A special court sentenced a 29-year old man to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of 1 lakh for possessing 5 kg of charas, a commercial quantity under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
The defence questioned the recovery, arguing that no independent public witness had been joined and that there were discrepancies in the statements of police witnesses. It also pointed to the non-examination of senior constable Manwinder Singh, who had carried the ruqa for registration of the FIR, and raised questions over the handing over of the police seal. The defence further argued that the presence of the FIR number on the initial recovery documents suggested that they had been prepared later at the police station. Rejecting the arguments, the court held that the prosecution had established the recovery and conscious possession of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt. Representative samples were drawn and resealed with the court seal before being sent to CFSL, where the seal was found intact and tallying with the specimen seal.
Special judge Raman Goklaney convicted Mukesh Kumar alias Anku under Section 20(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act (possession of cannabis in commercial quantity) in connection with a case registered at Sector 34 police station. The judgment and order on sentence were pronounced on October 3. A police team was conducting checks near the T-point at Piccadilly Square Mall, Sector 34, on the night of May 23, 2021, according to the prosecution. Around 10.35 pm, the team spotted Mukesh, who allegedly turned back on seeing the police and attempted to throw away the backpack he was carrying. The police intercepted him and recovered 5 kg of charas from the backpack. The substance was seized and sealed at the spot before being sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Sector 36, where it was confirmed to be charas/cannabis.
It noted that the seized parcel was sealed at the spot, counter-sealed by the SHO, deposited in the malkhana and subsequently produced before the judicial magistrate.
The court observed that the investigation lapses pointed out by the defence, including the absence of independent witnesses, lack of a formal seal-entrustment memo, minor timeline discrepancies and insertion of FIR particulars on the recovery documents, did not, individually or collectively, create reasonable doubt regarding the recovery, conscious possession, identity of the contraband or continuity of custody.
