Crl. A. 637/2013. Case: Tarsem Singh Vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. High Court of Delhi (India)
| Case Number | Crl. A. 637/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Neeraj Bhardwaj, Advocate and For Respondents: Satish Aggarwal, Advocate |
| Judges | Indermeet Kaur, J. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 313; Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 29, 42, 42(1), 42(2), 50, 57, 67 |
| Judgement Date | September 04, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Delhi (India) |
Judgment:
Indermeet Kaur, J.
-
This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 16.7.2012 and 20.7.2012 respectively wherein the appellant Tarsem Singh stood convicted under Section 21(C) read with Section 29 of the Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, (hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act). He has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years for each of his convictions and to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lac each in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for a period of 6 months. Sentences were to run concurrently.
-
The nominal roll of the appellant has been requisitioned. This reflects that as on date he has undergone incarceration of about 6 years and 10 months; remissions being inapplicable to a conviction under the NDPS Act.
-
The version of the prosecution is that pursuant to a secret information (reduced into writing) on 02.01.2009. The accused was intercepted in a TATA Sumo Vehicle at Singhu Border at about 2.00 a.m. on 03.01.2009. Two public witnesses had been asked to join the raid. The vehicle was asked to stop, initially it did not stop, but thereafter on chasing it was stopped. On checking the vehicle the appellant was apprehended. There was one more person Shera who was a passenger in the car but he managed to flee. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act (Ex.PW-4/A) was served upon the accused informing him about his right to get his search conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. He declined the same. From a cavity behind the tail light of the TATA Sumo Vehicle, Heroin/diacetylmorphine was recovered which after weighing was found to be 7.896 kg. Accused was apprehended and arrested. His statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded. The case property was seized; from the case property 5 gram samples were taken at the spot. Test memos were prepared at on spot. The case property was deposited in the Malkhana and thereafter sent to the CRCL; which on analysis, tested positive for diacetylmorphine.
-
On the basis of the aforenoted evidence oral and documentary, the accused was tried, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
-
On behalf of the appellants, arguments have been addressed in detail. It is pointed out that the mandate of Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with in true letter and spirit. It was incumbent upon the Investigating Agency to have produced the accused before a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate but this has not been done. To support this submission, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance upon AIR 2011 SC 1939 Narcotics Central Bureau Vs. Sukh Dev Raj Sodhi. There was no DD entry recorded regarding the secret information. This is a lacuna which is not explained. To support this submission learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon 2005 [1] JCC [narcotics] 57 Eze Val Okeke @ Val Eze Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau. Co-accused Shera was permitted to escape. He was the real culprit. This was the defence of the appellant right from inception and even in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He had disclosed that he was only the driver of the vehicle and had been directed to go to Delhi. The contraband had been planted upon him. Shera was the passenger who was travelling in the car and the contraband belonged to him and not to the appellant. It is pointed out that the statement of the appellant recorded...
To continue reading
Request your trial