Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2020 (10) TMI 236

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mprisonment for a further period of four months for committing the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of the NDPS Act. He was awarded a similar sentence for committing the offence punishable under Section 23(c) of the NDPS Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It was further directed that after completion of the aforesaid sentence, the appellant be deported to his native country. 2. It is the prosecution's case that on 27.02.2012, one Sh. Anil Kumar, who was the Security Official of DIAL (Delhi International Airport Limited), gave information to the Customs Department that something suspicious was revealed during the screening of baggage of one of the passengers. Sh. Pawan Kumar, Air Customs Officer, who was also examined as PW-4, acted on the said information. He also included two independent witnesses, namely, Sh. Vishal Chettri and Sh. Dharmender Singh in further proceedings, which were conducted in the Customs Departure Hall of Terminal-3 of Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi. The baggage in question belonged to the appellant, who is an Italian citizen (holding an Italian Passport No. AA 1955522 issued at Italy). At the material time....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ck) from the recovered substance and tested the same with Smith ION Testing Machine placed in the Departure Hall of T-3, IGI Airport, New Delhi, in the presence of the panch witnesses and the appellant. According to the prosecution, the test yielded a positive result for heroin 3% and THC 13%. Print out of the result was taken and kept in the possession of the Customs Officer. 6. The brown substance was weighed on a small weighing machine brought to the Departure Hall of T-3, IGI Airport and it was found that it weighed 4.235 kgs. According to the prosecution, the same was valued at Rs.1,48,225/-. The said substance was seized by the Customs Officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, on the belief that it was being taken out from India, in contravention of the provisions of the NDPS Act and the Foreign Trade Policy. 7. It is stated that the Customs Officer (Pawan Kumar) drew three representative samples of 45 grams each. The samples were placed in separate transparent plastic pouches, which were kept in envelopes marked as A-1, A-2 and A-3. All the envelopes were sealed with the Customs Seal No. 6. The panch witnesses, the concerned Customs Officer (who is also the complainant) al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the trunk had been checked in, the Airline Ground Staff took the said trunk to the extreme right corner and he followed the ground staff because they were carrying his trunk. He stated that he did not disclose that he was carrying charas, when questioned by the Customs Officer. He admitted that the said trunk had been opened in the presence of two independent witnesses and himself and 4.235 kgs of charas, which was concealed in the said trunk, was recovered. He admitted that he had purchased charas for his personal use and for monetary gain and he was aware that the same was an offence under the NDPS Act. 11. After his statement was recorded, the appellant was formally arrested, at 08:00 pm, on 27.02.2012. The Embassy of Italy at New Delhi and the F.R.R.O were informed of his arrest by letters dated 27.02.2012. 12. The appellant was medically examined on 28.02.2012 and thereafter, on 28.02.2012, he was produced before the Court and was remanded to judicial custody. 13. The search of the luggage room at T-302, General Market, Main Bazar, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi was conducted, however, nothing incriminating was found. 14. The summons were issued to Sh. Anil Kumar and his volunta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....wever, the appellant did not want to exercise his right to be searched in the presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer and he replied to the aforesaid effect by penning down the same on the body of the notice. He stated that the trunk in question had a baggage tag, which indicated that the said trunk was booked in the name of the accused. It was established from the passport of the accused and his travel documents that the said trunk was his accompanying baggage. He stated that the trunk was locked and, on his demand, the accused produced the key to the said trunk and the same was opened in the presence of public witnesses. It contained certain clothes and personal effects, which were removed and an x-ray of the empty trunk was once again conducted at the x-ray machine near the Customs Office. The x-ray revealed "ball shaped items" at the bottom of the said trunk. The appellant failed to reply to the questions regarding the said items and it was decided to break open the trunk. He stated that "four plastic pouches" containing some substance were packed in the paper and carbon papers and were concealed in the bottom of the said trunk. The substance recovered from the four pack....