Super Sleuths, especially of DRI should be properly trained - Fake documents and bundle of lies by investigators ensure freedom for Drug Accused
HOW does a DRI case proceed?
They get an intelligence that somebody is carrying narcotic drugs in a vehicle. This intelligence is the only piece of truthful information in the whole story. They intercept the vehicle and find the contraband. They don't take independent witnesses with them; they don't give an authorisation to an officer to conduct the search and seizure; they don't inform the accused his right to be searched by a gazetted officer or a magistrate; they take the vehicle, the contraband and the accused to their office, where the mahazar is prepared; nearby teashop boys are made to sign as witnesses; a back dated summons is issued to the accused and his ‘voluntary' statement is recorded - before the summons is issued and by using whatever force required. AND A CASE IS MADE. When it reaches a trial court, strict compliance of every provision in the statute is demanded and our case looks like a B grade Bollywood movie, which is beyond facts, logic or law. This is not a story concocted by DDT - look at the facts of a recent case:
As stated by the Prosecution (DRI), the case is like this:
A DRI IO, let's call him DJ, received intelligence that 6th October 2007 the accused, carrying narcotic drugs, would be coming in a Bolero Jeep at HP Petrol Pump, Mahipal Pur, near Radisson Hotel, New Delhi, at around 10.00 p.m. The intelligence was reduced to writing, placed before the senior officer SB, who directed another officer ND to immediately organise a team for surveillance and interception of the person along with the contraband substance. After associating two public witnesses, the DRI officers are stated to have left their office at 8.00 p.m. and reached the petrol pump at about 9.00 p.m. At around 10.30 p.m., the Bolero jeep arrived at the petrol pump and was immediately intercepted. Notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was given to the Respondent at the spot and he gave a reply in writing on the said notice in his handwriting that he did not require any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer for the search proceedings and that it could be undertaken by any officer of the DRI. About 5 kgs of narcotics, Rs. 1.98 lakh in cash and a mobile phone were seized. A detailed panchnama was prepared with regard to the interception, search and seizure. Further, it was stated that in response to the summons issued to the accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, the accused appeared and tendered his voluntary statement.
The Trial Court was not amused with this story and found that:-
1. Section 50 of the NDPS Act was contravened in as much as the notice issued under that provision to the accused at the spot appeared to be a fake document, created and manufactured after the alleged time of interception.
2. Sections 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act were not complied with since the Investigating Officer (IO) did not possess a valid authorisation to effect the seizure.
3. The summons issued to the Respondent under Section 67 of NDPS Act appeared to be a document prepared and manipulated subsequent to the search and seizure from the accused.
4. While the retraction application of the Respondent was in Punjabi, his statement was in Hindi of poor quality and this raised further doubts as to its genuineness.
5. The failure to associate public witnesses in the search and seizure raised sufficient doubts as to their genuineness; there were also doubts regarding the site plan; the issuance of the seal of DRI and the very constitution of the raiding team.
Instead of trying to learn from experience, the DRI filed an appeal in the Delhi High Court.
The High Court could not find fault with the Trial Court's order. The High Court observed that a personal search was also made of the body of the accused. A notice under Section 50 NDPS Act had therefore to be mandatorily issued. The High Court noted, "What is however, disconcerting is that the details recorded in this notice were contrary to what was deposed by the prosecution witness, as to what transpired on 6th October 2007. The notice under Section 50 (Ex. PW11/B) mentions the time of occurrence as around "11.30 hrs. today” which was 6th October 2007. In the absence of any indication that it was ‘p.m.' or ‘a.m.' it could well be taken to be ‘a.m'. Even if it was taken to be p.m., it contradicted the case of the prosecution that the accused was apprehended at around 10.30 p.m. The second factor pointed out is that a typed notice could not possibly have been served at the time and place of apprehension of the accused. There was nothing to show that the raiding party took any computer with them from which a typed notice could have been prepared at the spot. These factors indicate that the notice Ex. PW11/B was a document prepared subsequently. There is no satisfactory explanation for the above glaring discrepancies concerning the notice issued to the accused under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
…………
Although the summons was dated 6th October 2007, the fact of the matter is that the panchnama proceedings concluded at 10.00 a.m. only on 7th October 2007. The question of accused appearing at 7.00 a.m. on 7th October 2007, therefore, simply did not arise. The finding of the trial court that the said summons could never have been served on the accused on 6th October 2007 and that the said document was possibly prepared subsequently cannot be faulted. ”
This is the sad state of affairs in the premier investigation agency right in the Capital - this did not happen in some remote North-East village.
We bring you this case today. This story maybe a repetition of our Breaking News Story, but the idea is to highlight the fact that a drug smuggler goes out of the long arm of the Law because the enforcement authorities forget or neglect elementary legal principles. A case does not end with a seizure or arrest - that is only the starting point and if you falter there, confiscation and conviction will fail, which should be the ultimate goal.