Delhi District Court
State vs Rizwan Ahmed on 6 March, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF PUNEET PAHWA
SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS)/NORTH EAST DISTRICT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS DELHI
SESSIONS CASE NO. 85/2019
CNR No. DLNE01-001130-2019
STATE Versus RIZWAN AHMAD
S/o Mohd. Raheesh
R/o H. No. 953, Gali No.22, A-Block,
Shree Ram Colony, Kachchi Khajoori,
Delhi (Permanent Address: Village &
Post & Tehsil Aonla, Mohalla Bajariya,
District Bareilly, U.P.)
FIR No. : 277/2018
PS. : Crime Branch
U/s. : 21/25/29 NDPS Act
Chargesheet Filed On : 14.03.2019
Judgment Reserved On : 24.02.2025
Judgment Announced On : 06.03.2025
Decision : Acquittal
JUDGMENT:
1. Case of the prosecution is that on 29.10.2018, at
about 5:00 PM, one secret informer came to the office of
Narcotic Cell, Kotwali and informed ASI Sudhir that one person
namely Rizwan, resident of Khajuri, Delhi, used to supply heroin
in Delhi, after bringing the same from Bareilly, U.P. He also
informed that the said person would come on that day in between
7:00 PM to 7:30 PM near Khajuri Chowk Bus Stand on road
going towards Nanaksar, Delhi on his motorcycle alongwith huge
quantity of heroin and if raid is conducted on time, the said
person can be apprehended alongwith the illegal herion.
Thereafter, ASI Sudhir produced the said secret informer before
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:41:38
+0530
2Insp. Rajni Kant Sharma, who after satisfying himself, conveyed
the said secret information to Sh. R. K. Ojha, ACP/N&CP
telephonically and directed ASI Sudhir to conduct the raid as per
law.
2. ASI Sudhir reduced the said information into
writing, vide DD No. 34 and produced the same before Insp.
Rajni Kant Sharma for the purpose of compliance of notice u/s.
42 of NDPS Act. Thereafter, HC Sunil Pandey and Ct. Samrat
were called in the office of Narcotics and both were apprised
about the secret information and a raiding team was prepared.
3. At 6:00 PM, after lodging DD No. 35, ASI Sudhir
alongwith the raiding team, secret informer, IO bag, field testing
kit and the electronic weighing machine left for the spot in a
private vehicle. On the way, ASI Sudhir asked 4-5 public persons
to join the proceedings, regarding the secret information, but,
none agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and
addresses. At about 7:00 PM, raiding team reached near the spot
and they parked their vehicle before 20 meter from Khajuri Bus
Stand and took their position. At about 7:15 PM, one person was
seen coming on a motorcycle from Khajuri Chowk, who was
identified by the secret informer as Rizwan. Thereafter, the secret
informer left from the spot.
4. He stopped his motorcycle and started waiting for
someone. One bag was tied on the motorcycle of the said person,
which he took in his hand. After about 10 minutes, the said
person was apprehended by ASI Sudhir with the help of other
team members at 7:25 PM. His name was revealed as Rizwan
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:41:45
+0530
3Ahmad S/o Muntiaz Ahmad. ASI Sudhir introduced himself and
other team members before the said person. ASI Sudhir also
asked 4-5 public persons to join the proceedings, but, none
agreed and left the spot without disclosing their names and
addresses.
5. ASI Sudhir told Rizwan about the secret information
and gave notice u/s 50 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act“) to him and informed that his
search was to be conducted. The said person refused to be
searched in presence of Magistrate or Gazetted Officer. On taking
search of the carry bag, two transparent polythene, containing
brown (MUTMAILA) colour substance, were found in the said
bag and on checking the said brown colour powder with the field
testing kit by ASI Sudhir, it was confirmed as heroin. The total
weight of the recovered smack (heroin) was found to be 500
grams. One packet was containing 300 grams of heroin and the
other packet was containing 200 grams of heroin. Samples of 5-5
grams were taken out of the material. Pullandas were prepared
and given Mark A-1, A-2 & A and Mark B-1, B-2 & B. Samples
were sent to the FSL. Thereafter, ASI Sudhir prepared rukka and
got the FIR registered u/s. 21/25 of NDPS Act. Thereafter,
investigation of the present case was carried out by SI Pawan
Kumar.
6. SI Pawan Kumar prepared site plan at instance of
ASI Sudhir. After interrogation, accused Rizwan Ahmad was
arrested and personally searched by SI Pawan Kumar. Disclosure
statement of the accused was also recorded and case property was
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:41:51 +0530
4deposited in malkhana. Special reports u/s. 57 NDPS Act
regarding arrest of the accused and recovery of the heroin were
prepared. Sample of the recovered contraband was sent to FSL.
7. During investigation, on 31.10.2018, at the instance
of accused Anil, co-accused Ram Bharose was arrested from his
village Jalal Nagar, PS Birasatganj, Tehsil Anwla, District
Bareilly, U.P. Documents regarding his arrest were prepared and
his disclosure statement was recorded. Special report u/s. 57
NDPS Act regarding arrest of the accused was also prepared.
After completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed against
accused Rizwan Ahmad u/s 21/25 of NDPS Act and against co-
accused Ram Bharose u/s. 29 of NDPS Act. Later on, FSL result
was received on 01.11.2018 and same was filed on record.
8. Vide order detailed order on charge dated
29.07.2019, accused Ram Bharose was discharged in the present
case for commission of offence u/s. 29 of NDPS Act.
9. Charge u/s 21(c) of NDPS Act was framed against
accused Rizwan Ahmad to which, he pleaded not guilty and
claimed trial.
10. Prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to
prove the charge against the accused Rizwan Ahmad.
11. Statement of accused u/s 313 CrPC was recorded.
He denied all the incriminating circumstances. He stated that
nothing was recovered from his possession and he was falsely
implicated in the present case by the police officials. Accused did
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:41:58
+0530
5
not wish to lead evidence in his defence.
PRE-RAID / RAID AND INVESTIGATION WITNESSES
12. Sh. R. K. Ojha, ACP Narcotic Cell, Crime Branch,
has been examined as PW-1. He deposed that on 29.10.2018, at
about 5:15/5:30 pm, Insp. Rajni Kant informed him
telephonically about a secret information that one Rizwan would
come near Nanaksar Gurudwara, Khajuri Chowk on his bike to
supply heroin in bulk quantity to someone between 7:00 to 7:30
pm. He directed Insp. Rajni Kant to take legal action. He also
deposed that on 30.10.2018, his Reader had put up before him
DD No. 34 dt. 29.10.2018 u/s. 42 NDPS Act. He proved DD No.
