Delhi District Court
State vs Sagar on 9 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MANU VEDWAN, ADDITIONAL
SESSION JUDGE-02, SPECIAL JUDGE (NDPS), EAST
DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURT, DELHI
CNR No. DLET01-005018-2019
Session Case No. 2062/2019
State versus Sagar
First Information Report No. 139/2019
Police Station Mayur Vihar
Under Section 21 NDPS Act
In the matter of: -
STATE v. SAGAR
1 Date of Commission of Offence: 25.04.2019
2 Date of institution of the case : 03.06.2019
3 Name of accused, parentage & : Sagar son of Sh. Sunil
address R/o. 30/79, Trilokpuri,
Delhi
Date of reserve for judgment : 07.03.2026
Date of decision : 09.03.2026
JUDGEMENT
1.1 Accused namely Sagar has been charged for the offence under
section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substance (herein to
be referred as NDPS Act).
2. Brief Facts of the Case
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.1/40
2.1 The prosecution case, in brief is that on 25.04.2019, at about
04:30 AM, Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar (number D-5361) of
Police Station Mayur Vihar, Delhi along with Constable Ankur Maan
(number 1104/E), was on crime patrol duty in the area vide General
Diary number 99A, dated 24.04.2019. It is stated that while patrolling
near the Gurudwara on Wireless road, in front of 36-Block, Trilokpuri,
Delhi, they noticed two boys riding a motorcycle coming from
Trilokpuri Road towards Wireless road. On being signaled to stop by
Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar, the motorcycle rider turned the
vehicle around and attempted to flee. It is further stated that they were
then chased by both the afore-said officers. It is further stated that the
motorcycle lost balance and fell on the road, whereupon, both the
occupants abandoned it and ran away in different directions. It is
further stated that Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar apprehended the
pillion rider (the person sitting behind), while Constable Ankur Maan
chased the rider/driver towards 36-Block, Trilokpuri, but the driver
managed to escape and could not be caught. A cursory personal search
of the apprehended person was conducted by Sub Inspector Manoj
Kumar Tomar, leading to the recovery from the right front pocket of
his pants one transparent polythene packet containing 30 small paper
pudiyas (packets). On opening, each pudiya was found containing a
similar brown-coloured powder emitting a smell resembling smack
(heroin). The apprehended person disclosed his name as Sagar S/o
Sunil, resident of 30/79, Trilokpuri, Delhi, aged about 22 years, and
admitted during initial interrogation that the pudiyas contained smack.
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.2/40
In the meantime, Head Constable Upender reached the spot, he was
apprised of the facts and then he also joined the proceedings. Due to
the early hour and deserted location, no public/independent witnesses
could be joined despite efforts. Constable Ankur Maan was sent to the
police station to bring an electronic weighing machine, which he
procured around 05:20 AM. The 30 pudiyas were opened, their
contents mixed on a white paper, and weighed along with the paper,
yielding a total of 9.9 grams. The total weight of the white papers
(three separate weighing) was 4.7 grams, resulting in a net weight of
recovered smack powder as 5.2 grams.
2.2 It is further stated that from the mixed powder, two samples of 2
grams each were separated and packed in separate white papers, which
were then placed in two transparent plastic containers marked “S-1”
and “S-2”. The remaining 1.2 grams of powder, along with all 30
empty paper pudiyas and the original transparent polythene, were
placed in another transparent plastic container marked “A”. All three
containers were sealed with lids and secured with doctor tape to form
separate parcels/pullandas which were further sealed with the
impression of seal “MKT” (Manoj Kumar Tomar). The seal impression
was also affixed on the Forensic Science Laboratory forwarding
letter/form prepared at the spot. The seal “MKT” was later handed over
to Head Constable Upender vide a handing-over memo for safekeeping
and future production. The abandoned motorcycle was examined and
found to be a Hero Honda CD Deluxe (black colour), bearing
registration number DL13SM 2178, Engine number 43618, ChassisSC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.3/40
number 27169 (initially recorded mistakenly as TVS CD Deluxe in the
tehrir later on, corrected during investigation). Accused Sagar stated
that the motorcycle belonged to the escaped co-rider, namely Aakash
@ Akku, who had stolen it and sold/given it to him without any
documents. He further disclosed that the fleeing rider was Aakash @
Akku, a person previously involved in an NDPS case at Police Station
Mayur Vihar, whom Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar could
identify if produced. A tehrir was prepared by Sub Inspector Manoj
Kumar Tomar, leading to registration of First Information Report
number 139/2019, dated 25.04.2019, under Section 21 NDPS Act, at
Police Station, Mayur Vihar. Constable Ankur Maan took the tehrir,
sealed parcels, seizure memo copy and Forensic Science Laboratory
forwarding letter to the police station for registration and presentation
to the Station House Officer.
2.3 It is further stated that investigation was thereafter taken up by
Sub Inspector Vishvendra Singh, who visited the spot, prepared the
site plan at the instance of Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar and
recorded statements under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure of
Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar, Head Constable Upender,
Constable Ankur Maan and Inspector Manoj Kumar Sharma (Station
House Officer/Police Station Mayur Vihar). The motorcycle was
verified as stolen vide e-first information report number 012016/2019
dated 05.04.2019 under Section 379 Indian Penal Code, Police Station
New Ashok Nagar, Delhi, and intimation was sent to that police station
vide Daily Diary number 21-B, dated 29.05.2019. As the registrationSC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.4/40
number had been altered/tampered with, section 482 Indian Penal
Code was added after consultation with superior officers. Accused
Sagar was interrogated, confessed his involvement and was arrested at
the spot after explaining grounds of arrest and serving notice under
Section 52 of NDPS Act. His personal search yielded one black
Micromax keypad mobile phone, photocopy of Aadhaar card, and one
black purse. Arrest information was given to his father and his medical
examination was got conducted at Lal Bahadur Shastri Hospital, Delhi.
