[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] : SPECIAL JUDGE - NDPS PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI Date of Institution: 17.04.2006 Judgment reserved on: 01.05.2010 Date of pronouncement: 07.05.2010 SC No. 84/07 ID No. 02403R0206662006 FIR No. 05/06 P.S. Nr. Branch U/[SECTION] [ACT] [ENTITY] Vs. 1 [ENTITY] S/o Sadaura Mal R/o. Shkha Gali Usha Colony [ENTITY] Rajasthan 2 [ENTITY] S/o Roop Lal R/o. Roopchan Building Ashram Road [ENTITY] Rajasthan JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution case is that on 10/1/2006 at about 3:00 p.m. SI [ENTITY] received a secret information that two persons namely [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] r/o [ENTITY] involved in supplying of heroin in Delhi would supply huge consignment of heroin to [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] at ISBT [ENTITY] in between 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. He [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another produced the informer before the SHO Insp. [ENTITY]. He after making inquiry conveyed the information to ACP Sh. [ENTITY] who directed him to conduct raid. A DD no. 28 was recorded in the roznamcha.
A raiding party comprising of SI [ENTITY], Ct. [ENTITY], Ct. [ENTITY], Ct. [ENTITY] and Ct. [ENTITY] proceeded at the spot in a govt. vehicle DL 1V 3570 with the informer and reached there at about 4:00 p.m. On the way 45 public persons were requested to join but none agreed.
At about 4:20 p.m. both the accused came from the IN gate of ISBT and proceeded towards the Ring Road where they waited for sometime. Thereafter they retreated towards ISBT. On the pointing out of the informer, they were apprehended. The party gave their introduction to the accused, told them about the information and gave them notices u/[SECTION] [ACT] on which they refused to call Gazetted Officer or the Magistrate for their search. Some public persons were again requested to join but all of them refused. From the yellow colour polythene bag in the left hand of the accused [ENTITY], a transparent white polythene containing matiala colour powder giving positive for heroin weighing 2.5 kg. was recovered. Two samples of 5 grams each were separated from the substance and given mark A and B. Remaining heroin was kept in the same [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another manner as it was recovered and given mark C. The samples and the case property were sealed with the seal of 7 APS NB Delhi. Form FSL was prepared on the spot on which same seal impression was put. Seal after use was given to Ct. [ENTITY]. From the search of accused [ENTITY] nothing incriminating was recovered. [ENTITY] alongwith the case property, samples, FSL form and the copy of the seizure memo was sent to the Police Station through Ct. [ENTITY]. He after giving rukka to the duty officer, produced the case property before the SHO who put his seal of 1 SHO NBR Delhi, called the MHC(M) and got it deposited in the malkhana after getting it entered in register no. 19. Further investigation was conducted by ASI [ENTITY]. He prepared the site plan, arrested the accused and recovered the copy of the notice from their personal search. SI [ENTITY] and ASI [ENTITY] submitted reports u/[SECTION] [ACT] qua seizure and arrest which were forwarded by the SHO to the senior officers.
The accused [ENTITY] was taken to [ENTITY] where he pointed the house and the shop of [ENTITY] but nothing was recovered from there. The sample was sent to the FSL. As per the report, sample was found to contain diacetylmorphine with its purity 22.6%. After the investigation, accused were sent for trial for offence punishable u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] [ACT].
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another
2. On their appearance, after complying with the requirements contemplated under [SECTION] [ACT] and hearing arguments, prima facie case was made out and the charge was framed against the accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] under [SECTION] [ACT]. Separate charge u/[SECTION] [ACT] was also framed against the accused [ENTITY]. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. To substantiate its allegations against the accused, prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.