34, vide Ex.PW1/A and identified his signature thereon at point
A.
13. PW-1 further deposed that on the same day i.e.
30.10.2018, his reader also produced report u/s. 57 NDPS Act
submitted by ASI Sudhir Kumar duly forwarded by Insp. Rajni
Kant, regarding seizure of 500 grams of heroin from accused
Rizwan. He proved the report u/s. 57 NDPS Act, vide Ex.PW1/B
and identified his signature thereon at point A. His reader also
produced report u/s. 57 NDPS Act submitted by ASI Pawan
Kumar duly forwarded by Insp. Rajni Kant, regarding arrest of
accused Rizwan in the present case. He proved the same, vide
Ex.PW1/C and identified his signature thereon at point A.
14. PW-1 further deposed that on 02.11.2018, his reader
also produced report u/s. 57 NDPS Act submitted by ASI Pawan
Kumar duly forwarded by Insp. Rajni Kant, regarding arrest of
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:42:03
+0530
6
accused Ram Bharose. He proved the same, vide Ex.PW1/D and
identified his signature thereon at point A.
15. PW-1 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not
remember the place of receiving of the telephone call regarding
the secret information, however, the said information was
received by him at his mobile phone. He denied the suggestion
that he was not able to disclose this as no such telephonic
information was received by him on that day. He also deposed
that he was not sure as to whether the report u/s. 42 NDPS Act
and the reports u/s. 57 NDPS Act qua accused Rizwan were
produced together before him or were produced at different
points of time on that day. However, all the said three reports
were produced before him, while he was present in his office on
that day. He denied the suggestion that the aforesaid reports were
not prepared on the dates mentioned therein or were not produced
before him in the manner as deposed during chief examination by
him or that all the said reports were prepared subsequently by
making them ante dated or ante timed. He also denied the
suggestion that no contraband item was recovered from accused
Rizwan or that 500 grams of heroin was falsely planted upon said
accused.
16. Insp. Rajni Kant Sharma has been examined as
PW-3. He deposed that on 29.10.2018, at about 5:15 pm, ASI
Sudhir came to his office alongwith the secret informer and he
informed him about the information regarding heroin given by
the secret informer. He conducted enquiry from the secret
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:42:10
+0530
7informer, after getting himself satisfied with the information, he
passed the said information to ACP/N&CP Sh. R. K. Ojha
telephonically, who directed him to take action accordingly.
17. He further deposed that at about 5:30 pm, ASI
Sudhir produced a DD No. 34 regarding secret information i.e.
report u/s. 42 NDPS Act before him in his office. He forwarded
the same to concerned ACP. He proved the said report u/s. 42
NDPS Act and identified his signature thereon at point B and also
deposed that on 30.10.2018 at about 8:00 am, ASI Pawan
produced accused Rizwan Ahmed before him in his office. He
forwarded the Spl. Report u/s. 57 NDPS Act regarding seizure of
500 grams Heroin from accused Rizwan to concerned ACP and
proved the said report, vide Ex.PW1/B and identified his
signature thereon at point B. He forwarded the Spl. Report u/s. 57
NDPS Act regarding arrest of accused Rizwan to concerned ACP
and proved the said report, vide Ex.PW1/C and identified his
signature thereon at point B.
18. He further deposed that on 01.11.2018 at about
11:00 pm, accused Ram Bharose was produced before him by IO
ASI Pawan. He forwarded the Spl. Report u/s. 57 NDPS Act
regarding arrest of accused Ram Bharose to concerned ACP and
proved the said report, vide Ex.PW1/D and identified his
signature thereon at point B.
19. PW-3 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not
remember the mode through which he had telephonically
conveyed the secret information to concerned ACP. Even, he did
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:42:17
+0530
8
not remember the mode whether it was mobile phone or landline,
to which telephonic call was made by him to concerned ACP. He
denied the suggestion that he was not able to disclose the same as
no such secret information was ever conveyed by him to
concerned ACP. He also deposed that he formed his satisfaction
regarding recovery of 500 grams of heroin from accused Rizwan
Ahmed. He also denied the suggestion that no such secret
information was ever received or conveyed to him or that no such
raiding party was constituted on that day or that no such
contraband item was recovered from accused Rizwan Ahmed or
that same was falsely planted upon the accused.
20. HC Samrat has been examined as PW-4. He deposed
that on 29.10.2010 at about 5:45 PM, ASI Sudhir Kumar called
him in his office and informed about the secret information
regarding supply of heroin by the accused. After lodging DD No.
34 at 5:30 PM, ASI Sudhir constituted a raiding party consisting
himself, PW-4 and HC Sunil Pandey and proceeded to the spot
and deposed that on the way, ASI Sudhir asked 4-5 passersby,
but, none agreed and they went away without disclosing their
names and addresses. At about 7:15 PM, one Yamaha SZ
motorcycle of red colour was found coming from Khajuri Chowk
side. The said motorcycle driver was identified by the secret
informer as the person about whom he had given the information.
Thereafter, the secret informer went away from there.
21. PW-4 further deposed that the said person parked his
motorcycle near the Khajuri Chowk Bus Stand and one carry bag
was there on the rear portion of the seat which was tied with the
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:42:24
+0530
9
carrier of its strips and when he was about to sit on his bike, he
was overpowered by the members of the raiding party at about
7:25 PM. ASI Sudhir disclosed about the secret information to
Rizwan and he was informed that prior to his search, he could
take search of the members of the raiding party as well as their
car and he was further informed that it was his legal right that his
search could be conducted in the presence of Gazetted officer or
magistrate or these officers could be called at the spot for his
search to be conducted in their presence.
22. He further deposed that thereafter, one notice u/s 50
of NDPS Act was prepared by ASI Sudhir in Hindi Language and
it was served upon the accused Rizwan. ASI Sudhir read over and
explained the contents of the notice to the accused Rizwan. ASI
Sudhir also made sure that accused Rizwan understood about the
meaning of Gazetted officer and magistrate and after
understanding his legal rights, accused refused for being searched
in the presence of Gazetted officer or magistrate and gave his
reply in his writing upon the carbon copy of notice u/s 50 of
NDPS Act. Thereafter, ASI Sudhir took search of the carry bag
and from the said bag, two transparent polythene bags were
recovered. The same were containing matmaila colour substance.