Samples S-1 and S-2 were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory Rohini,
on 22.05.2019, through Constable Rajesh. Information of recovery and
arrest was sent to Assistant Commissioner of Police Mayur Vihar. The
prosecution alleges conscious possession by accused Sagar of 5.2
grams of smack (heroin), an intermediate quantity under the NDPS Act
and tampering with the registration mark of a stolen vehicle. Accused
Aakash @ Akku (the escaped rider) remains absconding.
3. CHARGE AGAINST THE ACCUSED
3.1. After the filing of the chargesheet, court took the cognizance of
the aforesaid offence qua the accused. Vide order, dated 18.12.2019,
charges for the offence under Section 21 (b) of NDPS Act was framed
against accused.
4. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
Thereafter, prosecution led its pieces of evidence and got examined as
many as eleven witnesses.
S.No Name of the Crux of deposition
witness
PW-1 Head ConstableHe deposed that on the intervening night of
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.5/40
Upender 24/25.04.2019, while he was on patrolling
duty, at about 5:00 a.m. he reached in front
of Gurdwara, wireless road, Trilokpuri,
where he met Sub Inspector Manoj Tomar
and Constable Ankur along with accused
Sagar. Sub Inspector Manoj Tomar
informed him about the recovery of smack
from the accused and made efforts to join
public witnesses but none agreed due to the
odd hours. An electronic weighing machine
was summoned from the police station and
the recovered contraband was weighed. The
net weight of smack was found to be 5.2
grams. Two samples of 2 grams each were
drawn, converted into sealed parcels marked
S1 and S2 and the remaining contraband
along with packing material was sealed in
parcel Mark A. Sub Inspector Manoj Tomar
filled the Forensic Science Laboratory form
and seized the parcels vide seizure memo
and the seal after use was handed over to
PW-1. The motorcycle of the accused was
also seized.
4.1(b) PW-1 further stated that Sub
Inspector Manoj Tomar prepared the rukka
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.6/40
and handed it over to Constable Ankur
along with the sealed parcels, Forensic
Science Laboratory form and relevant
documents for registration of the First
Information Report. Subsequently, Sub
Inspector Vishvender reached at the spot as
the second Investigating Officer and he was
apprised of the facts. He took over custody
of the accused and documents. After
registration of the First Information Report,
notice under Section 52 NDPS Act was
served upon the accused. The accused was
arrested and his personal search was
conducted, during which a mobile phone,
Aadhaar card and purse were recovered.
During the courses of his cross-examination,
PW-1 submitted that he did not remember
the Daily Diary number of his departure
entry. PW1 also admitted that the spot did
not fall within his beat area and he was just
passing from there while returning to the
police station.
PW-2 Head Constable He deposed that on 25.04.2019, he was
Dharmender
posted as Duty Officer at Police Station
Singh
Mayur Vihar and was on duty from 12.00
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.7/40
midnight to 8.00 a.m. At about 7.50 a.m,
Constable Ankur Maan brought a rukka sent
by Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar. On
the basis of the said rukka, he got the first
information report registered through the
computer operator and obtained a copy of
the first information report, which is Ex.
PW2/A bearing his signatures. He made his
endorsement on the rukka Ex. PW2/B and
thereafter handed over the copy of the first
information report along with the original
tehrir to Constable Ankur Maan for
delivering the same to Sub Inspector
Vishvender, to whom further investigation
was assigned. He also issued a certificate
under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence
Act, Ex. PW2/C and recorded the kayami
Daily Diary entry number 17A Ex. PW2/D,
all bearing his signatures. During the course
of his cross-examination, PW-2 submitted
that during his duty hours it was his
responsibility to record entries regarding
arrival and departure of police officials.
However, he was not aware of the names of
the members of the raiding team in the
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.8/40
present case and therefore could not say
whether he had made any arrival or
departure entries regarding them.
PW-3 Constable He deposed that the number 2230, from the
Bahadur
Office of Assistant Commissioner of Police
Mayur Vihar, Delhi, deposed that he had
brought the original diary register pertaining
to the year 2019 along with the report under
Section 57 of the NDPS Act relating to the
present case. As per the official record, the
report under Section 57 NDPS Act in first
information report number 139/2019, Police
Station Mayur Vihar, prepared by Sub
Inspector Vishvender Singh dated
26.04.2019, was received in the office of
Assistant Commissioner of Police Mayur
Vihar, vide diary entry number 2274, dated
26.04.2019. He stated that the said report
was seen and signed by the then Assistant
Commissioner of Police Sh. Saurabh
Chandra at point A. The report was proved
as Ex. PW3/A and the photocopy of the
relevant entry of the diary register was
proved as Ex. PW3/B (OSR). He was also
cross-examined at length by learned counsel
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.9/40
for accused person.
PW-4 Sub Inspector He deposed that in the intervening night of
Manoj Kumar
24/25.04.2019 he was on patrolling duty
Tomar
along with Constable Ankur vide General
Diary number 99A, dated 24.04.2019 and
they left the police station at about 11:50
PM. At about 4:30 AM, when they reached
near Gurudwara, 36 Block, Wireless Road,
Trilokpuri, they noticed a motorcycle
coming from Trilokpuri Marg with two
persons riding on it. On being signalled to
stop the riders attempted to flee. During the
chase, the motorcycle slipped and both
occupants tried to escape. He apprehended
the pillion rider, who disclosed his name as
Sagar, while the rider managed to flee.
Upon personal search of the apprehended
accused, a transparent polythene containing
30 paper pudias with brown powder was
recovered from the right pocket of his pant.