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to the family members of the accused, telephonically. The same was also informed to the Embassy of Italy, by a letter dated 27.02.2012 (Ex.PW4/H) and the F.R.R.O, by a letter dated 27.02.2012 (Ex.PW4/I). He stated that search was also conducted at Ankush Guest House, where the accused had stayed and a panchnama was drawn (Ex.PW4/K). In addition, he stated that the accused voluntarily surrendered his passport by a letter exhibited as Ex.PW4/L. He testified that during inquires of the present case, he received the test report issued by CRCL (Ex.PW4/N), which indicated that the sample A-1 was found positive for charas. He also stated that the remnant of the sample A-1 was also received along with the test report. He also testified as to the other items recovered from the search of the accused. He stated that after completion of the proceedings, he had prepared a report under Section 57 of the NDPS Act (Ex.PW1/H) and the same had been put up before Sh. Kulwinder Singh, Superintendent Customs. He also testified as to the other documents collected by him during the course of the investigation. He stated that thereafter, he filed the complaint (Ex.PW4/W). 21. Sh. Kulwendra Singh, Supdt.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he said statement. He further affirmed that the baggage was not sealed in his presence. During the x-ray, the said trunk had a baggage tag issued by the concerned airlines. He declined that the appellant did not know English and conversed with him in some other language. 23. Sh. Dharmender Singh, Coordinator, IGI Airport deposed as PW-8. He deposed that he was called by Sh. Anil Kumar (PW-2) to the said counter, wherein he stated that he saw an iron trunk. The said trunk was open and there were no articles present. Thereafter, the customs officer broke the false bottom of the said trunk and packets containing black colour substance were found. In his examination in chief, he identified the case property in question and affirmed having signed the paper slips present on the pullandas, sample envelopes, panchnama, summon and the statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act. 24. Sh. Prabodh Kumar, Inspector Customs, IGI Airport deposed as PW-3. He deposed that Sh. Pawan Kumar (PW-4) handed him one sample marked as A1 in intact condition and sealed with the Custom's seal. He stated that he visited CRCL and deposited the sample with the test memo in duplicate and forwarding letter. On cross ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....public and therefore, provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were applicable. He further submitted that there could be no dispute regarding the same, as the panchnama (Ex.PW4/E) also recorded that PW-4 was acting under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He referred to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in R. Ravi Chandran v. Djibrilla Diallo: CRL.A.268/1997, decided on 27.02.2008. He pointed out that in this case, the search had taken place at the Luggage Hold Area of the Customs Authorities and the Court had held that the said place could not be described as a public place and therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act was applicable. He also referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh: (1994)3 SCC 299 and Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat: CRL.A. 78/1992, decided on 01.02.2000, in support of his contention that provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act were mandatory. 29. Second, he contended that the procedure adopted by the concerned officials for drawing the samples was improper and the samples drawn could not be stated to be representative of the substance allegedly found in possession of the appellant.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o such entry in the malkhana was shown to the Trial Court or brought in evidence. He also submitted that the seal appearing on the test memo was not legible and therefore, the testimony that the seals on the sample were tallied with the specimen seal is of no relevance. He submitted that the seal could be tallied with the sample seal only if the seals were legible. He further submitted that the samples were stated to be of chocolate brown colour. However, the colour of the sample mentioned by the CFL were dark greenish brown coloured and when the case property was produced in Court by PW4, it was blackish brown. He further submitted that according to the prosecution, the substance was tested on a testing kit (ION Testing Machine) and the results were printed by the said machine. However, no such print out has been produced in evidence. 31. Next, he submitted that as per the panchnama, the case property - 4.1 kgs of charas - was wrapped in two polythene bags: one plastic polythene, which was then put into a polythene bag of Delhi Duty Free. This was also mentioned on the detention receipt, pertaining to the said substance. However, when the pullanda containing the said case propert....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntrol Bureau: CRL.A. 1370/2010, decided on 30.11.2015. 34. He submitted that even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that the procedure for drawing the samples was incorrect, nonetheless, the appellant was liable to be convicted for noncommercial quantity, that is, upto 1 kg, since it was established that at least one of the packets contained charas. 