23. PW-4 further deposed that ASI Sudhir checked the
substance of one polythene with the help of field testing kit and it
was found to be heroine. Its total weight alongwith polythene was
found 300 gms. From this polythene, two samples of 5 gm each
were drawn and kept in two small polythene pouches. The
samples pullandas were marked as A-1 and A-2. Rest of 290 gms
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:42:31
+0530
10heroine was also converted into a pullanda and this was given
Mark A. He also deposed that ASI Sudhir also checked the
substance of other polythene with the help of field testing kit and
it was found to be heroine. Its total weight alongwith polythene
was found 200 gms. From this polythene, two samples of 5 gm
each were drawn. The samples pullandas were marked as B-1 and
B-2. Rest of 190 gms heroine was also converted into a pullanda
and this was given Mark B.
24. PW-4 further deposed that the carrybag was also
converted into a pullanda and it was given Mark C. All the
pullandas were signed by the accused Rizwan and sealed with the
seal of 6A PS/NB DELHI. He proved the seizure memo
Ex.PW4/A, vide which, all the seven pullandas and form FSL
were taken into possession and identified his signature thereon at
point “A”. He also proved the carbon copy of the notice, which
was served upon the accused, vide Ex.PW4/B and the reply of the
accused in original on the said notice, vide Ex.PW4/C and
identified his signature thereon at point “A”. He also deposed that
thereafter, ASI Sudhir conducted sarsari search of accused
Rizwan, but no psychotropic or narcotic substance was recovered
from his possession. He proved non recovery memo, vide
Ex.PW4/D and identified his signature thereon at point “A”.
25. PW-4 further deposed that on 30.10.2018 at about
3:45 AM, ASI Pawan prepared a site plan at the pointing out of
ASI Sudhir and thereafter, ASI Pawan interrogated the accused
and arrested him, vide his arrest memo Ex.PW4/E and his
personal search was conducted, vide memo Ex.PW4/F and he
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:42:37
+0530
11
identified his signatures thereon at point “A”. He also deposed
that thereafter, accused made disclosure statement which was
recoded, vide memo Ex.PW4/G and identified his signature
thereon at point “A”. The recovered bike was also seized, vide
seizure memo Ex.PW4/H.
26. PW-4 also correctly identified the accused Rizwan
as well as the case property alongwith the articles of jamatalashi
in the court. The witness identified his signature at point “A” on
the original notice u/s 50 NDPS Act (Ex.PW/Article-1). This
witness identified his signature at point “B” on the cloth pullanda
containing light brown colour powder as Ex.PW2/Article-1. This
witness also identified his signature at point “B” on the cloth
pullanda containing light brown colour powder as
Ex.PW2/Article-1.
27. PW-4 also correctly identified one polythene tied
with rubber band as one of the samples, which was drawn from
the recovered substance from the accused, as Ex.PW4/Article-2
and identified his signature at point “A” on this cloth pullanda
Mark B-2 and another polythene tied with rubber band as one of
the samples, which was drawn from the recovered substance from
the accused, as Ex.PW4/Article-3.
28. PW-4 identified his signature at point “A” on the
cloth pullanda Mark A and identified one polythene tied with
rubber band, as remaining part of the contraband recovered from
the accused, as Ex.PW4/Article-4. He also identified his
signature at point “A” on the cloth pullanda Mark B and
identified one polythene tied with rubber band, as remaining part
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:42:43
+0530
12of the contraband recovered from the accused, as Ex.PW4
/Article-5.
29. PW-4 identified his signature at point “A” on the
cloth pullanda Mark C and identified one carry bag having words
“only Yogesh Exclusive” printed on both sides upon this bag,
wherein the accused was carrying the contraband, as Ex.PW4
/Article-6 and the motorcycle bearing no. DL-5-S-AJ-8603
YAMAHA of red colour as Ex.PW4/Article-7.
30. PW-4 was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel for
the accused, wherein, he stated that it took around 45 minutes to
reach at the spot from the Narcotic Cell and he stayed at the spot
for about 12 and half hours. However, he could not say as to how
much time was spent in preparing documents at the spot. He also
deposed that he was present at the spot when IO asked 4-5 public
persons to join the investigation and admitted that at the
preparing of parcels of the alleged contrabands, it’s colour was
MATMAILA and also admitted that at that point of time, the
colour of samples was of dark brown and colour of remnant of
the contraband Ex.PW4/Article-5 was of light brown colour
whereas the colour of Ex.PW4/Article-4 was of bit dark one.
31. He further deposed that he was called by ASI Sudhir
in his office at about 5:45 PM on 29.10.2018 and at that time, one
secret informer was also present in his room. The intimation
regarding the secret information was also within the
contemplation of ACP Narcotics and Inspector Rajnikant in
addition to the members of the raiding team. No other document
except RAWANAGI was made before him in the office of the
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:42:50
+0530
13
Narcotics and no documentary proceeding was done regarding
the refusal of those public persons to join the investigation in the
present case. He denied the suggestion that there was no secret
information regarding any alleged contraband or the accused, or
that no raid was ever conducted as deposed by him. He also
deposed that accused Rizwan did not misbehave with any of the
member of the raiding team on his apprehension in the present
case. He, ASI Sudhir and HC Sunil Pandey had apprehended this
accused. The accused did not try to flee away, when he was
apprehended by them. He also denied the suggestion that none of
the passers by was ever requested by the IO to join the
investigation for the reason that no such raid was ever conducted.
32. PW-4, in his cross-examination, further stated that
the field testing kit taken by the IO on that day was containing
14/15 small plastic bottles, one stick of glass and one small tray
and besides field testing kit, IO had also taken, his IO bag and
one electronic weighing machine with him and also stated that no
weight of empty polythenes and rubber bands were measured,
wherein the alleged contraband was found and at the time of
testing the contraband, a very small quantity of contraband was
put in a tray and then, certain drops from bottle A-1 and A-2 were
poured thereon and the colour of the contraband changed into
purple (BAINGANI) colour and so, it was inferred that it was a
heroine. The Field Testing Kit also contained a pamphlet wherein
the formula of testing was written. None of the member of the
raiding team had prepared video of the same testing of the
contraband and no noting regarding such testing of the
contraband was done in his presence. PW-4 denied the suggestion
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:42:58
+0530
14that no such noting was ever done for the reasons that no such
occurrence had taken place.