On smelling, the substance appeared to be
smack, which the accused also admitted.
He further stated that at about 4:50 AM,
Head Constable Upender reached the spot
and joined the investigation. Efforts were
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.10/40
made to join public witnesses but none
agreed due to the late hours. An electronic
weighing machine was arranged through
Constable Ankur. After weighing, the total
net weight of the recovered smack was
found to be 5.2 grams. Two samples of 2
grams each were drawn and marked S1 and
S2 and the remaining contraband along with
empty pudias was kept in a separate parcel
marked A.
4.4(b) PW4 further deposed that all parcels
were sealed with the seal of MKT, the
forensic science laboratory form was filled,
and the seal was handed over to Head
Constable Upender. The case property was
seized vide memo Ex. PW1/A, the seal
handing over memo is Ex. PW1/B, and the
motorcycle bearing registration number
DL-13SM-2178 was seized vide memo Ex.
PW1/C. He prepared the rukka Ex. PW4/A
and handed over the rukka and sealed
parcels to Constable Ankur for registration
of first information report and deposit of
case property. Subsequently, Sub Inspector
Vishvender Singh reached the spot, to
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.11/40
whom custody of the accused and case
property was handed over. The site plan Ex.
PW4/B was prepared at his instance. He
identified the accused as well as the case
property in court. During the course of his
cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that no
videography or photography of the
proceedings was conducted and no public
witness joined the investigation despite
requests. He also admitted that no notice
under Section 50 of NDPS Act was served
prior to the personal search, explaining that
it was a chance recovery without prior
information. PW4 also submitted that the
motorcycle was later found to be stolen
property connected with e-FIR No.
12026/2019, PS New Ashok Nagar;
however, no mechanical inspection of the
motorcycle was conducted. No mobile
phone was recovered from the accused. He
confirmed that sampling was done at the
spot and the seal was handed over to Head
Constable Upender.
PW-5 Inspector Manoj He deposed that on 25.04.2019 he was
Kumar Sharma
posted as Station House Officer, Police
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.12/40
Station Mayur Vihar and was present in his
office at about 8:00 a.m. when Constable
Ankur produced before him three sealed
pullandas, form of Forensic Science
Laboratory bearing the seal impression of
“MKT”, and the carbon copy of the seizure
memo pertaining to the present case. He
affixed his own seal of “MKS” on all the
three pullandas and on the Forensic Science
Laboratory form, mentioned the First
information Report number on the
pullandas, Forensic Science Laboratory
form and the seizure memo after confirming
the same from the duty officer and
appended his signatures thereon. He then
called MHCM Head Constable Sanjay to his
office along with Register number 19 and
handed over the three pullandas, Forensic
Science Laboratory form and copy of the
seizure memo for deposit in the malkhana,
whereupon the relevant entry was made in
Register number 19. He proved copy of
General Diary number 19A recorded in this
regard as Ex. PW-5/A. He further stated that
on 26.04.2019, he forwarded the report
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.13/40
under Section 57 NDPS Act to the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, which is already
Ex. PW-3/A. During the course of his
cross-examination, PW-5 submitted that he
did not remember whether he had signed in
Register number 19 against the relevant
entry.
PW-6 Constable Ankur He deposed that in the intervening night of
Maan
24/25.04.2019, he was on patrolling duty
along with Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar
Tomar in the area of Police Station Mayur
Vihar. At about 4:30 a.m, when they
reached at 36 Block near Gurudwara,
Trilokpuri, they noticed a motorcycle with
two riders coming from Trilokpuri side. On
being signalled to stop, the riders attempted
to flee, turned back and their motorcycle
slipped. Both riders tried to escape on foot.
Sub Inspector Manoj Tomar apprehended
the pillion rider, while the driver managed
to escape. On search of the apprehended
person, later identified as accused Sagar, a
transparent polythene containing 30 paper
pudias with brown powder was recovered
from the right pocket of his pant. On smell,
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.14/40
the substance appeared to be smack and the
accused also disclosed it to be smack. He
further deposed that Head Constable
Upender reached the spot and joined the
investigation. As no public person could be
found due to odd hours, he was sent to bring
an electronic weighing machine from the
police station and returned to the spot at
about 5:20 a.m. Sub Inspector Manoj Tomar
mixed the contents of the pudias and
weighed the recovered substance. After
deducting the weight of the paper, the net
weight of the smack was found to be 5.2
grams. Two samples of 2 grams each were
drawn and kept in separate plastic
containers and the remaining contraband
along with empty pudias was kept in
another container. All parcels were sealed
with the seal of “MKT”, marked S1, S2 and
A, and form of Forensic Science Laboratory
was filled at the spot. The seal after use was
handed over to Head Constable Upender.
The witness then proved the seizure memo
of the contraband and Form Forensic
Science Laboratory (Ex. PW1/A), handing
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.15/40
over memo of the seal (Ex. PW1/B) and
seizure memo of the motorcycle bearing
number DL-13SM-2178 (Ex. PW1/C), all
bearing his signatures.
4.6(b) PW6 further deposed that according
to the witness, Sub Inspector Manoj Tomar
handed over the rukka and sealed parcels to
him for registration of the first information
report. He reached the police station at
about 7:45 a.m., handed over the rukka to
the Duty Officer and the case property to the
Station House Officer, who affixed his seal
and mentioned the first information report
number on the parcels. Thereafter, he
returned to the spot with a copy of the first
information report and original rukka and
handed them over to the Investigating
Officer Sub Inspector Vishvender Singh,
who arrested the accused vide arrest memo
Ex. PW1/E and conducted his personal
search vide memo Ex. PW1/F. The accused
was medically examined and brought to the
police station. The witness correctly
identified the accused in court. During the
course of his cross-examination, PW6
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.16/40
submitted that they were on patrolling duty
from 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. and were
patrolling on foot. PW6 further submitted
that the weighing scale was brought from
the Investigating Officer room of the police
station and no entry was made in that
regard.
