IN THE COURT OF [ENTITY]: ASJ: SPL. JUDGE ([ACT]):KKD COURTS: DELHI S.C. No: 80/07 [ENTITY] Versus (1) [ENTITY] son of Shri [ENTITY] r/o Village Usaita, PS Binawar Distt. Badayun, U.P. FIR No : 84/07 P.S.: Narcotic Branch U/[SECTION] [ACT] Date of submission of charge sheet 06.10.2007 Date on which the judgment has been reserved 15.02.2011 Date on which the judgment has been delivered 17.02.2011 JUDGMENT
1. It is the case of the prosecution against the accused - [ENTITY] that on 24.08.2007 at about 9.05 a.m. near Shakarpur Chungi, Pushta Road bus stop Delhi, he was found in possession of 300 grams a heroin (Smack), a contraband, without any licence or permit. It is also the case of the prosecution that the specimen sample of the substance alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused was sent to FSL and as per report received, the sample found to contain 9.54% diacetylmorphine. In view of law laid down in Ansar Ahmed & Ors. V. [ENTITY] (Govt of NCT of Delhi (123 (2005) Delhi Law Times
563); [PRECEDENT]; [PRECEDENT] and Ouseph V. [ENTITY] of Kerala [2004 (4) SCC 446], the total quantity of diacetylmorphine was 28.62 grams in the contraband recovered from accused, which is an intermediate quantity as per entry no. 56 of notification issued under [SECTION] of the [ACT] (hereinafter referred as [ACT]).
2. The facts of the prosecution case as revealed from report under [SECTION] [ACT] are as follows: On 24.08.2007 at about 7.30 am while SI [ENTITY] was present in the police station Narcotic Branch, Delhi, a secret informer came and informed him that one [ENTITY] resident of Badayu, U.P., indulging in supply of heroin/smack in U.P. and Delhi would come today between 8.30 am to 9.30 am at Pushta Road bus stop near Shakarpur Chungi, Delhi to supply heroin in heavy quantity to someone. Said informer was produced before SHO Narcotic Branch Inspt. [ENTITY] who after satisfying himself further conveyed the information to ACP Narcotics Sh. [ENTITY] through telephone who ordered to conduct a raid immediately. Information was recorded in DD register vide DD No. 5A at about 8 am and provision of [SECTION] [ACT] was complied with. Raiding party consisting of SI [ENTITY], HC [ENTITY], Ct. [ENTITY], Ct. [ENTITY] was organised. Said party with the informer left the police station at about 8.15am vide DD No. 6A and reached near the spot. On the way at Pushta Road bus stop [ENTITY] 45 passengers and at red light Shakarpur five passersby were requested to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and left the spot after disclosing their genuine problems. [ENTITY] was done and the raiding party was briefed. At about 9 a.m. accused was seen coming on foot from red light Shakarpur wearing grey (sleti) shirt and earthern colour pants. Informer pointed out the accused and left the spot. The accused waited for 34 minutes and when he was trying to go back, at about 9.05 am accused was apprehended by the raiding party. On inquiry that person told his name as [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY]. Contents of the secret information were conveyed to the accused. Notice under [SECTION] [ACT] was served on the accused by which he was apprised that he has legal right that he can be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Accused was also offered that he can take search of any member of the raiding party. Accused did not avail of any opportunity. Before commencing further proceedings 810 public persons gathered there were requested to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and addresses. On search of accused a transparent polythene containing 300 grams brown colour powder tied with rubberband was recovered from right pocket of his pants. The recovered substance was checked on field testing kit and was found to be smack. Two samples of five grams each Mark A & B were taken out from the said contraband. Samples mark A and B and the remaining contraband Mark C were separately packed and sealed with the seal of 2C PS NB DELHI. FSL Form was also filled in using the same seal. Seal after use was handed over to Constable [ENTITY]. All the above parcels and FSL Form were seized vide a memo. [ENTITY] was prepared and sent to the police station through Ct. [ENTITY] for getting the case registered and accordingly the case was registered under [SECTION] of [ACT]. Above articles including sample parcels and copy of the seizure memo were also handed over to the said official with the directions to hand over the same to SHO. SHO after affixing his official seal 1 SHO NBR DELHI deposited the same with MHCM in intact condition. Further investigation of this case was entrusted to SI [ENTITY] who also reached the spot. Accused was arrested. Sample was sent to FSL, Rohini for chemical analysis. Chargesheet was filed against accused [ENTITY] for the offence punishable under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. On receipt of Result from FSL it was placed on the judicial file.
