The special NDPS court has acquitted a man and a woman, arrested by Anti Narcotic Cell, in two seperate cases for carrying huge quantity of Ganja, as the agency failed to follow mandatory procedure of investigation.
As per the rule, the cases of narcotic has to be investigated by an officer of the rank of Sub-inspector or above. However, in these two cases both the cases were probed by a head constable.
Details of case
35-year-old Dhirendra Singh was arrested on November 9, 2011, based on an information's received by head constable Laxman Gawas. Gawas claimed that he had received and information that a man was to come near Ambedkar Nagar Slum, Mulund (east) to sell narcotic substance. He informed his official and was asked to raid the place. During the raid, Singh was apprehended with 4kg Ganja.
The court while acquitting Singh observed that, "while going through the evidence in entirety there are contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the investigation is not carried out by the authorized officer. It is being carried out by unempowered officers."
Furthermore, the court noted that the mandatory process of searching the accused was not complied with, and the punch witnesses who act as independent witnesses to the search were declared hostile. Hence, the court concluded that the evidence is not sufficient to establish the charges against the accused.
The 2nd case
In another case, Joharabi Shaikh, a resident of Borivali, was arrested on August 4, 2012, from ST Depot, Borivali, with Ganja weighing 3 kgs and 140 grams based on information received by Police Constable Abhijit Raul. The case was investigated by Head Constable Madhukar Dabhade.
The prosecution in this case only examined Raul and Dabhade, and no other witnesses, such as independent witnesses who were present at the Depot or punch witnesses, and the lady officer who had to be present at the time of the search of the woman, were examined.
Hence, while acquitting the woman, the special court stated, "Upon careful examination of the evidence on record, it reveals that the officers who received the information did not reduce it to writing and communicate it to the superior officers. Secondly, the search was conducted by unempowered officers. Thirdly, the investigation was carried out by officers who were not empowered to conduct the investigation."