PW-7 Head Constable He deposed that on 22.05.2019, as per the
Rajesh
directions of Head Constable Sanjay, he
obtained two sealed containers sealed with
the seals of “MKT” and “MKS” along with
the Forensic Science Laboratory forwarding
letter for depositing the same at Forensic
Science Laboratory Rohini. He carried the
case property vide Road Certificate number
80/21/19 (Ex. PW7/1) bearing his signatures
and deposited the sealed containers and
forwarding letter at Forensic Science
Laboratory Rohini. After depositing the
same, he obtained the acknowledgment
receipt, Ex. PW7/2, bearing his signatures
and returned to the police station, where he
handed over the acknowledgment to the
MHC(M). His statement was thereafter
recorded. He was cross-examined at length
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.17/40
by learned counsel for accused.
PW-8 Assistant Sub He deposed that on 25.04.2019, he was
Inspector Sanjay
posted as MHC(M) at Police Station Mayur
Kumar
Vihar. At about 8:15 a.m., the Station House
Officer called him to his office along with
Register number 19 and handed over three
pulandas sealed with the seals of “MKS”
and “MKT”, along with the Forensic
Science Laboratory forwarding letter and
copies of seizure memos. He made the
relevant entry at serial number 2412 in
Register number 19, which is Ex. PW8/1
(OSR). He also received the personal search
articles of the accused and made entries
regarding the same in the said register. He
further deposed that, on 22.05.2019, he had
handed over two pulandas along with the
forensic science laboratory forwarding letter
to Constable Rajesh for depositing the same
at Forensic Science Laboratory Rohini vide
Road Certificate No. 80/21/19 (already Ex.
PW7/1). After some time, Constable Rajesh
returned to the police station and handed
over the acknowledgment receipt to him. He
then handed over the copy of the Road
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.18/40
Certificate and acknowledgment receipt to
the IO, which are already Ex. PW7/2 (OSR).
He was cross-examined at length by learned
counsel for accused.
PW-9 Head Constable He deposed that he produced the original
Anuj Kumar
dispatch register for the year 2019 and
deposed that as per the report, under Section
57 NDPS Act, in first information report
number 139/2019, prepared by Sub
Inspector Vishwender Singh, dated
26.04.2019, the said report was received in
their office vide diary number 631 on
26.04.2019. The report was sealed and sent
to the office of Assistant Commissioner of
Police, Mayur Vihar. The photocopy of the
relevant entry in the dispatch register is Ex.
PW9/1 (OSR). He further stated that the
notice under Section 57 NDPS Act is
already Ex. PW3/A bearing the signature of
the Station House Officer at point B.
PW-10 Narender, Junior He deposed that he was deputed to appear
Assistant from
on behalf of the MLO/DTO. He produced
Transport Office
the attested copies of the vehicle particulars,
including Form 20, in respect of vehicle
bearing registration no. DL-13SM-2178.
The said documents are Ex. PW10/1 (colly)
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.19/40
(OSR) bearing the signature of Sh. P.M.
Rao, DTO at point A.
PW-11 Sub InspectorHe deposed that on 25.04.2019, he was
Vishvendra Singh
posted as Sub Inspector at Police Station
Mayur Vihar Phase-I. On that day, while he
was present at the police station, the Duty
Officer informed him about the registration
of the present case at about 8:15 AM.
Thereafter, he proceeded to the spot that is
west side of Gurudwara, Wireless Road, 36
Block, Trilokpuri, Delhi, where he met Sub
Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar along with
Head Constable Upender and accused
Sagar. Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar
apprised him about the facts of the case and
handed over to him the case documents,
namely the original seizure memo of
recovered smack Ex. PW1/A, seizure memo
of motorcycle Ex. PW1/C and seal handing
over memo Ex. PW1/B all bearing his
signatures at point C. He perused the
documents and mentioned the case
particulars on them. PW-11 further deposed
that custody of accused Sagar was handed
over to him by Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.20/40
Tomar. He prepared the site plan of the
place of occurrence at the instance of Sub
Inspector Manoj Kumar Tomar (Ex.
PW4/B). He examined Sub Inspector Manoj
Kumar Tomar and recorded his statement,
after which Sub Inspector Manoj Kumar
Tomar left the spot. Constable Ankur
reached the spot at about 9:10 AM and
handed over to him the original tehrir Ex.
PW4/A, computerized copy of First
Information Report Ex. PW2/A and
certificate under Section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act Ex. PW2/C. He prepared two
copies of notice under Section 52 NDPS Act
and apprised the accused of the grounds of
arrest. The original notice was served upon
the accused and his acknowledgment was
obtained on the carbon copy Ex. PW1/D. He
arrested the accused vide arrest memo Ex.
PW1/E. During personal search of the
accused, one black coloured Micromax
keypad mobile phone, photocopy of
Aadhaar card and one black coloured purse
containing original notice under Section 52
NDPS Act were recovered and seized vide
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.21/40
memo Ex. PW1/F. He recorded the
disclosure statement of the accused vide
memo Ex. PW1/G. Thereafter, the accused
was medically examined at Lal Bahadur
Shastri Hospital and search for co-accused
Akash @ Akku was conducted at the
instance of the accused but he could not be
traced. The personal search articles were
deposited in the malkhana and the accused
was produced before the Station House
Officer at about 11:00 AM and thereafter
before the court, from where he was
remanded to judicial custody.
4.11(b) PW-11 further deposed that, on
26.04.2019, he prepared a report under
Section 57 NDPS Act regarding recovery
and arrest of the accused and presented the
same before the Station House Officer (Ex.
