording of statement of witnesses
22. During investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under [SECTION] [ACT]. Learned Defence counsel has pointed out that according to ASI [ENTITY] as PW1, he recorded statement of Inspector [ENTITY] at 9 am on return to PS, but on the other hand, Inspector [ENTITY] stated in his cross examination about recording of his statement by ASI [ENTITY] at about 2 am on the night intervening 5/6.01.2009. The contention is that this goes to show that everything was done while sitting at the PS and not at the spot in the manner as narrated by the PWs.
Inspector [ENTITY] is the concerned SHO before whom accused persons were produced at about 2 am at the police station. According to this witness, his statement was recorded by the IO at around same time.
PW10 SI [ENTITY] is the second IO who reached the spot after registration of the case, arrested the accused persons, collected all the documents and on return to the police station produced the accused persons before the SHO. According to PW10, he recorded statement of the SHO on 06.01.2009 at about 9 am.
It is true that statements of the two witnessesPW10 and PW12 are not in consonance with each other as to the time when statement of the latter was recorded but it is not of much significance. As discussed above, SHO has proved the role played by him in the investigation of this case and the same finds support from the statements of other witnesses and the documentary evidence. Simply because according to PW10, statement of the SHO was recorded in the morning of 06.01.2009, same does not come to the aid of the accused so as to disbelieve the prosecution version in its entirety.
Noncompliance of provisions of [SECTION] of the Act.
23. Learned defence counsel has contended that in this case prosecution has failed to prove compliance of provisions of [SECTION] as the case property was not produced before the Magistrate.
The contention is that noncompliance with the provisions of [SECTION] directory in nature, cannot be allowed to be flouted. In support of this contention, learned counsel has referred to decision in Dharambir vs. [ENTITY] of Haryana 2008 (4) JCC (Narcotics) 197.
However in this case, prosecution has led cogent and convincing evidence regarding seals affixed on the case property, its deposit with the MHC(M) on the same day with seals intact and dispatch of the sample parcels to FSL without the seals having been tampered with. In the given facts and circumstances of this case, accused cannot take any advantage of decision in Dharambir vs. [ENTITY] of Haryana 2008 (4) JCC (Narcotics) 197.
Nonjoining of public witnesses
24. Learned defence counsel has submitted that despite availability of persons from public, no witness was joined by the IO which adversely affects the case of prosecution.
On the point of nonjoining of independent witnesses, in the case of Ajmer Singh vs. [ENTITY] of Haryana (2010) 3 SCC 746, Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: "The submission that the evidence of the official witnesses cannot be relied upon as their testimony has not been corroborated by any independent witness cannot be accepted. It is true that a charge under the Act is serious and carries onerous consequences. The minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is imprisonment of 10 years and a fine. In this situation, it is normally expected that there should be independent evidence to support the case of the prosecution. However, it is not an inviolable rule. It may not be possible to find independent witness at all places, at all times. The obligation to take public witnesses is not absolute. If after making efforts which the court considered in the circumstances of the case reasonable, the police officer is not able to get public witnesses to associate with the raid or arrest of the culprit, the arrest and the recovery made would not be necessarily vitiated. The court will have to appreciate the relevant evidence and will have to determine whether the evidence of the police officer was believable after taking due care and caution in evaluating their evidence."
Absence of corroboration from independent source puts the Court on guard to carefully scrutinize status of police officials.
Herein, learned defence counsel has not pointed out any material contradiction in statements of PWs.
25. In view of the above discussion that prosecution has fully established that on 05.01.2009 at about 4 PM, all the five accused, when apprehended at platform no. 23, New Delhi Railway Station kept in their possession of Poppy Straw in violation of provisions of [SECTION] of the Act. Accused [ENTITY] kept in possession of 18.800 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] kept in possession of 18.900 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] kept in possession of 12.900 kgs of Poppy Straw; accused [ENTITY] kept in possession of 21.300 kgs of Poppy Straw; and accused [ENTITY] kept in possession of 19.200 kgs of Poppy Straw.
Conclusion
26. In view of the above findings, this Court holds accused [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] guilty of the offence under [SECTION] of of [ACT]. Accused persons are convicted thereunder.
Let convicts be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in Open Court on 27.04.2012 ([ENTITY] ) Special Judge(Central) Delhi. IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] SPECIAL JUDGE (CENTRAL): DELHI PS New Delhi Railway Station U/[SECTION] [ACT] In the matter of : [ENTITY] Versus 1. [ENTITY]; 2. [ENTITY]; 3. [ENTITY]; 4. [ENTITY]; 5. Smt. [ENTITY]. Convicts ORDER ON SENTENCE 27.04.2012 Present: Sh. [ENTITY], Addl. P.P. For [ENTITY].
All convicts on bail with counsel Sh. [ENTITY] on the point of sentence.
Convicts pray for leniency submitting that they are not previous convicts and this is their first offence. Counsel for Convicts has also prayed for lenient view on the point of sentence while submitting that the quantity of poppy straw recovered is intermediatory.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the [ENTITY] does not dispute that the quantity recovered from the convicts is intermediatory in nature.
It is also not been disputed that [ENTITY] convict remained in custody during investigation, inquiry and trial for about two years and the other convicts remained in custody during investigation, inquiry and trial for more than one year.
The convicts have been held guilty on proof of the allegations that they were carrying Poppy Straw.
[SECTION] of the Act provides that in case of intermediatory quantity, the substantive period of sentence may extend to ten years. Sentence of fine as provided under this Section may extend to Rs.1 lac.
Having regard to all the facts and circumstances, all the convicts are sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months each for the offence under [SECTION] of [ACT].
As regards sentence of fine, having regard to the quantity of the Poppy Straw recovered from each one of them, convict [ENTITY] is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 3000/, or in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under [SECTION] of the Act;
Convict [ENTITY] is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 3000/, or in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under [SECTION] of the Act;
Convict [ENTITY] is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 2000/, or in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under [SECTION] of the Act;
Convict [ENTITY] is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/, or in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for the offence under [SECTION] of the Act; and Convict Smt. [ENTITY] is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 6000/, or in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month for the offence under [SECTION] of the Act.
The period of imprisonment already undergone during investigation, inquiry and trial to be set off against the period of sentence awarded vide this judgment.
Case property be disposed of in accordance with law on expiry of period for Appeal/Revision, if none is preferred or subject to decision thereof.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in Open Court on 27.04.2012 ([ENTITY] ) Special Judge(Central) Delhi.