3. Vide order dated 18.12.2007 charge under [SECTION] [ACT] was framed against the accused [ENTITY] by my ld. Predecessor to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. Prosecution has examined nine witnesses in support of its case.
5. PW 2 - Head Constable [ENTITY] (the then Constable), PW 5 [ENTITY], PW - 8 SI [ENTITY] are material witnesses to the recovery.
6. All these witnesses have stated that on 24.08.2007 in pursuance to the secret information, at about 9 a.m. accused [ENTITY] was apprehended on being pointed out by the informer at the spot. All these witnesses further deposed that notice under [SECTION] [ACT] Ex.PW2/A was served on the accused to which he replied vide Ex.PW2/B and the same was written by SI [ENTITY] as accused claimed himself to be illiterate. All these witnesses further deposed that then on search of the accused a transparent polythene containing 300 grams heroin/smack was recovered from the right pocket of his pants. Out of the said contraband two samples of five grams each Mark A & Mark B were taken out. Samples and the remaining contraband mark C were separately packed and sealed with the seal of 2C PS NB DELHI. FSL Form was filled by using the same seal. Above these articles were seized vide a memo Ex.PW2/C. All these witnesses further deposed that ruqqa Ex.PW8/A was prepared and sent to the police station through Ct. [ENTITY] for getting the case registered.
7. All these witnesses identified the case property including samples as Ex. P 1 to Ex. P 3 and stated that the same was recovered from the possession of accused.
8. PW 8 - SI [ENTITY] and PW 5 - Ct. [ENTITY] are witnesses to the arrest of accused by SI [ENTITY] who came to the spot as further investigation were entrusted to him.
9. These witnesses were cross examined on behalf of accused at length.
10. PW 6 - Head Constable [ENTITY], duty officer, proved the copy of the FIR Ex.PW6/E. This witness also stated that on receipt of rukka, he made DD No. 14A (Ex.PW6/A) regarding kayami of FIR and entrusting of investigation of this case to SI [ENTITY]. This witness also proved the copies of DD entry number 15A as Ex.PW6/B regarding affixing of seals on the case property, form FSL and deposit of same in the malkhana by Inspt. [ENTITY]. The DD entry regarding completion of registration of FIR has been proved as Ex.PW6/C. He also stated that at about 2.55 pm, SI [ENTITY] alongwith raiding party members reached the police station and he lodged DD no. 17A Ex.PW6/D.
11. PW 9 - SI SI [ENTITY] IO of the case stated that he arrested the accused, prepared site plan Ex.PW8/B, prepared the special report under [SECTION] [ACT] Ex.PW9/A and produced the same before SHO.
12. PW 7 Inspt. [ENTITY] SHO concerned stated that on 24.08.2007 at about 7.40 am, SI [ENTITY] produced the secret informer in his office and informed him about the contents of secret information. He conveyed this information to ACP Narcotic Sh. [ENTITY] who ordered to conduct a raid, accordingly he directed SI [ENTITY] to conduct a raid and take appropriate action. He also stated that he forwarded the copy of DD No. 5A (Ex.PW7/A) to the senior officers. He also stated that he deposited the case property along samples in sealed condition, form FSL and carbon copy of seizure memo with the MHC(M) of PS concerned after affixing his seal of 1SHO NBR DELHI on them. He also stated that on 10.09.2007 on receipt of priority letter/permission from the competent authority, he sent sample parcel to FSL Rohini through [ENTITY].