PW3/A). He obtained the age proof of the
accused from his school, showing his date
of birth as 12.10.1998, and placed the same
on record (Ex. PW11/A). On 22.05.2019,
the samples of the recovered contraband
were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory
Rohini vide Registration Certificate number
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.22/40
80/21/19 (Ex. PW7/1) through Constable
Rajesh. He received the acknowledgment of
case acceptance from the MHC(M) (Ex.
PW7/2) and placed it on the file. On
29.05.2019, he obtained details of the
recovered motorcycle from Suraj Mal Vihar
Authority (Ex. PW10/1), which revealed
that the vehicle was stolen in E-FIR No.
012016/19 of PS New Ashok Nagar, and he
conveyed this information to the concerned
police station vide Daily Diary number 21B,
dated 29.05.2019. He thereafter prepared
and filed the charge-sheet and after receipt
of the Forensic Science Laboratory result,
filed the supplementary charge-sheet. PW11
also stated that statements of witnesses were
recorded under Section 161 of Code of
Criminal Procedure. During course of his
cross-examination, PW-11 stated that he had
received the information from the Duty
Officer personally at the police station. PW1
also admitted that neither any contraband
recovered in his presence nor any
documents were prepared.
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.23/40
5. The following exhibits were proved by the following
witnesses examined by the prosecution, which are as under:-
Exhibit Description of the exhibit Proved by / Attested by
No.
Ex.PW1/A The case property was seized videH/Ct. Upender
memo Ex. PW1/A.
Ex.PW1/B The seal handing over memo is Ex. H/Ct. Upender
PW1/B
Ex.PW1/C The motorcycle bearing H/Ct. Upender
registration number
DL-13SM-2178 was seized vide
memo Ex. PW1/C
Ex. PW1/D The original notice was served H/Ct. Upender
upon the accused and his
acknowledgment was obtained on
the carbon copy Ex. PW1/D
Ex. PW1/E Arrested the accused vide arrest H/Ct. Upender
memo Ex. PW1/E
Ex. PW1/F Conducted his personal search vide H/Ct. Upender
memo Ex. PW1/F
Ex. PW1/G The disclosure statement of the H/Ct. Upender
accused vide memo Ex. PW1/G
Ex.PW2/A Copy of FIR. H/Ct. Dharmender
Singh
Ex.PW2/B Endorsement on the rukka H/Ct. Dharmender
Singh
Ex.PW2/C Under Section 65B of the Indian H/Ct. Dharmender
Singh
Evidence Act
Ex.PW2/D Recorded the kayami Daily Diary H/Ct. Dharmender
SinghSC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.24/40
entry number 17A
Ex.PW3/A The report under Section 57 NDPS Ct. Bahadur
Act in first information report
number 139/2019, Police Station
Mayur Vihar
Ex.PW3/B The photocopy of the relevant Ct. Bahadur
entry of the diary register
Ex.PW4/A Rukka Ex. PW4/A SI Manoj Kumar
Tomar
Ex.PW4/B The site plan Ex. PW4/B SI Manoj Kumar
Tomar
Ex.PW-5/A General Diary number 19A Insp. Manoj Kumar
Sharma
recorded.
Ex. PW7/1 case property vide Road Certificate HC Rajesh
number 80/21/19
Ex. PW7/2 After depositing the same, he HC Rajesh
obtained the acknowledgment
receipt
Ex. PW8/1 The relevant entry at serial number ASI Sanjay Kumar
(OSR). 2412 in Register number 19, which
is Ex. PW8/1 (OSR).
Ex. PW9/1 The photocopy of the relevant HC Anuj Kumar
(OSR) entry in the dispatch register is Ex.
PW9/1 (OSR)
Ex. Attested copies of the vehicle Narender, Junior
Assistant from
PW10/1 particulars, including Form 20, in
Transport Office
(colly) respect of vehicle bearing
(OSR) registration no. DL-13SM-2178.
The said documents are Ex.
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.25/40 PW10/1 (colly) (OSR) Ex.PW11/ the age proof of the accused from SI Vishvendra Singh A his school, showing his date of birth as 12.10.1998, and placed the same on record (Ex. PW11/A). 6. STATEMENT OF ACCUSED U/S 313 Cr.P.C. 6.1 After completion of prosecution witnesses, statement of accused
Sagar under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded.
Accused submits that he is innocent, has been lifted from his house and
has been falsely implicated in the present case. Accused also
submitted that about 10-15 days prior to the date of his arrest, he has
some heated arguments with the police officials of police station
Mayur Vihar in park of 29 Block, Trilokpuri and thus he was falsely
implicated in this case. It is further submitted that recovery has been
planted upon him and his signatures were forcibly obtained by the
police officials on the blank papers in the police station. Accused did
not prefer to lead defence evidence.
8. FINAL ARGUMENTS
8.1 (a) Submissions of learned counsel for accused as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State have been heard at
length. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has submitted that the prosecution
has proved the recovery of contraband from the accused. It is further
submitted that all the provisions under the NDPS Act were duly
complied with in the present case and the charge levelled as against the
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.26/40
accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further
submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of
5.2 grams of smack from the possession of accused . It is also
submitted that the presumptions prevailing under NDPS Act (Sections
35 & 54 NDPS Act) squarely apply in this case and therefore, the
accused is liable to be convicted under section 21 (b) of the NDPS Act.