35. Lastly, he submitted that there was no ground to suspect that any of the case properties were tampered with. He submitted that PW4 had testified that the case property and samples were sealed and he had prepared the test memos during panchnama proceedings. PW-2 had identified the case properties that were seized and when the said property was produced in Court, the seals were intact. He also referred to the testimony of PW-3 (Sh. Pramod Kumar), who had testified that Sh. Pawan Kumar had handed over the samples sealed with the Customs Seal in intact condition along with the test memo in duplicate to him and he also denied the suggestion that the samples were tampered with. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hardip Singh v. State of Punjab: (2008) 8 SCC 557 and State of Rajasthan v. Sahi Ram: (2019) 10 SCC....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le under Chapter IV of the NDPS Act has been committed or that a search warrant or authorization cannot be obtained without affording an opportunity for concealment of the evidence or facility for the escape of an offender. It is also relevant to note that the complaint filed by the respondent also expressly indicates that proceedings were undertaken under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. It is also mentioned in the panchnama (Ex.PW4/E) that the substance was recovered and seized under Section 42 of the NDPS Act. 41. Indisputably, if the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are applicable then it is apparent that the same have not been complied with. As stated above, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act are mandatory and therefore, non-compliance of the same would vitiate the proceedings. However, the key question to be addressed is whether the provisions of Section 42 are applicable in the given facts. 42. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that since the complainant has expressly stated in the complaint as well as in the panchnama that the proceedings were conducted under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, it is not open for the prosecution now to contend the contrary.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Customs Officer, I.G.I. (supra). In that case, the Division Bench had expressly held that it was unable to subscribe to the view as expressed in Richard Thomas Wrigley (supra). It also noticed that the said judgment had been stayed by the Supreme Court. Thus, the decision in Richard Thomas Wrigley (supra) stood overruled and the decision in R Ravichandran (supra), which was rendered overlooking the same, is per incuriam. 46. The definition of the expression 'public place' is set out in Explanation to Section 43 of the NDPS Act. The said definition reads as under: "Explanation. For the purposes of this section, the expression "public place" includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public." 47. As is apparent, the expression 'public place' is defined in wide terms. In Utpal Mishra Air Customs Officer, I.G.I (supra), the Court had noted the above and held as under: "5. A reading of the aforesaid provisions, inter alia, shows that for seizure of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in any public place and for detention and search of any person whom the officer has reason to believe to have committed an offence p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....subjected to investigation between sunset and sunrise." 48. The contention that certain areas in the airport cannot be described as a public place merely because the entry is restricted, was expressly rejected. 49. In Narayanaswamy Ravishankar (supra), the Supreme Court had authoritatively held that an airport is a public place and therefore, the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act would not be applicable. Paragraph no. 5 of the said judgment is relevant and is set out below: "5. In the instant case, according to the documents on record and the evidence of the witnesses, the search and seizure took place at the airport which is a public place. This being so, it is the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act which would be applicable. Further, as Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case, the seizure having been effected in a public place, the question of non-compliance, if any, of the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is wholly irrelevant. Furthermore, in the mahazar which was prepared, it is clearly stated that the seizure was made by PW 1. The mahazar was no doubt drawn by one S. Jayanth. But, the contention of the learned Senior Counsel t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ossession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance in a public place where such possession appears to him to be unlawful." 53. Notwithstanding the averment made in the complaint that the recovery and seizure was done under Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the same is clearly not applicable since the recovery and seizure was done in a public place. Considering the above, the contention that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act was not complied with, is irrelevant. 54. The next aspect to be examined relates to the testing conducted on the spot and drawing of samples from the charas allegedly recovered from the appellant's trunk. The question to be addressed is whether the samples drawn were representative of the substance recovered from the appellant's baggage. The controversy to be addressed is, essentially, three-fold. The first relates to whether the procedure for drawing samples allegedly followed by the complainant is permissible. Second, whether the substance in all the four pouches was tested prior to it being kept together. Third, whether the contents of the four packets were properly mixed to form a homogeneous mixture and the samples were drawn from the same. 55....