PW1 [ENTITY] was the duty officer. He had recorded FIR ExPW1/A and DD no. 40, 35, 38 ExPW1/B, ExPW1/D and ExPW1/F. PW2 [ENTITY] was the MHC(M) with whom the case property and the personal search of the accused were deposited entry of which was made vide ExPW2/A. He had handed over the sample to Ct. [ENTITY] for taking to FSL and received the FSL result through Ct. [ENTITY]. PW3 Ct. [ENTITY] had witnessed the recovery proceedings. He had taken the rukka to the police station and produced the case property before the SHO. PW4 [ENTITY] was the SO to DCP. He had received the special reports u/[SECTION] [ACT] ExPW4/A and ExPW4/B regarding seizure and [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another arrest, entries of which were made in the register vide ExPW4/C and ExPW4/D. PW4 Ct. [ENTITY] had witnessed the recovery proceedings. He had received the seal after use. PW5 Ct. [ENTITY] had taken the sample to FSL Rohini. PW6 Dr. [ENTITY] had analysed the sample and given report ExPW6/A. PW7 Insp. [ENTITY] was the SHO at [ENTITY], Rajasthan. He had joined the investigation alongwith ASI [ENTITY] and visited the house of [ENTITY]. PW8 Insp. [ENTITY] was the SHO at the relevant time. He had received the information from SI [ENTITY] as well as the reports u/[SECTION] [ACT] and forwarded to the senior officers. PW9 SI [ENTITY] had investigated the case. He had served notices u/[SECTION] [ACT] ExPW3/A and ExPW3/B to the accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] and seized the case property vide memo ExPW3/C after drawing samples. He had also prepared rukka ExPW9/B and submitted report u/[SECTION] [ACT]. PW10 ASI [ENTITY] did the investigation after the registration of the case. He had prepared the site plan ExPW10/A, arrested the accused [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] vide arrest memo ExPW4/D and ExPW4/C respectively and conducted their personal search vide memo ExPW4/A and ExPW4/B. He got the sample sent to FSL, Rohini and submitted the arrest report u/[SECTION] [ACT] ExPW4/B. [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another
4. The accused were examined u/[SECTION] [ACT] wherein they claimed themselves to be innocent and falsely implicated in this case. They examined DW1 Sh. [ENTITY] as defence witness. He stated that he was TTE from Ratlam to Kota on Mumbai Jaipur Superfast Train. He had issued berth no. 9, 10 and 11 in coach no. EX1 to [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY].
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. APP for the [ENTITY] and Ld. counsel Sh. [ENTITY] for both the accused.
6. Ld. APP argued that the prosecution has been able to prove its case to the hilt. All the material witnesses have entered into the witness box and they have fully supported the case and corroborated one another on each and every aspect of the case. Link witnesses have been examined to rule out the possibility of tampering with the case property. All the relevant entries made in the register have been proved. The FSL report clearly proves that the recovered substance was heroin. Efforts were made to join public persons but none agreed.
7. Ld. defence counsel on the contrary argued that it is a case of false implication of the accused. They were apprehended from [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another Jaipur which fact is proved by DW1. There are material contradictions in the testimony of PW3 and PW4. No public witness was joined at the place from where the accused were allegedly apprehended. No ticket was seized from the accused. Refusal on the notice u/[SECTION] [ACT] is verbatim from both of the accused. Difference in colour and texture was there in the case property and the samples. The samples were again sent for analysis. The purity percentage of diacetylmorphine in the sample sent for first time was 22.6% which later came down to 0.4%. There are reasonable doubts that the recovery was not made in the manner it is alleged to have been made. Reliance was placed on the case of [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] 2006 JCC Narcotics 134.
8. I have considered the arguments and perused the file.
9. The accused have been charged u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of the [ACT]. [SECTION] reads as whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of licence granted thereunder manufactures, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter[ENTITY], exports inter[ENTITY] or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any manufactured drug shall be punished
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another Section [SECTION] provides punishment for abetment and criminal conspiracy. A person abets the doing of a thing, who engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing. Criminal conspiracy is defined u/[SECTION] [ACT] which reads as "when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
10. In the instant case PW9 had received the secret information ExPW1/B that two persons namely [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] r/o [ENTITY] involved in supplying of heroin would come with huge quantity of heroin at ISBT in between 4:005:00 p.m. to deliver it to [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] r/o Ghaziabad U.P. He had produced the informer before the SHO PW8 and recorded the DD. PW8 has stated that after verifying the information he immediately informed the ACP on telephone. Thus due compliance u/[SECTION] [ACT] was made.
11. PW9 has stated that he led the raiding party. Entry to that effect was made vide DD no. [SECTION] ExPW9/A. He stated that on the way he had requested some persons to join but none agreed. At about [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another 4:20 p.m., he saw two persons coming from the IN gate of the ISBT [ENTITY] and going towards ring road ITO side. The accused [ENTITY] was carrying yellow colour polythene in his left hand. Accused [ENTITY] was with him. After waiting for 56 minutes, when they retreated towards ISBT, they apprehended both of them, told them about the information and issued notices u/[SECTION] [ACT] ExPW3/A and ExPW3/B apprising them of their legal rights to be searched before Gazetted Officer and Magistrate but accused refused to avail and to that effect the refusal was recorded on the notice ExPW3/A and ExPW3/B. On its perusal I find that the language used in the refusal is not identical as contended by the defence counsel. Accused [ENTITY] did not say that he did not want to take search of the team which was stated by the accused [ENTITY].