It is further submitted by the learned Additional PP for the State that
minor contradictions should not be taken into account while deciding
the case and that there is presumption of regularity of the procedure
undertaken by the police witnesses. It is also submitted that with
respect to Section 52 A of NDPS Act, substantial compliance is
necessary rather than confirming to every technical detail. It is further
submitted that any procedural irregularity or illegality found to have
been committed in conducting the search and seizure during the course
of investigation or thereafter would by itself not make the entire
evidence collected during the course of investigation inadmissible. It is
further submitted that conducting of photography or videography of
each and every act is impractical. Reliance is placed upon Bharat
Aambale v. The State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC
78), Chidi Berr Nwayoga v. State, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 2558,
Jugendra Singh v. State of U.P: MANU/SC/0485/2012, Appabhai &
Anr. v. State of Gujarat MANU/SC/0028/1988, Jarnail Singh v. State
of Punjab (2011) 3 SCC 52, Surinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2020)
2 SCC 563 and Ram Pal v. State of UP, MANU/UP/1659/2020. All
these judgments have been perused very carefully vis-a-vis facts of
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.27/40
present case and as such there seem do not apply to the present
circumstances.
8.1(b) On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused has submitted
that accused has been falsely implicated in the present case and as such
no contraband was recovered from his possession. It is also submitted
that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution
witnesses. It is further submitted that neither public witnesses were
got joined during the recovery proceedings nor these proceedings were
videographed/photographed which raises doubt on the entire recovery
proceedings. It is further submitted that there are glaring
contradictions in the case of prosecution, as the necessary guidelines
regarding seizure and sampling of the alleged recovered contraband
was not properly followed. There was no reference regarding
compliance of Section 42, Section 50 & Section 57 of the NDPS Act.
There was total non-compliance of Section 52 A of the NDPS Act.
Learned counsel has also filed one hand written submission in which it
is stated that as such there is no entry of arrival or departure when the
alleged weighing machine was brought from the police station. It is
further stated that on the medico legal case, there is no mention of the
first information report number which admittedly had already been
registered. It is therefore submitted that all these factors have raised
concern with respect to the case of the prosecution as prosecution is
unable to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.
9. Points of Determination
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.28/40
9.1 After hearing both the parties at length as well as upon perusal
of the annexed documents, following point of determination has been
culled out in the present case that is whether the accused was found in
possession of 5.2 grams of smack on 25.04.2019 ?
10. Analysis & Reasoning
10.1 To start with basically, there are two levels of proof in criminal
cases, one for the prosecution, that is the proof which must be beyond
reasonable doubt and another for the defence, that is proof vis-a-vis the
balance of probabilities. Denning J, while elaborating on the nature of
proof beyond reasonable doubt stated that it need not reach certainty,
but it must carry a high degree of probability. If the evidence is so
strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour
which can be dismissed with the sentence of course it is possible, but
not in the least probable, the case is proved beyond reasonable doubt,
but nothing short of that will suffice. The evidence of the prosecution
must be such as to exclude to a moral certainty every reasonable doubt
of the guilt of the accused. The burden of proof is always on the
prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt all ingredients of an
offence with which the person accused is charged and it cannot fall
back solely upon the evidence adduced by the accused persons in their
defence. Also, undoubtedly, conducting a fair trial for those who are
accused of a criminal offence is the cornerstone of our democratic
society. Conducting a fair trial is both for the benefit of the society as
well as for an accused and cannot be abandoned. A conviction
resulting from an unfair trial is contrary to our concept of justice.
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.29/40
Reliance is placed upon Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Daya Sapra (2009) 13
SCC 729, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1996 SC 755 and
Mallanna v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 8 SCC 523.
10.2 Coming forward, with respect to Narcotics Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 especially Section 21 of the
aforesaid Act, with which present accused has been charged with, read
as under:-
Whoever, in contravention of any provision of this Act or any rule or order made or condition of
licence granted thereunder, manufacturers, possesses, sells, purchases, transports, imports inter-
State exports inter-State or uses any manufactured drug or any preparation containing any
manufactured drug shall be punishable:-
(b) where the contravention involves, quantity, lesser than commercial quantity but greater than
small quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine
which may extend to one lakh rupees….
Doubtless that this section of NDPS Act makes the possession of
any manufactured drug an offence. The term ‘Manufactured Drug’ is
defined in section 2 (xi) of the Act which means all coca derivatives,
medicinal cannabis, opium, derivatives and poppy straw concentrate
along with any other narcotic substance or preparation which the
Central Government may having regard to the available information as
to its nature or to a decision, if any, under international Convention, by
notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a manufactured drug.
Though, at the same time it does not include any narcotic substance or
preparation which the Central Government may, having regard to the
available information as to its nature or to a decision, if any, under any
International Convention, by notification in the official Gazette,
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.30/40
declare not to be a manufactured drug. Further, the term ‘Manufacture’
is elaborated in Section 2 (x) and includes all processes other than
production by which such drugs or substances may be obtained,
refining of such drugs or substances, transformation of such drugs or
substances and making of preparation (otherwise than in a pharmacy
on prescription with or containing such drugs or substances). Finally,
the term ‘To Transport’ has been defined in clause 2 (xxviii) of the Act
as to mean to take from one place to another within the same State or
Union territory. It may be that a person transferring the article either to
use it or to distribute it.