13. PW 1 - Head Constable [ENTITY], MHC(M), stated that on 24.08.2007, at about 12.45 pm, Inspt. [ENTITY]) called him in his office with register no. 19 and he deposited three parcels duly sealed with seal of 2C PS NB DELHI and 1SHO NBR DELHI alongwith FSL Form bearing same seals and copy of the seizure memo with him. He also stated that SI [ENTITY] also deposited personal search articles of accused and effected entry in register no. 19 and same is Ex.PW1/A. He also stated that on 10.09.2007, he handed over sample parcel to Ct. [ENTITY] for depositing the same at FSL Rohini vide endorsement Ex.PW1/B. The photocopy of R/C is Ex.PW1/C and the receipt handed over by Ct. [ENTITY] to MHC(M) regarding deposit of sample in FSL is Ex.PW1/D. He sated that so long as case property remained with his custody, no body had tampered with it.
14. PW 3 - [ENTITY] deposed that on 10.09.2007, he deposited the sample parcel with FSL, Rohini alongwith FSL Form in intact sealed condition.
15. PW 4 - Head Constable [ENTITY], from ACP office Narcotics proved the copy of DD NO. 5A received in the office of ACP on 24.08.2007 as Ex.PW4/A. He sated that special report u/[SECTION] [ACT] (Ex.PW4/B) regarding seizure of 300 grams smack from the possession of one [ENTITY] was given to the office of the ACP vide diary no. 1027. He also stated that another special report u/[SECTION] [ACT] (Ex.PW4/C) regarding arrest of accused was also given to the ACP. The copy of entries made in the office of ACP vide serial no. 1026 to 1028 are Ex.PW4/D.
16. The prosecution witnesses were cross examined by the ld. counsel for the accused.
17. In his statement recorded u/[SECTION] [ACT] the accused denied case of the prosecution and stated that no such crime was ever committed by him. He also submitted that no contraband was ever recovered from his possession. He further stated that he had to recover a sum of Rs. 14,000/ from one [ENTITY] for completing his order and when he demanded this money from him, he ([ENTITY]) called him at his work place, he (accused) reached there and police apprehended him in this false case.
18. The accused opted to lead evidence in his defence and he examined as DW 1 Sh. [ENTITY], Principal, [ENTITY], Binawar, U.P.
19. I have heard Ld. Addl. P.P. for the [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate, ld counsel for the accused and have perused the record.
20. During arguments, ld. Addl. PP for the [ENTITY] submitted that prosecution has proved its case beyond doubts and all the mandatory provisions of Law have been complied with. Ld. Addl PP has also submitted that since all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of prosecution without any material contradiction, the accused is liable to be convicted for the charged offence. Ld. Addl. PP submitted that prosecution witnesses cannot be discarded only on the ground that they belong to the police department. It is further submitted that defence raised by the accused has no merits and it does not effect the case of prosecution in any manner and accused is liable to be convicted.
21. During arguments Ld. counsel for the accused contended that no recovery of any contraband was effected from the possession of accused and he has been falsely implicated in this case. He further contended that admittedly spot was a public place and despite the availability of public persons none was joined as witness during the alleged search and seizure of contraband from the possession of accused which creates doubt about the case of prosecution. He also contended that mandatory provisions of [SECTION], [SECTION] [ACT] have not been complied with. He further contended that Ct. [ENTITY] another alleged recovery witness has not been examined by the prosecution. It is also contended that the driver of the gypsy in which the raiding party allegedly reached at the spot has also not been examined. It is submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond doubt and accused is liable to be acquitted.
22. I have given my consideration to the contentions advanced by Ld. Addl. PP for the state and ld. counsel for the accused.
23. Before coming to the merits of the case, it may be noted that the accused had summoned one Sh. [ENTITY], Principal [ENTITY], Binawar, Badayu, U.P. and examined him as DW1. DW1 deposed that as per the admission register of the school, [ENTITY] son of [ENTITY]. was admitted in the school on 06.07.2000 in sixth class and studied upto 30.12.2002 and thereafter his name was struck of. He proved the photocopy of register as Ex. DW1/A and the copy of school leaving certificate as Ex.DW1/B. During cross examination he stated that [ENTITY] was admitted in the school in sixth class on the basis of the school leaving certificate issued from Primary School, Village Kartauli, Salarpur, Badayu, U.P. Thereafter the accused summoned Sh. [ENTITY], Incharge, Principal Prathamik School, Kartauli Badayu, U.P. as another defence witness who came to the court on 14.01.2011. However, the accused chose not to examine this witness in his defence and closed his defence evidence.