33. PW-4 further stated that first of all, ASI Sudhir had
written notice under Section 50 NDPS Act in his handwriting and
on the carbon copy of the said notice, refusal was written by the
accused in his own handwriting. FSL form was filled by ASI
Sudhir. Seizure memo of the contraband and non recovery memo
Ex.PW4/D were prepared by ASI Sudhir alongwith the Tehrir.
He also stated that ASI Pawan had prepared site plan. ASI Pawan
also prepared arrest memo, personal search memo, disclosure
statement and seizure memo of bike on the spot. The samples of
the contraband were prepared with the help of spoon. He denied
the suggestion that no recovery was effected from the accused or
that no proceeding of checking the alleged contraband was ever
done at the spot and stated that the accused was made to
understand the contents of the notice under Section 50 of NDPS
Act in DESI BHASHA. He also denied the suggestion that the
accused never gave any refusal in writing to be searched in the
presence of Magistrate or the Gazetted Officers or that, the
alleged refusal is manipulated and written by the police officials,
or that no pullandas were ever prepared in his presence or that, no
proceeding was ever done in his presence or that, he was a
planted witness, or that all the proceedings were done while
sitting in the police station and not at the spot or that, the accused
has been falsely implicated in the present case.
34. HC Sunil Pandey has been examined as PW-9. He
deposed on the similar lines of investigation, as deposed by PW-4
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:43:04
+0530
15HC Samrat. Apart from it, he also deposed qua the investigation
and arrest proceedings of co-accused Ram Bharose, who has been
discharged in the present case. PW-9 correctly identified the
accused Rizwan Ahmad as well as the case property in the court.
35. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused Rizwan Ahmad at length. In his cross-
examination, PW-9 deposed that secret information was not
given to the IO in his presence by the secret informer and the IO
did not tell him as to at what time secret informer had arrived in
his room. All members of the raiding team, including him, were
in civil dress. All the members of raiding team were traveling in
one car at that time. He took position prior to the Khajuri Khas
Bus stand and ASI Sudhir alongwith secret informer were
standing ahead of him towards Khajuri Khas chowk. The secret
informer had pointed out towards the accused from a distance of
about 30/35 mtrs. The accused was without helmet when the
secret informer had pointing out towards him. He also deposed
that the notice u/s 50 of NDPS Act was prepared by ASI Sudhir
in his presence and the IO had apprised to the accused about the
meaning of Gazetted Officer in his presence and he told the
meaning of Gazetted Officer to the accused as ‘RAJPATRIT
ADHIKARI’. Carbon copy of the notice u/s 50 of the NDPS Act
was prepared. The accused had written the refusal on the carbon
copy of the said notice u/s 50 of the NDPS Act.
36. PW-9 also deposed that carbon copy of notice u/s 50
of the NDPS Act Ex.PW4/B, refusal thereon Ex.PW4/C, Seizure
memo of heroine Ex.PW4/A, pointing out memo Ex.PW9/A and
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:43:11
+0530
16Fard Adam Baramadgi of accused Rizwan Ex.PW4/D were
prepared in his presence. He also deposed that IO had opened the
bag of the contraband in his presence and he had also seen the
contents therein. The colour of contents of contrabands found in
two transparent polythenes, were of MATMAILA. All the
documents were prepared by IO ASI Sudhir in his own hand
writing at the spot in his presence. IO ASI Sudhir was carrying
field testing kit with him at the time of the alleged apprehension
of accused. The colour of the testing sample had turned purple
from which, it was inferred that it was heroine. At the time of his
arrival in the Crime Branch Police Station at Pushp Vihar, SHO
alone was sitting in his room and it was 12:45 AM when he had
arrived there. At the time of measuring the weight of contraband,
the weight of polythenes and rubber band were not measured. He
denied the suggestion that no contraband was ever recovered
from accused Rizwan, or that no such secret information
regarding the alleged contraband was ever received, or that the
contraband is planted on the accused Rizwan, or that he was
never member of the raiding team, or that no alleged proceedings
were ever conducted in his presence, or that he was a planted
witness and deposed falsely at the instance of IO.
37. SI Sudhir Kumar has been examined as PW-11. He
deposed on the similar lines of investigation, as deposed by PW-4
HC Samrat and PW-9 HC Sunil Pandey. Apart from it, he also
deposed that on 29.10.2018, he was posted as ASI at Narcotics
Cell, Crime Branch, Old Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi. On that day,
at about 5:30 PM, he had lodged DD No. 34 regarding receiving
of the secret information for the compliance of Section 42 of
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:43:17
+0530
17
NDPS Act and produced the copy of said DD before the Insp.
Rajni Kant in his office. He proved DD No.34, vide Ex.PW1/A
and identified his signature thereon at point C. He had also
lodged DD No. 35 regarding departure of the raiding team from
the Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch, Old Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi
at about 6 PM. He proved copy of DD No. 35, vide Ex.PW11/A.
38. PW-11 further deposed that he had prepared the
RUKKA, vide Ex.PW11/B and handed over the same alongwith
7 sealed parcels, Form FSL and carbon copy of seizure memo to
HC Sunil Pandey and directed him to hand over the RUKKA to
the duty officer of PS Crime Branch for registration of FIR and to
hand over the above-said sealed parcels, Form FSL and carbon
copy of seizure memo to the SHO of PS Crime Branch for
compliance of proceeding u/s 55 of NDPS Act. He also identified
his signature on the rukka at point A. He also deposed that ASI
Pawan Kumar had prepared the site plan of the spot at his
instance, vide Ex.PW11/C and identified his signature thereon at
point A. He also lodged DD No.34 & DD No. 35 and proved
their copies, vide Ex.PW11/A1 & Ex.PW11/A2. He also
correctly identified the accused Rizwan Ahmad as well as the
case property i.e. one polythene tied with rubber band (parcel
A1), containing paste type of heroin of dark brown colour as
Ex.PW2/Article-1, one polythene tied with rubber band (parcel
B1), containing powder and crystals as Ex.PW2/Article-1, one
polythene tied with rubber band (parcel Mark A2), containing
paste type heroine dark brown color, as one of the samples from
the recovered heroin, as Ex.PW4/Article-2, one polythene tied
with rubber band (parcel Mark B2), containing containing crystal
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:43:26
+0530
18and powder of heroine of dark brown colour, as one of the
samples from the recovered heroin, as Ex.PW4/Article-3, one
polythene tied with rubber band (parcel Mark A), containing
containing crystal and powder of heroine of dark brown colour,
as remaining part of the recovered heroin, as Ex.PW4/Article-4,
one polythene tied with rubber band (parcel Mark B), containing
containing crystal and powder of heroine of dark brown colour,
as remaining part of the recovered heroin, as Ex.PW4/Article-5,
one cloth pulanda (parcel Mark C), containing one carry bag
having words ‘only YOGESH exclusive’, as Ex.PW4/Article-6,
the original notice U/s 50 NDPS Act as Ex.PW4/Article 1 and the
motorcycle bearing Regn. No. DL-5SAJ-8603 of the accused as
Ex.PW4/Article 7.
39. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused Rizwan Ahmad at length. In his cross-
examination, he stated that the secret informer had identified the
accused in his presence by pointing towards him and he had left
the spot towards Nanaksar road, after pointing out the accused.
The substance after testing turned into dark bengani colour from
matiala colour. It took around 12 hours and 15 minutes from the
time when he reached at the spot, till he left the spot. He also
stated that the ACP office was in PS Khajuri Khas, which was
around 1 KM away from the spot and the SDM office was at
Seelampur, which was around 6-7 KM from the spot and no
video recording was done for the proceeding conducted at the
spot. He denied the suggestion that he had not received any secret
information as stated by him, or that he had made any raiding
party, or that no recovery of any contraband was affected from
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:43:33
+0530
19the accused, or that he had planted the contraband in collusion
with other police officials on the accused person, or that he had
deposed falsely.
40. SI Abdul Barkat has been examined as PW-12. He
deposed that on 24.12.2018, investigation of the present case was
handed over to him by the senior officers. He collected the file
from the MHC(R) of Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch and gone
through the file. He also collected the vehicle particular report of
motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 5SAJ 8603 which was
recovered from the accused Rizwan Ahmed, from the Transport
Authority, Loni and placed the same on the file. He proved the
said report, vide Ex.PW12/A. He also deposed that on
06.03.2019, he had collected FSL report from MHC(M) of PS
Crime Branch and gone through the report of FSL and after
investigation, he had filed the chargesheet before the concerned
court. PW-12 correctly identified the accused Rizwan Ahmad in
the court.
41. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused. In his cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that no investigation was conducted by him, after file
was assigned to him for further investigation, or that he had
deposed falsely.
42. ASI Pawan Kumar has been examined as PW-13. He
deposed on the similar lines of investigation, as deposed by PW-4
HC Samrat, PW-9 HC Sunil Pandey and PW-11 Sudhir Kumar.
Apart from it, he also deposed that on 30.10.2018, he was present
at his office situated at Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch, Old
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:43:38
+0530
20Kotwali, Daryaganj, Delhi. On that day, he had prepared the site
plan of the spot at the instance of ASI Sudhir, vide Ex.PW11/C.
After interrogation, he arrested accused Rizwan Ahmad, vide
arrest memo Ex.PW4/E and personally searched the accused,
vide personal search memo Ex.PW4/F. He also recorded the
disclosure statement of the accused, vide Ex.PW4/G. He also
seized the motorcycle, vide seizure memo Ex.PW4/H and
identified his signatures at points C.
43. PW-13 further deposed that he had prepared a report
regarding arrest of accused Rizwan Ahmad u/s 57 of NDPS Act,
vide Ex.PW1/C. He got deposited the personal search belongings
of the accused and the motorcycle in Malkhana of PS Crime
Branch. Apart from it, he also deposed qua the investigation and
arrest proceedings of co-accused Ram Bharose, who has been
discharged in the present case. PW-13 correctly identified the
accused Rizwan Ahmad as well as the original notice u/s 50
NDPS Act, vide Ex.PW4/Article-1, the motorcycle registration
no. DL5SAJ8603 Yamaha Red colour, vide Ex.PW4/Article 7
alongwith it’s photographs Mark A and Mark B in the court.
44. This witness was cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused Rizwan Ahmad at length. In his cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not
investigated the present case fairly, or that he had manipulated
the investigation to wrongly frame the accused in the present
case, or that he had deposed falsely with regard to his going to
village Jalal Nagar and also with regard to other proceedings,
which he had conducted in the present case.
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:43:45
+0530
21
EXPERT WITNESS
45. Sh. Yogesh Chandra Pandey, Sr. Scientific Officer
(Chemistry), FSL, Rohini, Delhi has been examined as PW-2. He
has deposed that on 01.11.2018, two sealed cloth parcels were
received at FSL for chemical examination from SHO Crime
Branch and same were marked to him for examination. He
conducted chemical examination of abovementioned two sealed
pullanda and marked them as A-1, which was found containing
Ex. A-1 i.e. light brown coloured powder stated to be ‘Heroin’,
weight approximately 5.48 grams with polythene and rubber
band and marked as B-1, which was found containing Ex. B-1 i.e.
reddish brown coloured powder, kept in a polythene tied with
rubber band, stated to be ‘Heroin’, weight approximately 5.85
grams with polythene and rubber band.
46. He further deposed that on Chemical, TLC, GC &
GCMS examination of Ex. A-1 and Ex. B-1, he found that Ex.
A-1 was found to contain Diacetylmorphine, 6-
Monoacetylmorphine, Morphine, Acetylcodeine, Acetaminophen
and Caffeine and Ex. B-1 was found to contain
Diacetylmorphine, 6-Monoacetylmorphine, Acetylcodeine,
Acetaminophen and Caffeine. Both Ex. A-1 and B-1 were found
to contain Diacetylmorphine 20.02% and 3.12% respectively.
47. He proved his detailed report, vide Ex.PW2/A and
identified his signatures at points A respectively and seal
impression at point B. He also identified the case property i.e.
one polythene tied with rubber band, containing light brown
coloured powder as Ex.PW2/Article-1 and one polythene tied
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:43:51
+0530
22
with rubber band, containing reddish brown coloured powder
kept in a piece of yellow colour paper as Ex.PW2/Article-2.
48. PW-2 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he used to
follow manual at the time of chemical examination of a product
and the process of examination of Ex. A-1 and B-1 started with
colour test, followed by TLC and instrumentation with the help
of GC & GCMS. Thereafter, on the basis of complete analysis
and examination of exhibits, report is prepared. He denied the
suggestion that he had not annexed the internal worksheet with
his report Ex.PW2/A as he had not conducted any examination of
the aforesaid exhibits or that his report Ex.PW2/A is false.