10.3 It needs to be stressed upon that as the Narcotics Drugs &
Psychotropic Substances Act has provided deterrent punishment for the
offences under the Act, the Parliament, has therefore provided
additional safeguards in the procedure for conducting search of
persons under the Narcotics drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Provisions have been made in the Act itself that if persons to be
searched so require, the officer about to search him under section 41 or
section 42 or section 43 of the Act, shall take such person without
unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any one of the
departments mentioned in section 42 of the Act or to the nearest
Magistrate. Section 50 specifically provides that the Gazetted Officer
or the Magistrate before whom any such person is brought shall, if he
sees no reasonable ground for search, forthwith discharge the person
but otherwise shall direct that search be made. Further, when questions
one of the which arises for consideration is whether investigating
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.31/40
officer was bound to make the accused aware that he had also a right to
be searched before a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer, it has been held
that accused has to be made aware of the said right before taking his
personal search for appropriate compliance of section 50 of the NDPS
Act. Thus, it is an obligation of the empowered officer before
conducting the search of the person on the basis of prior information to
inform the suspect that he has the right to require his search to be
conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The
words used in the section are ‘if the person to be searched so requires’
which casts a duty upon the officer about to make search of the person
to intimate him that if he so requires he can be taken before the nearest
gazetted officer or the nearest magistrate for the purpose of taking
search in the presence of such officer or the magistrate. In order to
find out whether compliance of section 50 has been made or not, it has
to be seen whether the accused was apprised by the searching officer of
his right to make a choice to be taken before a Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate as he is to be searched for having contraband in his
possession.
10.4 Relevance of this provision has been made explicitely clear in
State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh 1994 AIR SCW 1802 where Hon’ble
Supreme Court had observed the following:-
(1) If a police officer without any prior information as contemplated under the
provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act makes a search or arrests a
person in the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offences as provided
under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when such search is completed at that
stage, section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act would not be attracted and
the question of complying with the requirements thereunder would not arise. If during such searchSC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.32/40
or arrest there is a chance of recovery of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances then the
police officer, who is not empowered, should inform the empowered officer who should thereafter
proceed in accordance with the provision of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
If he happens to be an empowered officer also, then from that stage onwards, he should carry out
the investigation in accordance with the other provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act.
(2A) Under section 41(1) only an empowered magistrate can issue warrant for the
arrest or for the search in respect of offences punishable under Chapter IV of the Act, etc., when he
has reason to believe that such offences have been committed or such substances are kept or
concealed in any building, conveyance or place. When such warrant for arrest or for search is
issued by a Magistrate who is not empowered, then such search or arrest if carried out would be
illegal. Likewise only empowered officers or duly authorised officers as enumerated in section
41(2) and 42(1) can act under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act. If such arrest or search is made under the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act by anyone other than such officers, the same would be illegal.
(2B) Under section 41(2) only the empowered officer can give the authorisation
to his subordinate officer to carry out the arrest of a person or search as mentioned therein. If there
is a contravention, that would affect the prosecution case and vitite the conviction.
(2C) Under section 42(1) the empowered officer if has a prior information given
by any person, that should necessarily be taken down in writing. But if hehas reason to believe
from personal knowledge that offences under Chapter IV have been committed or materials which
may furnish evidence of commission of such offences are concealed in any building, etc., he may
carry out the arrest or search without a warrant between sunrise and sunset and this provision does
not mandate that he should record his reasons of belief. But under the proviso to section 42(1) if
such officer has to carry out such search between sunset and sunrise, he must record the ground of
his belief.
To this extent these provisions are mandatory and contravention of the same
would affect the prosecution case and vitiate the trial.
(3)Under section 42(2) such empowered officer who takes down any information
in writing or records the grounds under proviso to section 42(1) should forthwith send a copy
thereof to his immediate official superior. If there is total non-compliance of this provision the
same affects the prosecution case. To that extent it is mandatory. But if there is delay whether it was
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.33/40
undue or whether the same has been explained or not, will be a question of fact in each case.
(4A) If a police officer, even if he happens to be an “empowered” officer while
effecting an arrest or search during normal investigation into offences purely under the provisions
of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails to strictly comply with the provisions of sections 100 and
165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure including the requirement to record reasons, such failure
would only amount to an irregularity.
(4B) If an empowered officer or an authorised officer under section 41(2) of the
Act carries out a search, he would be doing so under the provisions of the Code of Criminal
Procedure namely sections 100 and 165 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and if there is no strict
compliance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure then such search would not per
se be illegal and would not vitiate the trial.
The effect of such failure has to be borne in mind by the courts while appreciating
the evidence in the facts and circumstances of each case.
(5) On prior information the empowered officer or authorised officer while acting
under section 41(2) or section 42 should comply with the provisions of section 50 before the scarch
of the person is made and such person should be informed that if he so requires, he shall be
Produced before a gazetted officer or a magistrate as provided thereunder. It is obligatory on the
part of such officer to inform the person to be searched. Failure to inform the person to be searched
and if such person so requires, failure to take him to the gazetted officer or the magistrate, would
amount to non-compliance of section 50 which is mandatory and thus it would affect the
prosecution case and vitiate the trial. After being so informed whether such person opted for such a
course or not would be a question of fact.
(6) The provisions of sections 52 and 57 which deal with the steps to be taken by
the officers after making arrest or seizure under sections 41 to 44 are by themselves not mandatory.
If there is non-compliance or if there are lapses like delay, etc., then the same has to be examined to
see whether any prejudice has been caused to the accused and such failure will have a bearing on
the appreciation of evidence regarding arrest or seizure as well as on merits of the case…….
Reliance is also placed upon Ali Mustaffa Abdul Rahman
Moosa Vs. State of Kerala, AIR1995 SC 244, Pooran Mal V. Director
of Inspection (Investigation), New Delhi, AIR 1974 SC 348, State of
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.34/40
Punjab vs. Labh Singh 1996 CrLJ 3996 and Omprakash @ Omi @
Fauzi vs. State 1991 (3) Crimes. Reference is also made from book
titled as Commentary on Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, second edition by Dr. JN Barowalia.