24. The defence relating to the age was raised by the accused first time during the defence evidence. During arguments ld. counsel for the accused stated that he is not raising a contention that accused was juvenile on the date of commission of the alleged offence. In any event, I have looked into the evidence on this aspcet. I find that none of the evidences as contemplated in [SECTION] framed under The [ACT] has been brought on record. There is no wrothwhile evidence to show that the accused was juvenile on the date of the commission of alleged offence. Thus, it must be held that accused was not a juvenile on the date of commission of alleged offence.
25. As per the prosecution case on 24.08.2007 at about 9 a.m. the accused was apprehended with 300 grams smack, a contraband in pursuant to the secret information. All the material witnesses i.e. PW 8 - SI [ENTITY], PW 2 [ENTITY] and PW 5 - Const. [ENTITY] stated in evidence that the police party had requested public persons to join the proceedings on the way from police station to the spot i.e. 45 passengers at [ENTITY] bus stand, five passersby after taking [ENTITY] from [ENTITY] were requested to join the raiding party but none of them agreed and all left away without disclosing their names and addresses.
26. It is well settled that the police officials are competent witnesses and conviction against the accused can be based on their sole testimony but an onerous duty has been cast upon the court to scrutinise their statements very closely in order to form an opinion whether they are reliable and trustworthy.
27. In Ajmer Singh V. [ENTITY] of Haryana [(2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 746] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"We can not forget that 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."
[See also Dharampal Singh Vs. [ENTITY] of Punjab (2010) 9 SCC 608 [PRECEDENT] ]
28. Reference can also be made to a judgment reported as Gyan Chand & another Vs. [ENTITY] and another (2005 Crl L. J. 3228 Hon'ble Allahabad High Court), wherein it has been laid down that the court has to assess worth of such evidence from the facts available on record and if these statements inspire confidence, it has to be accepted by the court for purpose of conviction of accused. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:
"It is true that the witnesses who have supported the prosecution version of the case are the witnesses from he department but the testimony of such witnesses can not be altogether discarded because they belong to the department and one of them is complainant of the case. The court has to assess the worth of such evidence from the facts and circumstances and other materials available on record and if these statements inspire confidence, it has to be accepted by the Courts for the purpose of recording the conviction of the accused."
29. In Ronald Larks Goontha Vs. [ENTITY] of Rajasthan [1988 (2) Crimes 737], Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan held as follows:
"that police officers are citizens and the public servants. Generally, it is expected that they perform their duties faithfully and sincerely. A presumption under [SECTION] of the [ACT] can be drawn that they perform their duties in the ordinary course of business faithfully and sincerely. Their evidence can not be discarded only on the ground that they are police officers."
30. The prejudice to the accused caused due to non examination of independent witness differs from case to case. It can not be said that mere non examination of independent witnesses of alleged search and seizure of contraband by itself is a sufficient ground to exonerate the accused from the offence. In the present case all the members of the raiding party have uniformly deposed that public persons were requested to join the recovery proceedings but none agreed and they left the places without disclosing their names and addresses. The testimony of material recovery witnesses are fully corroborated to each other without any material contradiction. Thus, it can not be said that police had not made sincere efforts to join the public persons at the time of search and seizure proceedings. Apart from this, reluctance of public persons to join the proceedings in criminal cases is well known and they do not come forward.
31. Under these circumstances, I find no reason to disbelieve the statements of prosecution witnesses on the ground that no independent public persons was joined at the time of the search and seizure proceedings of contraband.