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused had in his possession two pieces of Charas weighing 7 gms and 5 gms respectively. As already mentioned only one piece was sent for chemical analysis and PW 1, the Junior Scientific Officer who examined the same found it to contain Charas but it was less than 5 gms. From this report alone it cannot be presumed or inferred that the substance in the other piece weighing 7 gms also contained Charas. It has to be borne in mind that the Act applies to certain narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and not to all other kinds of intoxicating substances. In any event in the absence of positive proof that both the pieces recovered from the accused contained Charas only, it is not safe to hold that 12 gms of Charas were recovered from the accused. In view of the evidence of PW 1 it must be held that the prosecution has proved positively that Charas weighing about 4.570 gms was recovered from the accused. The failure to send the other piece has given rise to this inference. We have to observe that to obviate this difficulty, the concerned authorities would do better if they send the entire quantity seized for chem....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g Order 1/1989 dated 13.06.1989, issued by Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India). The Court held that where more than one container/package is found, it is necessary that samples be drawn from each separate container/package and be tested with a field-testing kit. If the container/packages are identical in shape, size and weight then lots of 10 or 40 container/packages may be prepared. Thereafter, representative samples from each container/package be drawn. 59. In Basant Rai (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court considered a case where the accused was allegedly found carrying a polythene bag, containing eight smaller polythene bags, containing a brown colour substance, which was alleged to be charas. The Investigating Officer had taken small pieces from each packet and mixed the same and thereafter, drawn two samples which were sent to FSL for analysis. The Court found fault with the said procedure and allowed the appeal. The Court held as under: "25. After hearing both the learned counsel for parties and going through the Trial Court Record, I find force in the submission of learned counsel for appellant. Admittedly, the samples were drawn after b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted for drawing samples is set out below: "Section (II) provides for a general procedure for sampling, storage and reads as under:- "SECTION (II) - GENERAL PROCEDURE FOR SAMPLING, STORAGE, ETC. 2.1 All drugs shall be properly classified, carefully, weighed and sampled on the spot of seizure. 2.2 All the packages/containers shall be serially numbered and kept in lots for sampling. Samples from the narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances seized, shall be drawn on the spot of recovery, in duplicate, in the presence of search witness (Panchas) and the person from whose possession the drug is recovered, and a mention to this effect should invariably be made in the panchanama drawn on the spot. 2.3 The quantity to be drawn in each sample for chemical test shall not be less than 5 grams in respect of all narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances save in cases of opium, ganja and charas (hasish) where a quantity of 24 grams in each case is required for chemical test. The same quantities shall be taken for the duplicate sample also. The seized drugs in the packages /containers shall be well mixed to make it homogeneous and representative before the sample (in duplicate) is dra....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nstructions issued (Standing Order 1/88) by the NCB, New Delhi, held that the same were to be followed by the Officer-in-charge of the investigation of crimes falling within the purview of the NDPS Act. The Court held that even though the said instructions did not have the force of law, they were intended to guide the officers to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted in the investigation. 65. In a subsequent decision, in the case of State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand: (2004) 3 SCC 453, the Supreme Court held that Section 52A(1) of the NDPS Act did not empower the Central Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused. But, a subsequent decision rendered by the Supreme Court on 31.03.2009, in Union of India v. Bal Mukund (supra), the Supreme Court observed that Standing Instructions No. 1/88, which required samples of adequate quantity be drawn, had not been followed and the same was referred to as "a requirement in law". 