FORMAL WITNESSES
49. ASI Jagnarayan has been examined as PW-5. He
deposed that on 30.10.2018, he was working as MHC(M). On
that day, inspector Satender Sangwan, SHO, PS Crime Branch
called him in his office with register no. 19 and handed over
seven pullandas, sealed with the seal of ‘6A PS NB DELHI’ and
‘SS’ alongwith Form FSL and carbon copy of seizure memo. He
made entry at serial no. 4374 in register no 19 in this regard and
proved the copy thereof, vide Ex.PW5/A and identified
signatures of SHO Satender Sangwan at Point A and also
deposed that on the same day, ASI Pawan Kumar deposited one
motorcycle no. DL 5S AJ 8603 alongwith personal search articles
of accused in the malkhana regarding which he had made entry at
serial no. 4375 in register no. 19 and proved the copy thereof,
vide Ex.PW5/B and identified his signatures at Point A.
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:43:57
+0530
23
50. He further deposed that on 01.11.2018, he had
handed over two sealed pullandas Mark A-1 and Mark B-1
alongwith FSL Form to ASI Arun Kumar, vide RC no. 619/21/18
for depositing the same at FSL, Rohini and after depositing case
property, ASI Arun Kumar had handed over the acknowledgment
to him. He proved the said entry, vide Ex.PW5/C. He also proved
the copy of acknowledgment receipt, vide Ex.PW5/D.
51. PW-5 was cross-examined by Ld. Counsel for the
accused. In his cross-examination, he deposed that he was called
by Inspector Satender Sangwan in his office at about 01:05-01:10
am on the night intervening of 29/30.10.2010 and HC Sunil was
also present in the room of SHO at that time. It took about 45-50
minutes in the office of Inspector Satender Sangwan. He had
made entry Ex.PW5/A, after seeing the contents from copy of
seizure memo. He denied the suggestion that he was not called by
the SHO in his room or that entries Ex.PW5/A to Ex.PW5/D are
false and fabricated at the instance of IO of this case.
52. ASI Yogender has been examined as PW-6. He
deposed that on 29.10.2018, he was on duty as Duty Officer at PS
Crime Branch, Pushp Vihar, Delhi from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m and on
that day, at about 12:37 a.m., HC Sunil Pandey came at the PS
and produced a rukka before him. He recorded the Kayami DD
no. 1A in this respect. On the directions of the SHO, he got
registered the FIR of the present case through computer operator.
He also made his endorsement on the rukka, Ex.PW6/A and
identified his signature thereon at point A. He also proved the
copy of FIR, vide Ex.PW6/B and identified his signature thereon
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:44:04
+0530
24at point A. He also proved certificate u/s 65B of Evidence Act for
printout of the said FIR, vide Ex.PW6/C and identified his
signature thereon at point A. He also proved the copy of DD No.
1A as Ex.PW6/D and DD No. 3A as Ex.PW6/E.
53. PW-6 has been cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did
not remember the name of the operator with whom help, he
registered the FIR. The operator recorded the FIR in his presence
on his direction and admitted that in the endorsement Ex.PW6/A,
he had mentioned DD No.1 and denied the suggestion that FIR
was registered later on, on the direction of the IO, or that the
same is ante dated and ante timed.
54. SI Arun Kumar has been examined as PW-7. He
deposed that on 01.01.2018, on the direction of SI Pawan Kumar,
he had collected two pullandas in sealed condition, FSL form,
copy of the seizure memo, copy of the FIR from the malkhana,
vide RC No. 619/21 and deposited the same at FSL Rohini,
memo Ex.PW7/A and identified his signature thereon at point A.
He also proved the copy of the acknowledgement receipt, vide
Ex.PW7/B and identified his signature thereon at point A.
55. PW-7 has been cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused. In his cross-examination, he stated that he did
not take any pullandas and documents to the FSL, Rohini, Delhi
except of this case and stated that he did not know about the
contents of the abovesaid pullandas and denied the suggestion
that the abovesaid pullandas were tampered, while the same were
in his possession.
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2025.03.06 16:44:24 +0530 25
56. ASI Ramesh Kumar has been examined as PW-8.
He deposed that on 29.10.2018 at 5:45 PM, he made entry in the
register regarding issuance of electronic weighing machine to
ASI Sudhir Kumar and deposited the said weight machine in the
malkhana. He proved the said entry in the said register at serial
no. 63, vide Ex.PW8/A.
57. He also made the entry regarding issuance of seal of
6A PS/NB DELHI to ASI Sudhir Kumar on 25.01.2017, was
issued and proved the said entry in the said register at serial no. 7,
vide Ex.PW8/B.
58. PW-8 has been cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused. In his cross-examination, on seeing the entry in
the Ex.PW8/A, he could not tell the maker of the weighing
machine and holding capacity to weigh the good. He stated that
he did not issue the said weighing machine, nor the entries in the
Ex.PW8/A were in his handwriting. He also did not know
whether any DD entry was made regarding issuance of such
weighing machine or not. He also stated that at the relevant time,
MHC(M) HC Mahesh had issued the said weighing machine,
who had already been retired. The entry regarding the issuance of
weighing machine was done only in the register, which was
brought by him. He denied the suggestion that the entries in the
Ex.PW8/A were subsequently manipulated to fill up the gap, or
that the entries Ex.PW8/A and Ex.PW8/B were fabricated. He
admitted that the register Ex.PW8/A was never inspected by
higher officer of the police.
OTHER POLICE WITNESSES SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2025.03.06 16:44:35 +0530 26
59. Sh. Satinder Sangwan, ACP Licensing has been
examined as PW-10. He deposed that on 30.10.2018 at around
12:45 AM, HC Sunil Pandey from Narcotics Cell, Crime Branch
came to his office and produced 7 white cloth PULANDAS,
which were marked as Mark A1, A2 and A, B1, B2, B and C,
copy of seizure memo and FSL form. He had fixed his seal of
‘SS’ on the abovesaid PULANDAS and form FSL. He also
mentioned the details of FIR number of the present case on
abovesaid PULANDAS, copy of seizure memo and Form FSL.