32. As far as contention of ld counsel for the accused about non compliance of provision of [SECTION] [ACT] is concerned, the evidence on record would show that the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] have been duly complied with. All the material prosecution witnesses i.e. PW 8 - SI [ENTITY], PW 2 [ENTITY] and PW 5 - Const. [ENTITY] have deposed that after apprehension, notice u/[SECTION] [ACT] - Ex. PW 2/A was served on the accused and he was informed about his legal right that his search can be conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer or Magistrate. Accused was also offered that he can take search of police party before giving his search and also that he can take search of police vehicle. All these witnesses uniformly deposed that accused did not express his willingness to be searched before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate or to take search of police official and/or police vehicle and accused gave reply Ex.PW 2/B to the notice under [SECTION] [ACT]. These witness have consistently deposed that reply Ex.PW2/B was written by SI [ENTITY] (PW 8) as per the reply given by the accused as he informed the police that he is not educated. Signatures of accused on notice u/[SECTION] [ACT].PW2/A) and its reply(Ex.PW2/B) are not disputed. It is not the case of accused that his signatures on the notice Ex.PW2/A and its reply Ex.PW2/B were obtained forcibly. No suggestion was given to any prosecution witness to the recovery in this regard. Moreover, the accused has not alleged or proved any enmity, illwill or grudge against any of the police officials.
33. In Prabha Shankar Dubey Vs. [ENTITY] of M.P. [(2004) 2 SCC 56] the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the view that whether the requirement of [SECTION] has been met is a question which is to be decided on the fact of each case and there can not be any sweeping generalization and/or a straitjacket formula.
34. In Krishna Kanwar Vs. [ENTITY] of Rajasthan [(2004) 2 SCC 608], this question again came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it was noted that there is no specific form prescribed or initiated for conveying the information required to be given under [SECTION] of the [ACT]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court inter alia held as under:
"What is necessary is that the accused (suspect) should be made aware of the existence of his right to be searched in presence of the officers named in the Section itself. Since no specific mode or manner is prescribed or intended, the Court has to see the substance and not the form of intimation. Whether the requirements of [SECTION] have been met is a question which is to be decided on the facts of each case and there can not be any sweeping generalization and/or straitjacket formula."
35. In view of above discussion I am of the view that provision of [SECTION] [ACT] has been duly complied with.
36. The next contention of ld. defence counsel that provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] has not been complied with has also no merits. PW8 SI [ENTITY] who was the head of the raiding party deposed that on 24.08.2007, he prepared a report (Ex.PW4/B) u/[SECTION] [ACT] and sent the same to ACP Narcotic Branch through SHO. PW9 SI [ENTITY]) also deposed that he also prepared a report u/[SECTION] [ACT] Ex.PW9/A and put up the same before SHO concerned. The statements of SI [ENTITY] and SI [ENTITY] are corroborated with the statement of Inspt. [ENTITY] (PW7) who stated that SI [ENTITY] and SI [ENTITY] put up before him their respective reports under [SECTION] [ACT] regarding recovery of smack and arrest of accused and he forwarded the same to the senior officers. The statements of these three witnesses are further corroborated with the statement of PW4 [ENTITY] from the office of ACP Narcotic who deposed that these two reports u/[SECTION] [ACT] were received in the office of ACP Narcotic on 24.08.2007. Under these circumstances, it is proved that provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] have been duly complied with.
37. The next contention of ld counsel for the accused that the non examination of the recovery witness Ct. [ENTITY] and driver of a gypsy in which raiding party went to the spot creates doubts about the prosecution case has also no merits. The recovery witnesses PW 8 - SI [ENTITY], PW2 [ENTITY] and PW5 Const. [ENTITY] have uniformly deposed that accused was found in possession of smack at the spot. The prosecution is not required to examine each and every witness to the same facts.
38. The contention of ld. counsel for the accused that as per PW 5 Ct. [ENTITY], the seal after use was handed over to him by SI [ENTITY] at the spot which he returned to him (SI [ENTITY]) on the next day and there is no evidence to show that the seal was deposited in the malkhana which creates doubts about the case of prosecution is also of no help to the accused. PW 1 MHC(M) [ENTITY] has deposed that the case property i.e. all the parcel, form FSL having seals of 2C PS NB DELHI and 1SHO NBR DELHI were deposited by the SHO in PS malkhana and the seals on case property remained intact so long as it remained in his custody. His testimony is also corroborated with FSL report Ex.PW9/B which shows that the sample was received in FSL authority in sealed condition with the seal of 2C PS NB DELHI and 1SHO NBR DELHI. Under these circumstances, alleged nondeposition of seal by the police officials in the police station malkhana after its use is of no help to the accused.
