New Delhi, May 8 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has acquitted a man convicted in a 2012 heroin recovery case under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, holding that serious procedural lapses and inconsistencies in the prosecution case created reasonable doubt over the alleged recovery and safe custody of the contraband.

A single-judge Bench of Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha, while allowing the appeal filed by Sunil alias Sunil Sharma, set aside the trial court’s judgment convicting him under Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentencing him to 10 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 1 lakh.

As per the prosecution case, officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) had intercepted the accused at the Singhu border on May 18, 2012, while he was allegedly transporting one kilogram of heroin concealed under the bonnet of a Honda Civic car.

However, the Delhi High Court found multiple discrepancies in the prosecution’s handling of the seized contraband, sampling procedure and inventory records.

In the judgment, Justice Sudha recorded that though the prosecution claimed two samples of five grams each had been drawn from the seized substance, the inventory prepared later still reflected the quantity of heroin as one kilogram.

“The packet containing the residue could never have contained 1 kg heroin going by version of PW3, PW4 and PW9, as 10 grams had already been taken as samples,” the judge observed.

The Delhi High Court also flagged the absence of proper documentation regarding the custody and transfer of the seized material.

“It was incumbent on PW9 to hand over the case property/material objects without any delay to PW10, the officer empowered under Section 53. However, there are no materials to show that it was in fact handed over by PW9 to PW10 on 18.05.2012 itself,” it said.

It further observed that the provisions of Section 52A of the NDPS Act relating to preparation of inventory and sampling before a Magistrate were not strictly complied with.

“The seizure in this case took place on 18.05.2012. However, the application under Section 52A was moved before the Magistrate concerned on 16.10.2012, after a delay of about five months, for which no explanation has been given,” Justice Sudha noted.

Referring to Supreme Court decisions on procedural safeguards under the NDPS law, the Delhi High Court said that though every lapse may not automatically vitiate a prosecution, courts are required to closely scrutinise the evidence where statutory safeguards are not followed.

Highlighting the stringent nature of punishments prescribed under the NDPS Act, Justice Sudha observed that courts must adopt a higher degree of scrutiny while examining prosecution evidence.

“It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious the offence, the stricter would be the degree of proof and a higher degree of assurance would be necessary to convict an accused,” the judge observed.

Granting the benefit of doubt to the accused, the Delhi High Court made sharp observations against the investigating officials over the manner in which the case was handled.

“Heroin is quite a dangerous drug and such large quantities of it can destroy entire generations. However, it appears that the officials of the DRI have not assigned the importance that this case so greatly deserved,” it remarked.

“It also appears that it was only because of such lackadaisical approach and extreme carelessness on the part of the officers concerned that the benefit has gone to the appellant/accused,” Justice Sudha added.

The judge further said: “There certainly is a strong/grave suspicion against the accused. But suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.”

Calling for stricter adherence to statutory safeguards in future NDPS investigations, the Delhi High Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of the Delhi government to issue necessary instructions to officers concerned “to strictly comply with the formalities contemplated under the NDPS Act to prevent such miscarriage of justice.”

In conclusion, the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and directed that the appellant be released, while cancelling his bail bonds.

–IANS

pds/rad