60. PW-10 further deposed that he called MHC(M) ASI
Jag Naryan alongwith register no. 19 in his office and handed
over the abovesaid PULANDAS alongwith the documents, to be
deposited in the Malkhana. He proved the relevant entries in
register no. 19, vide Ex.PW10/A and counter signed the same.
PW-10 also made DD entry, vide no. 2 in the Daily Diary and
proved the computerized copy of DD no. 002A dated 30.10.2018,
vide Ex.PW10/B. He also identified the signatures of ASI Sudhir,
HC Sunil Pandey, Ct. Samrat Singh and name of accused Rizwan
Ahmad on cloth parcels Ex.PW4/Article 4, Ex.PW4/Article 2,
Ex.PW4/Article 5 & Ex.PW4/Article 3 and also identified his
signatures there on at point C.
61. PW-10 has been cross-examined by the Ld. Counsel
for the accused. In his cross-examination, he stated that HC Sunil
Pandey stayed with him for about 20-25 minutes in his office
room and there was no one except him in his room at that time.
He checked seizure memo and FSL form and PULANDAS and
put his signatures thereon. The signatures of accused Rizwan
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:44:42
+0530
27
were also thereon, because it was mentioned in the seizure memo
that the contraband was seized from Rizwan. He also deposed
that he had never physically seen the seal of 6APS/NB/DELHI.
He denied the suggestion that no PULANDAS were ever handed
over to him by HC Sunil Pandey, or that he had never counter
signed the same, or that he had never deposited any sealed
parcels in the Malkhana, or that he had deposed falsely.
STATEMENT OF ACCUSED
62. All the incriminating circumstances appearing in
evidence against accused Rizwan Ahmad were put to him as
required u/s 313 CrPC. Accused stated that he was innocent and
he was falsely implicated in the present case. Even, he was not
present at the spot. He stated that nothing was recovered from
him and the recovery of the contraband was planted upon him.
Accused did not wish to lead evidence in his defence.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
63. I have heard Sh. F. M. Ansari, learned Addl. PP for
the State and Sh. Shailendra Singh, learned Counsel for the
accused.
64. Sh. F. M. Ansari, Ld. Additional PP for the State
submitted that prosecution has proved the recovery of contraband
from the accused. He submitted that provisions of Sec. 50 of
NDPS Act were complied with. He contended that since the
charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore,
accused Rizwan Ahamad may be convicted in the present case.
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA Date: PAHWA 2025.03.06 16:44:48 +0530 28
65. Sh. Shailendra Singh, Ld. counsel for accused
submitted to the contrary. He submitted that in the present case,
provisions of Sec. 52-A & Sec. 52(2) of NDPS Act have not been
complied with and also submitted that accused has been falsely
implicated in the present case and the recovery of the contraband,
has been planted upon the accused. It has been argued that there
are material contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses. Moreover, neither any public witness was joined
during the recovery proceedings, nor those proceedings were
videographed/photographed, which raises doubts in the entire
recovery proceedings. Lastly, it has been argued that Sec. 50 of
NDPS Act has also not been duly complied with.
66. I have considered the rival submissions, put forth by
both the sides.
FINDINGS
67. From the submissions of the learned Counsel, the
following point for determination arise in the present case:
Whether the accused was found in possession of
500 gms. of Heroin as alleged?
68. Before a person can be held liable for commission of
any offence, the prosecution has to establish his guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
69. I shall now delve into the appraisal of material
available on record.
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2025.03.06 16:44:55 +0530 29
70. The accused has been alleged to have been found in
possession of 500 grams heroin. Admittedly, neither any public
person was joined during recovery proceedings, nor any public
person/independent witness has been examined during trial. All
the witnesses examined by the prosecution, are either police
officials or formal witnesses.
71. It is not in doubt that while the testimony of the
police witnesses in absence of independent witnesses may be
sufficient to secure conviction, if the same inspires confidence
during the trial, however, lack of independent witness in certain
cases can cast a doubt as to the credibility of the prosecution’s
case. It is not disputed that the investigating agency had sufficient
time to prepare before the raid was conducted.
72. As per the version of PWs, the public persons were
asked to join the investigation, but, none of them agreed and went
away without disclosing their names and addresses. Further, the
IO has not produced any notice u/s. 160 of the CrPC which ought
to have been served upon those available independent witnesses
who allegedly refused to join the investigation. The failure on the
part of the police personnel could only suggest that they were not
interested in joining the public persons in the police proceedings.
Failure on the part of the police officials to make sincere effort to
join public witnesses for the proceedings when they may be
available created reasonable doubt in the prosecution story.
Reference can be taken from the decision of Anoop Joshi Vs.
State 1992 (2) C.C. Cases 314 (HC), Hon’ble High Court of
Delhi has observed as under:
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad Digitally signed by PUNEET PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date: 2025.03.06 16:45:05 +0530 30
“It is repeatedly laid down by the Court that in such
cases it should be shown by the police that sincere
efforts have been made to join independent
witnesses. In the present case, it is evident that no
such sincere efforts have been made, particularly
when we find that shops were open and one or two
shop keepers could have been persuaded to join the
raiding party to witness the recovery being made
from the appellant. In case any of the shopkeepers
had declined to join the raiding party, the police
could have later on taken legal action against such
shopkeepers because they could not have escaped the
rigours of law while declining to perform their legal
duty to assist the police in investigation as a citizen,
which is an offence under the IPC.”
73. While the testimony of the police officials cannot be
discarded away merely because of the fact that no public
witnesses were examined, however, their testimonies have to be
scrutinized in more detail. If it is found that the police officials
during the course of investigation did not even make endeavor to
ask the public witnesses to join the investigation, did not even
ask their names and details, etc. then it would cast a very serious
doubt on the testimonies of the police officials. At this stage,
reference can be taken from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Tahir Vs. State (Delhi) [(1996) 3 SCC 338],
dealing with a similar question, the Hon’ble Apex Court held
interalia the following:
“In our opinion no infirmity attaches to thetestimony
of the police officials, merely because they belong to
the police force and there is no rule of law or
evidence which lays down that conviction cannot be
recorded on the evidence of the police officials, if
found reliable, unless corroborated by someSC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:45:13
+0530
31independent evidence. The Rule of Prudence,
however, only requires a more careful scrutiny of
their evidence, since they can be said to be interested
in the result of the case projected by them. Where the
evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny,
inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy
and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the
absence of some independent witness of the locality
to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in
any way affect the creditworthiness of the
prosecution case. The obvious result of the above
discussion is that the statement of a police officer can
be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction
when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably
corroborated by other evidence on record.”