10.5 Thus, it is not wrong to say that the compliance of the
safeguards in section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act is
mandatory obliging the officer concerned to inform the person to be
searched of his right to demand that search could be conducted in the
presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. The possession of illicit
articles has to be satisfactorily established before the court. The officer
who conducts search must state in his evidence that he had informed
the accused of his right to demand, while he is searched, in the
presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate and that the accused had
not chosen to so demand. If no evidence to that effect is given, the
court must presume that the person searched was not informed of the
protection the law gives him and must find that possession of illicit
articles was not established. In the present case though it is claimed
that accused was overpowered by chance but this cannot be ruled out
the aspect/purview of the applicability of provisions of Section 50 of
the NDPS Act in such circumstances. It is not wrong to say that
neither in the panchnama nor in the first information report there is a
whisper about such an offer or refusal. Even the entire testimony is
silent on that aspect. Neither the same has been clarified at any stage
viz. at the time of recording of testimonies or even during the course of
final arguments by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.35/40
Therefore, there is no doubt that in present case the accused definitely
was not informed about his right provided under section 50 of the Act.
Accordingly, on the face of it was found that investigating officer did
not record the grounds of his belief at any stage of the investigation,
subsequent to his realising that accused was in possession of smack
and since he had no record, he did not forward a copy of the grounds to
his superior nor did he comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the
Act, inasmuch as he did not inform the person to be searched that if he
required, his search could be conducted before a Gazetted Officer or a
Magistrate. Thus, this aspect can be culminated in the way that when
Investigating Officer accidently stumbled upon the accused and he
himself not being the empowered officer, then on coming to know that
accused was in possession of illicit articles, therefrom that stage
onwards he was under on obligation to proceed in the matter only in
accordance with the provisions of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act.
10.6 Further, admittedly no photography of case property and
videography of the recovery proceedings were carried out by the
investigating agency. Again, the testimonies of all the prosecution
witnesses is completely silent upon that aspect. Thus, not finding any
public witness and lack of photography and videography of the alleged
recovery in today’s time and age may cast 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 Code of Criminal Procedure on the
person who refused to join the raiding party in the process of seizure.
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.36/40
It is also relevant to note that the procedure prescribed in the Narcotics
Control Bureau 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.
10.7 Also, there are several other discrepancies which emerged/culled
out during the analysis of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
From the depositions, it came out that the weighing machine was
arranged by the concerned Sub Inspector through Constable Ankur
from police station itself. This weighing machine was admittedly
brought at about 5.20 am from police station to the spot. As such there
is no document on record to prove/establish that said weighing
machine was available in the police station or that it was taken from
the police station. Neither its make or say its physical properties nor
the way how it was transported from police station to spot was made
clear. There is no mention of its specificity or whether it was
calliberated or not explained. All these facts have to be seen especially
in the light of circumstances that a small change in the weight of
quantity of alleged recovered contraband may bring the offence into a
smaller category. Finally, it also needs to be pinpointed that the
alleged contraband was recovered on 25.04.2019, whereas, the samples
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.37/40
were sent to Forensic Science laboratory only on 22.05.2019, that is
almost after passing of one month and during that entire period, the
samples remained in the custody of police officials itself. To add to it,
it is worth-noticing that even after seizure of the recovered
contrabands, no steps under section 52A of NDPS Act were taken by
the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer failed to comply
with the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act altogether.
Keeping in view, the fact, that no proceedings under section 52 A
NDPS Act were conducted and for almost a period of one month,
recovered contraband alongwith samples were there in the custody of
police officials raises serious questions/apprehensions. It is to be noted
that apart from stating that there is no such serious concern involved
nothing beyond has been explained on the part of the prosecution on
this anomaly. Although, merely non-compliance of Section 52 A of
NDPS Act in itself does result into acquittal of the accused, yet as
already discussed there are other factors also, which further weakens
the case of prosecution.
10.8 Alongwith that, it also needs to be noted that accused was
arrested at about 9.30 am, though as per the testimony of PW1 itself,
alleged weighing machine was called at 5.20 am. The time in between
has never been well explained by the prosecution with the help of other
testimonies recorded in the present case. Also, the applicability of
‘grounds of belief’ seems to come in picture as well because of
peculiar facts of this case in accordance with mandate of Section 42(1)
and Section 42 (2) of NDPS Act. The word ‘grounds of belief’ has
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.38/40
been defined in Section 26 of Indian Penal Code as ‘A’ person is said
to have reason to believe a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe
that thing but not otherwise. The reasons of belief as elucidated in
aforesaid section because of peculiarity of circumstances in this case
needs to be more illustrated which seems not be found elaborated upon
as such. Reliance is placed upon State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh
(1994) 3 SCC 299, Gurbux Singh v. State of Haryana (2001) 3 SCC 28
and Directorate of Revenue v. Mohammed Nisar Holia 2007 (8)
Supreme 741. Therefore, in the overall circumstances, it is not
wrong to say that there sequence of events have raised serious doubts
about the case of prosecution and benefit of which is to be given to the
accused. In view of the various contradictions/discrepancies raised
above, this court has no hesitation 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. So far as
the present case is concerned, non-joining of any independent witness
and non-compliance of section 50 as well as 52 A of the NDPS Act are
fatal to the prosecution case. It can be said that the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts that accused Sagar
was found in possession of alleged 5.2 grams of smack. Accused is
entitled for benefit of doubt and thus accused Sagar stands acquitted in
the present case.
10.8 Accused has already furnished his bail bond(s) in compliance of
Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, which will remain valid
for a period of six months from today, as per the provisions of Section
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.39/40
437-A Code of Criminal Procedure. File be consigned to Record
Room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities.
Announced in the open court
on 09th March, 2026
(Manu Vedwan)
Addl. Session Judge-2/Spl. Judge (NDPS)
East/Karkardooma/Delhi
MANU
VEDWAN
Digitally signed
by MANU
VEDWAN
Date: 2026.03.09
16:51:28 +0530
SC No. 2062/2019 State Vs. Sagar Page No.40/40