39. The stand of the accused that he was implicated at the instance and place of one [ENTITY] from whom he had to recover an amount of Rs. 14,000/ appears to be an after thought and of no help to him. This defence was raised by the accused for the first time during his statement u/[SECTION] [ACT]. Apart from this, PW 5 [ENTITY] and PW 8 SI [ENTITY] were suggested during cross examination by the ld. defence counsel that accused was lifted from his house/jhuggi.
40. Evidence on record would show that the statements of prosecution witnesses are corroborated with each other without any material contradiction. I find no reason to disbelieve the statements of prosecution witnesses. Thus prosecution has been able to prove that accused was found in possession of contraband i.e. smack.
41. As per FSL report Ex. PW 9/B sample was containing only 9.54% diacetylmoprhine making the net quantity of contraband as 28.62 grams, which is an intermediate quantity.
42. In view of above discussion and considering the evidence on record, the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused namely [ENTITY] that he was found in possession of 28.62 grams diacetylmorphine, a contraband, which is an intermediate quantity. Thus, accused [ENTITY] is convicted under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
Announced in the open court on 17.02.2011 ([ENTITY]) ASJ:Spl. Judge([ACT]): KKD Courts: Delhi. IN THE COURT OF [ENTITY]: ASJ: SPL. JUDGE ([ACT]):KKD COURTS: DELHI [ENTITY] Versus (1) [ENTITY] son of Shri [ENTITY] r/o Village Usaita, PS Binawar Distt. Badayun, U.P. FIR No : 84/07 P.S.: Narcotic Branch U/[SECTION] [ACT] Order on Point of Sentence
1. The convict - [ENTITY] has been convicted under [SECTION] of the [ACT].
2. I have heard ld. Addl. PP for the [ENTITY] and Sh. [ENTITY], Advocate for the convict and also convict on the point of sentence.
3. It is submitted by the convict that he is aged about 21 yrs and having liability to look after his old aged widow mother and a young disabled brother. It is also submitted by convict that he has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case. Convict further prayed that lenient view be taken against him.
4. On the other hand, ld Addl PP submits that convict be sentenced with maximum punishment as prescribed under law as recovery of contraband i.e. smack was effected from the possession of convict.
5. As per the report of the Ahlmad, convict has already remained in judicial custody for a period of one year nine months and thirteen days in the present case.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the period for which convict - [ENTITY] has already remained in judicial custody during the trial of this case, convict is sentenced for the the period already undergone by him in judicial custody in this case and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ in default of payment of fine SI for three months for the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT].
7. Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to the convict, free of costs.
8. Case property be confiscated to the [ENTITY], after the expiry of period of revision/appeal, if any.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on 19.02.2011.
([ENTITY]) ASJ: Spl. Judge ([ACT]):
KKD Courts: Delhi.
[ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] FIR No : 84/07 P.S.: Narcotic Branch U/[SECTION] [ACT] 17.02.2011 Present : Ld. Addl. PP for the [ENTITY].
Accused on bail.
Vide my separate judgment accused is convicted under [SECTION]
(b) of the [ACT].
Put up for arguments on the point of sentence on 19.02.2011.
([ENTITY]) ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) Karkardooma Courts, East District, Delhi : 17.02.2011 [ENTITY] Versus [ENTITY] FIR No : 84/07 P.S.: Narcotic Branch U/[SECTION] [ACT] 19.02.2011 Present : Ld. Addl. PP for the [ENTITY].
Accused on bail with Sh. [ENTITY], Adv. Accused is directed to furnish Bond of Appearance as required under [SECTION] A [ACT] with personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/ with one surety in the like amount.
Bond of Appearance furnished and accepted.
Arguments on the point of sentence heard.
Convict is sentenced for the the period already undergone by him in judicial custody in this case and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ in default of payment of fine SI for three months for the offence punishable u/[SECTION] [ACT].
Copy of the judgment and order on sentence be supplied to the convict, free of costs. File be consigned to RR.
([ENTITY]) ASJ/Special Judge (NDPS) Karkardooma Courts, East District, Delhi : 19.02.2011