66. The decision in the case of Bal Mukund (supra) which was rendered by a Bench of three Judges, is binding. It also cannot be disputed that even if the said instructions are not considered as binding, they lay down a procedure which the Investigat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... drawn from the substance recovered from the four pouches after homogeneously mixing the same. He was pointedly asked as to what he meant by homogeneous mixture. He responded by stating that "All the substance (ball shaped) of all the four packets were collected in one place and thereafter samples were drawn from the said". He further stated that he did not count the recovered ball shaped substance, but they were weighed by him. He conceded that he did not check all the ball shaped substance except one or two. He also stated that he did not take any extract to test the substance. Although, he was extensively questioned regarding the sampling of the substance, he merely deposed that the substance was ball shaped. There is no clarity whether each pouch had a single sphere of the substance or each pouch comprised of multiple spheres of the substance. However, it is apparent that he did not draw samples from each of the packets or tested the contents of each of the packets. According to him, he only checked "one or two ball shaped substance". 71. Although in his examination-in-chief, PW 4 had testified that he had tested the contents of each packet separately, the same cannot be belie....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ave the positive result for Heroin 3% and THC 13% for the sample testing. Print for the said result was taken by the Customs Officer in his possession". 73. Although the panchnama refers to a Customs Officer, it is obvious that the Customs Officer in question is Pawan Kumar (PW-4). The print out of the test result would indicate the number of tests conducted. If the contents of each of the packet was tested separately, there would be four such print-outs or one print-out recording the result of four such tests. However, the print out in question has not been brought in evidence, even though it is stated that it was in the possession of PW-4. It is also material to note that it is not the prosecution's case that any heroin was recovered from the appellant. The CRCL test result also does not disclose any presence of heroin in the sample sent for analysis. But the alleged test had also returned a positive result for heroin. 74. In view of the above, this Court is unable to accept that the prosecution has established that the contents of each of the four packets that were allegedly recovered, were tested and found to be charas prior to the contents of the said packets being placed to....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was examined as PW-8. His examination-inchief spans almost a year. His examination began on 20.11.2014. In his brief testimony recorded on that date, he stated that he was called by Sh. Anil Kumar at about 09:45 am and he went to the counter. He stated that Sh. Anil Kumar was present there and one iron trunk of the accused was found opened at the said counter. The trunk did not have any articles but a false bottom was found in the said trunk. He stated that thereafter the Customs Officer and Sh. Vishal Chettri, Manager were also called there. The Customs Officer broke open the bottom of the trunk and it was found containing some black coloured substance, which he claimed weighed more than 5 kgs. His further examination-in-chief was deferred and it was resumed on 03.12.2014. On this day, he stated that he was called by Sh. Pawan Kumar, Customs Inspector through Sh. Anil Kumar at about 10.00 am and he reached the SOG-2 Counter/Customs Office in the Departure Area. He testified that three samples were drawn from the recovered substance and were kept separately in polythene pouches and further kept in an envelope. His examination-in-chief remained incomplete and it was resumed on 27.0....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ence and he was deposing falsely, however, he reiterated that he remained at the spot throughout the proceedings and he also affirmed that the proceedings were conducted in the Customs room situated near the SOOG-2. He stated that apart from leaving to attend nature's call once, he had not left the spot. There is an inconsistency in his testimony, inasmuch as, the Smith IONSCAN machine was not located in the Customs room but at another spot near SOOG-2 and therefore, if he had not left the spot where the proceedings were conducted, he could not have been present to witness the test. It does appear that he was informed by a Customs Officer about the result and did not have personal knowledge of the amount of the substance withdrawn for conducting the said test and the result of the said test. 82. Given the testimony of PW-8, little reliance can be placed on the panchnama. His testimony (examination-in-chief) is also inconsistent with the facts, as recorded in the panchnama. Whereas, it is recorded in the panchnama that the appellant's trunk was opened in his presence with the keys handed over by the appellant; he had testified that when he arrived at the spot, the trunk was already....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s admissible as evidence has been referred to a Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu: (2013) 16 SCC 31. 87. It is also well settled that a confessional statement is a very weak evidence and can only be used to corroborate other evidence. (Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh: AIR 1952 SC 159; Hari Charan Kurmi v. State of Bihar: (1964) 6 SCR 623; Mohammed Fasrin v. State: (2019) 8 SCC 811 and Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Director of Revenue Intelligence: (2018) 8 SCC 271). 88. In Kalema Tumba v. State of Maharashtra and Anr (supra), the Supreme Court had in the given facts of that case, not accepted that the statement given was not voluntary and also found that the defense indicated in Section 313 CrPC was in variance with the reasons for retraction. The facts in this case are materially different. 