CRL.L.P. No. 28/2003 Page 1 5. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.L.P. 28/2003 Date of decision: 9th September, 2010 UNION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Through Mr. S.C. Aggarwala, Advocate. versus TARIQ MOHD. ..... Respondent Through Nemo. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R 1. This application for leave to appeal was filed in the year 2003 against the judgment of acquittal dated 4th January, 2003. The respondent, Tariq Mohd @Liyakat Ali, is a resident of Pakistan. After the order of acquittal, he has left India and has gone to Pakistan. He could not be served and accordingly on an application filed by the applicant, he was served by publication in the newspaper Dawn, Lahore Edition dated 31st August, 2009. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the respondent had made a statement under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for short) admitting his involvement and the fact that his name was Tariq Mohd. and, therefore, the impugned judgment dated 4th January, 2003 should be set aside and the application for leave to appeal should be granted. 3. Officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI, for short) had recovered 4.9 Kg of heroin in a search of vehicle bearing No. CRL.L.P. No. 28/2003 Page 2 DL 6C 3151 in which Kartar Singh, Gurbax Singh and Rajinder Singh were found to be travelling on 26th April, 1998. The said vehicle was intercepted on specific intelligence REPORT at the intersection of Bawana Road and G.T. Karnal Road on the side of Sanjay Gandhi Transport Nagar. Accused Rajinder Singh in the said case had stated that he had met one Tariq alias T.R. in Pakistan, who had offered him Rs.40,000/- per Kg of heroin if he was willing to carry the said heroin from Pakistan to Delhi. He had further stated that five packets of heroin were given by the said Tariq in Jammu on 24th/25th April, 1998 to be carried to Delhi. He had stated that he had met Tariq in Pakistan and accused Kartar Singh had also gone with him to Pakistan but did not met Tariq. Kartar Singh in his statement had stated that he had written down telephone number of Tariq as informed by Rajinder Singh. 4. The prosecution case is that they arrested one Liyakat Ali from Hotel De Romana, Darya Ganj, New Delhi on 10th February, 2000. Nothing incriminating was recovered from the said Liyakat Ali. The allegation of the applicant, DRI is that Tariq Mohd. was staying in the said hotel in the assumed name of Liyakat Ali. As stated above, DRI rely on confession of the Liyakat Ali, which was recorded under Section 67 of the Act admitting his involvement in the said crime. It may be noted that a separate complaint was filed against Liyakat Ali alleging that he was actually Tariq Mohd. and Liyakat Ali was not tried along with Kartar Singh, Gurbax Singh and Rajinder Singh. Except for the statement under Section 67 of the Act, there is no other document or evidence, which is relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5. PW-20, Shahbuddin, who is the owner of Hotel De Romana, had testified before the trial court stating that the accused was staying in the said hotel as Liyakat Ali and had furnished requisite extracts from the hotel register. He had further stated that Liyakat Ali had stayed in the said hotel earlier also on two or three CRL.L.P. No. 28/2003 Page 3 occasions. 6. In the present case, Liyakat Ali entered the witness box as DW-1 and in his statement had stated that he was Liyakat Ali and not Tariq Mohd. He was falsely implicated in the case and he had no concern with the recovery and seizure made from Kartar Singh, Gurbax Singh and Rajinder Singh. He had alleged that he was forced to sign blank papers and he did not know what was written in the alleged statements recorded under Section 67 of the Act. He tendered in his evidence his passport Exhb. DW-1/A and other documents which his father had produced were marked DX-1 to DX-10. These documents were: (1) Passport of Raheela Liaquat Ali. (2) Identity card of Raheela Begum. (3) Letter No. GC/II/NIL/2000 dt. 17.11.2000 issued by Regional Passport Office. (4) Identity card of Liaquat Ali. (5) Nikahnama of Liaquat Ali. (6) Passport of Ashad Ali. (7) Identity card f Ashad Ali. (8) Birth certificate of Aysha Liaquat. (9) School certificate of Aysha Liaquat and Bilal Liyaquat. (10) Photocopy of house registration. 7. During the pendency of the case, father of the Liyakat Ali came from Pakistan and had tendered the said documents. He had made a request that he cannot come again because it was very difficult to get visa. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that they have not verified the correctness or otherwise of the documents produced by Liyakat Ali marked Exhb. Dx-1 to DX-10 as well as Exhb.DW-1/A. Learned trial court has referred to the aforesaid documents Exhb. DX-1 to DX-10 and stated that these documents show that the accused was CRL.L.P. No. 28/2003 Page 4 known as Liyakat Ali, the name mentioned at the passport and other official documents relating to his parents and his brother. The documents include DX-6, nikahnama in which the accused name is mentioned as Liyakat Ali and that he had married to Raheela on 27th May, 1983. He has also referred to the birth certificate of the daughter of Liyakat Ali marked DX-7. In this certificate the name of the father has been mentioned as Liyakat Ali. The daughter was admitted in school on 7th March, 1989. The birth certificate of the son marked DX-9 shows the name of the father as Liyakat Ali. The said son was admitted in school on 19th June, 1992. No attempt at all has been made by the applicant to verify the said documents. 8. Learned trial court has referred to the papers, which were recovered on personal search of accused Kartar Singh in which the initial T.R. with telephone No. 0092427578489 were written. It is the prosecution case that this telephone number belongs to Tariq Mohd. a resident of Pakistan. The trial court has recorded that no investigation was done to verify the calls made to this number and who was the subscriber of the said telephone number. No verification with regard to the address on which this telephone number was installed in Pakistan was made. 9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, I do not find any merit in the present application and the same is dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. SEPTEMBER 09, 2010 VKR