Pw9 has stated that before conducting their formal search, 56 persons gathered at the spot, were requested to join but none agreed. From the search of the accused [ENTITY], from the yellow colour polythene in his left hand a transparent white polythene was recovered which was wrapped in white colour cloth. It had matiala colour powder which on testing gave positive for heroin, weighing 2.5 kg. He stated that two samples of 5 grams each were taken out and kept in two small transparent polythene which he gave mark A and B and remaining heroin was kept in the same manner as [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another it was recovered and given mark C. He prepared FSL form and put his seal of 7 APS NB Delhi and gave the seal after use to Ct. [ENTITY]. He had also conducted the search of the accused [ENTITY] but did not find anything incriminating vide memo ExPW3/D. He stated that he prepared rukka ExPW9/D and gave to Ct. [ENTITY] along with the case property and copy of seizure memo. His testimony is duly corroborated by Pw3 and Pw4. PW3 has stated that he had taken rukka and the case property to the police station in government vehicle DL1V 3570. He handed over rukka to duty officer and produced the case property before the SHO who put the seal of 1 SHO NBR Delhi called the MHC(M) and got it deposited in the malkhana. PW4 and PW8 have proved this fact. PW8 has stated that he had put the FIR number on the pullandas and copy of the seizure memo. PW2 has stated that he had received the case property in the sealed condition and to that effect he had made entry in register no.
12. In this case prosecution has examined all the link witnesses ie Pw9 the seizing officer, Pw3 who had taken the case property to the police station, Pw8 who had received the case property and put the seal of 1SHO NBR Delhi, the MHC(M) Pw2, the Ct. [ENTITY] Pw8 who had taken the sample to the FSL and Pw6 Dr [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another Sharma the Chemical Examiner. All the witnesses have stated that the case property and the samples were in intact condition and there was no tampering with the seal.
13. In this case finding some discrepancy in colour and texture, fresh samples were drawn from the case property and sent to FSL for reanalysis. Marked difference in purity percentage was observed to which PW6 has given an explanation that after certain time diacetylmorphine decomposes into monoacetylmorphine and that is why the percentage could be reduced. It is also relevant to mention that the second sample was drawn after about 2 years and due to change in atmospheric condition and other changes, the percentage goes down. The illicit seized NDPS material of natural, semi synthetic in origin i.e. opium, charas, Ganja and heroin etc. are non homogeneous in nature, hence if resampled, sample variation in contents of active substances will occur. If re sampling is done after a gap of considerable duration, then great variation in percentage of active content can occur due to the reason that (i) natural products are prone to get infected with bacterial and fungal micro organism, which causes a change in chemical composition of organic material by decomposition partly or fully, fast deterioration of a material will occur due to effect of light, high temperature and humidity. It is not [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another the case that the heroin was manufactured in the laboratory rather the crude method was adopted in preparing the heroin. Even on re examination the sample was found to contain diacetylmorphine. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary it cannot be doubted that the recovery was not made in the manner it is alleged to have been made. The observations in the case of [ENTITY] supra were only on the bail application and not on the merits of the case. In the case of Rajni Devi Vs. [ENTITY] 2005 IV AD (Cr.) DHC 382 the descripancies were in two FSL reports, the case was remanded back to the trial court with the directions to clarify the position from the chemical examiner. In the present case PW6 has given the clarification that the variation may be due to decomposing and due to passage of time. Even otherwise in the present scenario, applying the ratio laid down in the case of Ansar Ahmed vs. [ENTITY] 2005 (4) RCR (Crl.) 393 the second report would be considered for calculating the purity percentage, with that, the actual quantity of heroin comes to 10 grams.
14. In this case from the search of the accused, the copy of the notices were recovered, the reports u/[SECTION] [ACT] were submitted to the senior officers by PW9 and PW10 which fact is corroborated by Pw8 in his testimony. Pw4 [ENTITY] has proved [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another the receipt of both the reports in the office of DCP entry of which was made in the register vide Ex. PW4/C and PW4/D. Thus due compliance u/[SECTION] [ACT] was made as provided and guided in the case of Ritesh Chakarborty v. [ENTITY] of Madhya Pradesh 2006(3) JCC (Narcotics) 150.
15. As regards joining of public witness it has been stated by prosecution witnesses that on the way, passerby were requested and even at the spot some persons were requested but none agreed so it cannot be said that no effort was made by the investigation agency. Joining public person is a rule of caution not the rule of law. If the testimony of police officials is consistent and cogent, it can become the basis of the conviction of the case. The possibility and availability of a public witness for joining investigation is a fanciful myth like meeting of the sky at the horizon. The near you go, the far it becomes and the ultimate meeting point never reaches. The public witness now a days has become a rare commodity. No one is ready to join police investigation either because of the fear of the accused or because of the inconvenience to be suffered in attending the courts. In [PRECEDENT] it was held "It is true that public witnesses inspire more confidence and enable the court to return findings with added confidence but the law is well settled that a [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another conviction may be based on the testimonies of official witnesses even.