89. In view of the above, this Court is unable to accept that the prosecution was not required to lead any evidence to establish that the substance recovered from the appellant was charas. 90. Mr. Aggarwala had further contended that even if the sample drawn cannot be considered as a representative of the entire substance, it ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing the same and, therefore, it was obvious that the case material has been tampered with. 94. There is merit in the contention that the chain of custody has not been clearly established by the prosecution. It is the prosecution's case, as stated in the complaint, that by a letter dated 28.02.2012 issued by Ms. Deep Shikha Arora, Assistant Commissioner, Customs, IGI Airport, Sh. Prabodh Kumar, ACO was authorized to deposit the samples with CRCL. On the basis of the said letter, Sh. Prabodh Kumar had received the sample marked A-1 from the complainant who had in turn received the same from Sh. Pankaj Kumar, SDO(A) in intact condition against acknowledgement on the Detention Receipt No. 66564. The said letter dated 28.02.2012 has been placed on record. However, the same was not exhibited. Neither the Assistant Commissioner who had issued the letter nor the addressee of the said letter (The Chemical Examiner, CRCL, Pusa, New Delhi) testified to the issue or receipt of the said letter. PW-4, the Investigating Officer, had testified that he had prepared seven detention receipts, whereby the case property, samples, personal effects, jamatalashi etc. were deposited with SDO(A) in intact ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....not been exhibited. Further, there is no explanation as to how two detention receipts bearing the same number have been placed on record. It is material to note that since the receipt bearing the said acknowledgement has not been exhibited, it is not in evidence. This Court had asked Mr. Aggarwala whether there is any evidence on record to show that PW-4 had withdrawn the said sample from SDO(A)/malkhana on 27.02.2012 or 28.02.2012, after having deposited the same in his safe custody. He had fairly answered in the negative. Thus, neither PW-4 has testified to withdrawing the said sample from the same custody nor does the relevant register record the withdrawal of the said sample from SDO(A). PW-3 testified that he had been handed over the said samples by PW-4 and he had then deposited the said sample with CRCL. 97. It is apparent from the above that the prosecution has failed to establish the chain of custody of the samples in question. 98. Although PW-4 had testified that he had prepared the test memos at the relevant time and a copy of the same (Ex.PW4/D) has also been brought in evidence. However, Ex.PW4/D does not contain any impression of seal and the entry regarding facsimi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....om Seal No.6, thus, according to the punchnama, PW-4 was in possession of the seal during the said period (that is, prior to 15:35 Hours). 100. The remaining substance (after removal of the samples) allegedly recovered from the trunk of the appellant had been put in a polybag, which was then put in another bag of Delhi Duty Free and thereafter, sealed in a cloth pullanda. The paper slip bearing the signatures of the PW-4 as well as the two panch witnesses was also affixed with the seal. The said pullanda was opened in Court. The Court had noted that the cloth pullanda sealed with Customs Seal No.6 over a paper slip, produced by the case property in charge was in intact condition. The pullanda could not be opened without disturbing the seals. The paper slip was directed to be removed. It mentioned the particulars of DR No.66563. The said paper slip was exhibited as Ex.PW4/X1. Thereafter, the cloth pullanda was opened and it was found to contain one polythene wrapped with adhesive tape. The polythene was opened and it was found to contain blackish brown substance. 101. It is noteworthy that the substance wrapped in polythene with an adhesive tape had been produced. However, the pol....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rs that were used to conceal the substance recovered from the trunk. The said Duty Free bag is not the bag in which the recovered substance had been sealed. Admittedly, the substance was sealed in a separate cloth pullandas and had not been placed in the pullandas in which the trunk was placed. The fact that the pullanda containing the alleged recovered substance was found in a sealed condition, does not explain the absence of the Delhi Duty Free bag. The only explanations are that the panchnama and the detention receipts incorrectly record as to how the case property was packed or that the pullanda had been opened and resealed. Since the seal as well as the recovered contraband continued to be in possession with the Custom Officers, the possibility of the same being opened and re-sealed cannot be ruled out. It is also apparent that the record maintained regarding the movement of case property is not accurate. In this case PW-4 seems to have access to the articles kept in safe custody and could remove them without making any entry in the SDO(A) Register. This is clearly evident as there was no entry made in the Register for removal of the sample A-1. Thus, the contention that there....