74. The requirement of the police officials to make
endeavour to ask the public witnesses to join the proceedings was
discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Sahib Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1997 SC 2417, wherein it
interalia held the following:
“In a given case it may so happen that no such person
is available or, even if available, is not willing to be a
party to such search. It may also be that after
joining the search, such persons later on turn hostile.
In any of these eventualities the evidence of the
police officers who conducted the search cannot be
disbelieved solely on the ground that no independent
and respectable witness was examined to prove the
search but if it is found as in the present case that no
attempt was even made by the concerned police
officer to join with him some persons of the locality
who were admittedly available to witness the
recovery, it would affect the weight of evidence of
the Police Officer, though not its admissibility.”
75. Therefore, in view of the above mentioned law, it
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:45:21
+0530
32becomes clear that while the testimony of the police officials
cannot be discarded away altogether in the absence of any public
witnesses, however, it would be prudent to examine or scrutinize
their testimonies more closely and should preferably be
corroborated.
76. No photography of case property and videography
of the recovery proceedings were carried out by the investigating
agency. Also, the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses is
completely silent upon the aspect of the photography of the case
property and videography of the recovery proceedings. Thus, not
finding any public witness and lack of photography and
videography of the alleged recovery in today’s time and age casts
a doubt on the credibility of the evidence. It is not the case of the
prosecution that any notice was served under Section 100(8) of
the CrPC on the person who refused to join the raiding party in
the process of seizure. It is also relevant to note that the
procedure prescribed in the NCB Handbook, which has been
adopted by the Delhi Police, though may not be binding,
however, prescribes photography and videography as a crucial
practice for obtaining evidence in order to avoid allegation in
regard to the foul play. When the public persons refused to join
the recovery proceedings, the least the police officials could have
done is to photograph/videograph the recovery proceedings, in
the absence whereof, serious doubts have definitely been raised
in the entire proceedings conducted by the raiding team.
77. Non-compliance of Sec. 52-A of NDPS Act. To add
to it, it is worth-noticing that even after seizure of the recovered
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:45:28
+0530
33contrabands, no steps u/s. 52-A of NDPS Act were taken by the
IO. The IO failed to comply with the provisions of Sec. 52-A of
NDPS Act altogether. Although, merely non-compliance of Sec.
52-A of NDPS Act in itself does result into acquittal of the
accused, yet there are other factors also, which further weakens
the case of the prosecution.
78. The notice u/s. 50 of NDPS Act served upon the
accused before making his search is also not in full compliance of
the requirement laid down in Sec. 50 of the NDPS Act. Sec. 50
of the NDPS Act provides that it is the duty of the member of the
raiding team to inform the accused about his legal right that if he
desires, he can be taken to a nearest Magistrate or Gazetted
Officer. The relevant portion of the notice u/s. 50 of NDPS Act
(Ex.PW4/Article-1) is reproduced herein below:-
“YE AAPKA KANOONI ADHIKAR HAI KI
YADI AAP CHAHE TO AAPKE KABZA WALE
CARRY BAG KI TALASHI KISI RAJPATRIT
ADHIKARI YA MAGISTRATE SAHAB KE
SAAMNE LI JA SAKTI HAI, JISKE LIYE KISI
NAJDIKI MAGISTRATE SAHAB YA
RAJPATRIT ADHIKARI KO MAUKA PER
BULAYA JAYEGA YA AAPKO AAPKE
KABZA WALE CARRY BAG SAHIT KISI
RAJPATRIT ADHIKARI YA MAGISTRATE
SAHAB KE SAMAKSH PESH KIYA JAYEGA”
(emphasis supplied)
79. The above quoted portion of the notice u/s. 50 of
NDPS Act (Ex.PW4/Article-1) clearly shows that the word
“nearest” is missing before the word “magistrate’, when the
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PAHWA
PUNEET Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:45:33
+0530
34
accused was asked that his bag could be searched or he could be
taken to a magistrate. So, what it implies is that a ‘nearest
magistrate’ may be called at the spot, but if accused desires to be
taken to the magistrate, it could be ‘any magistrate’ and not
necessarily the ‘nearest magistrate’, which shows that Sec. 50 of
the NDPS Act has not been duly complied with in it’s true letter
& spirit.
80. Another fact which came out during trial was with
respect to the discrepancy in the colour of the sample taken out
from the recovered contraband. PWs admitted that the colour of
the sample drawn was different from the colour of the remaining
portion of the recovered contraband. Now, it is not
understandable as to even if the material recovered was prone to
change in colour due to passage of time, the sample and the
remaining contraband should have been of same colour. But,
when PW-4 was examined, the sample i.e. Ex.PW4/Article-3 was
of dark brown colour, whereas, the recovered contraband from
which the said sample was taken i.e. Ex.PW4/Article-5 was of
light brown colour. Since, no proceedings U/s. 52-A of NDPS
Act were conducted, the recovered contaband was within the
possession of police officials throughout the investigation and
trial and the seals with which it was sealed, were also in the
possession of same police officials. Therefore, possibility of
tampering with the recovered contraband also cannot be ruled
out.
81. In view of the above discussion and various
contradictions and discrepancies noticed above, this court has no
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad
Digitally
signed by
PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
PAHWA Date:
2025.03.06
16:45:39
+0530
35hesitation in holding that in the present case, it is not safe to rely
solely on the uncorroborated testimonies of the police officials,
who were all part of the same raiding team. Non-joining of any
independent witness and non-compliance of Sec. 50 & 52-A of
NDPS Act is fatal to the prosecution case. It can be said that the
prosecution has failed to prove it’s case, beyond all reasonable
doubts that accused Rizwan Ahmad was found in possession of
alleged 500 grams of heroin and the accused is entitled for
benefit of doubt and thus, accused Rizwan Ahmad stands
acquitted in the present case. Accused is required to furnish bail
bonds as per Sec. 437-A CrPC.
82. Case properties are confiscated and be destroyed as
per rules.
83. File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court Digitally signed
by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA
on 6th day of March, 2025 Date:
PAHWA 2025.03.06
16:45:48
+0530
(PUNEET PAHWA)
Special Judge (NDPS)/Addl. Sessions Judge/
North East District/Karkardooma Courts/Delhi
SC No. 85/2019 State Vs. Rizwan Ahmad