16. In the present case the accused have taken the alibi that they were apprehended from Jaipur Railway Station when they were going to hospital. They had examined Dw1 who had issued ticket Ex. Dw1/A. He has produced the reservation chart of the train Ex Dw1/B stating that he had issued berth no. 9, 10 and 11 in Coach no. EX1 to [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. He stated that he cannot identify [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and [ENTITY]. He has admitted that he used to issue tickets to the persons by their names as told by them. It is relevant to mention that the accused did not examine anyone who had seen the accused at the Railway Station, Jaipur. The information against the accused was very specific. Tthe prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses ie Pw3, Pw4, Pw9 and Pw10 who had witnessed the seizure and the arrest proceedings. They were subjected at the anvil of cross examination but I find their testimony consistent, cogent and worth believing. Nothing can be inferred from their testimony that they knew the accused from before or were interested in their false implication. Had there been so, they could have also planted the contraband on the person of [ENTITY]. Keeping in view these facts, the defence of the [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another accused that they were apprehended from Jaipur railway station does not inspire confidence. The DD entries coupled with other documents show that they were apprehended from ISBT Sarai kale Khan at about 4.20 pm.
17. In the case of Binay Kumar Singh Vs. [ENTITY] of Bihar AIR 1997 SC 322. It was observed as under :
The Latin word alibi means "elsewhere" and that word is used for convenience when an accused takes recourse to a defence line that when the occurrence took place he was so far away from the place of occurrence that it is extremely improbable that he would have participated in the crime. It is basic law that in a criminal case, that the burden is on the prosecution to prove that the accused was present at the scene and has participated in the crime. The burden would not be lessened by the mere fact that the accused had adopted the defence of alibi. The plea of the accused in such cases need be considered only when the burden has been discharged by the prosecution satisfactorily. But [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another once the prosecution succeeds in discharging the burden it is incumbent on the accused, who adopts the plea of alibi, to prove it with absolute certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place of occurrence. When the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence has been established satisfactorily by the prosecution through reliable evidence, normally the Court would be slow to believe any counterevidence to the effect that he was elsewhere when the occurrence happened.
18. As regards contradictions, Pw3 has stated that the gate where they were standing was on the road going towards Ring Road towards Hazrat [ENTITY] and he does not know whether there was a police post. Pw4 has stated that they were standing near the In gate of [ENTITY] and [ENTITY] is on the opposite side. The police post is within the [ENTITY] complex near the bus stand. Pw9 has stated that he did not take into possession the ticket from the accused. On perusal of site plan Ex. PW10/A I find that the accused was apprehended from the place at ring road. They had come from the gate of ISBT. The gates of the ISBT are on the service road going to the [ENTITY] Railway station. On comparing with the site [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another plan, I do not find any discrepancy in the testimony of both the witnesses. In the site plan position of the police post is not shown but keeping in view the testimony of PW4 and Pw9 I find that a police post existed near the place. As regards seizing the ticket, it is the human tendency to throw the ticket once he reaches at the destination point. So not seizing the ticket from the accused is not at all fatal.
19. Now coming to the conspiracy, there was no recovery from the accused [ENTITY]. He was apprehended with the accused [ENTITY]. Except the disclosure statement and the secret information there is no evidence to link the accused [ENTITY] with the alleged recovery from the coaccused. In the case of Karan Singh vs. [ENTITY] 2006 V AD (DELHI) 465, the reference was made of the case of [ENTITY] Ramjibhai Barot vs. [ENTITY] of Gujarat 2005 III AD (Cr.) SC 625, no recovery was effected from the petitioner, a recovery of 1 kg. of a substance containing diacetylmorphine was made from the coaccused, the state was prosecuting the petitioner u/[SECTION] of [ACT] on account of the recovery from the co accused, there was no other evidence except the secret information to link the petitioner with the alleged recovery from the coaccused, the accused was granted bail. In the case of [ENTITY] supra, two [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another persons were found togather and substances were recovered from them separately. The Supreme Court held that although they were found together, they could not be implicated u/[SECTION] of the [ACT] as there was no warrant to arrive at such a conclusion at all as there was no evidence to suggest that there was any criminal conspiracy among the two. The case of [PRECEDENT] was also discussed in which it was held that merely on the basis of secret information without the informant being named and /or produced as a witness, the foundation of a case u/[SECTION] could not be laid. In the present case prosecution did not examine the secret informer to prove the information. The prosecution has failed to prove through evidence some kind of physical manifestation of agreement and participation to sustain the charge of conspiracy.
The conspiracy can undoubtedly be proved by such evidence direct or circumstantial. But the court must inquire whether the two persons are independently pursuing the same end or they have come together to the pursuit of the unlawful object. The former does not render them coconspirators but the latter does. It is, however essential that the offence of conspiracy requires some kind of physical manifestation of agreement. [SECTION] of the [ACT] applies to acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy and does not [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another apply to the confession made after conspiracy and acts done in pursuance thereof were at end. When persons have been taken into custody and are in a condition which makes it impossible for them to act in aid or furtherance of the conspiracy i.e. when so far as they are concerned the conspiracy has come to an end acts of persons who were the members of the conspiracy and who are still free to act in pursuance thereof, are not admissible against them, there acts cannot deemed to be the acts of coconspirators. In the present case prosecution did not collect any evidence how they procured the contraband or how they came to know each other. In the absence of any material, the accused [ENTITY] cannot be charged with conspiracy. No case is made out against him.
20. In the present case the recovery from the accused [ENTITY] is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He could not account for its possession. He has failed to rebut the two statutory presumptions in favour of the prosecution u/[SECTION] and [SECTION] of the Act. In the case of Madan Lal v. [ENTITY] of HP 2003 (3) JCC 1330 it was held that once possession is established, the person who claims that it was not a conscious possession has to establish it because how he came to be in possession is within his special knowledge. [SECTION] of the Act is given a statutory recognition of this position because of [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another presumption available in law and similar is the position in terms of [SECTION] where also presumption is available to be drawn for possession of illicit articles.
21. In the light of about discussions, no doubt is left in my mind that the accused [ENTITY] illegally acquired, possessed and dealt with the narcotic drugs i.e. heroin. The prosecution has proved its case against the accused [ENTITY] beyond reasonable doubt. I therefore hold the accused [ENTITY] guilty and convict him of the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT]. The accused [ENTITY] is acquitted of the offence on benefit of doubt. His bail bond be cancelled. His surety be discharged.
Announced in open Court on this 07th day of May, 2010 [ENTITY] Special Judge NDPS : New Delhi Patiala House : New Delhi [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another IN THE COURT OF SH. [ENTITY] : SPECIAL JUDGE - NDPS PATIALA HOUSE COURTS : NEW DELHI P.S. Nr. Branch U/[SECTION] [ACT] [ENTITY] Vs. [ENTITY] & anr.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide separate judgment accused [ENTITY] has been convicted of the offence punishable u/[SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. Ld. APP has prayed for maximum sentence provided under the statute and submitted that the sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offence.
3. Ld. Counsel Sh. [ENTITY] submitted that the accused is a respectable person and does not have any record of previous conviction. He be given opportunity to reform and rehabilitate.
4. I have considered the submissions.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India [ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another Vs. Kuldeep Singh 2004 Vol. 2 SCC 590 held :
Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be unreally a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime e.g. Where it relates to offences relating to narcotics drugs or psychotropic substance, which have great impact not only on the health fabric but also on the social order and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se requires exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences of taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time or personal inconveniences in respect of such offence will be result wise counter productive in the long run and against social interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by a string of difference inbuilt in the sentencing system. The object should be to protect the society and to deter the criminal in achieving the avowed object of law by imposing appropriate sentence. It is expected that the courts would operate the sentencing system so as to impose such sentence which reflects the conscience of the society and the sentencing process has to be stern where it should be.
5. In the present case, the convict is involved in trafficking of heroin. The effect of consumption of heroin on the society is disastrous. It eats away the life and vigour in the society. Illegal trade of such a high quantity would have adverse impact on the lives of uncountable persons.
[ENTITY] vs. [ENTITY] & another
6. The incident pertains to the year 2006. The Convict [ENTITY] is aged about 52 years, a cloth merchant and has a responsibility of three daughters of marriageable age and one son. He does not have any case against him under [ACT]. He has remained in custody for more than 2 years. It is a case of recovery of about 10 grams of heroin after the purity percentage.
7. Taking into consideration the totality of facts and the circumstances, antecedents and family background of the convict, I sentence the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two and half years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/ in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT]. He is given benefit of [SECTION] [ACT] The case property be confiscated to the [ENTITY] after the expiry of period of appeal or revision.
Announced in open Court on this 07th day of May, 2010 [ENTITY] Special Judge NDPS : New Delhi Patiala House : New Delhi