Interim Order 16

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF ASJ/SPECIAL JUDGE/NDPS
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presided by: Sudhir Kumar Sirohi, DHJS
SC No. 527/2022
NCB Vs. Mushir Alam @ Bablu & Anr.
06.02.2025
ORDER ON CHARGE
Present: Mr. Mukesh Malik, Ld. SPP for NCB.
Accused Md Babar on bail through VC.
Remaining accused Mushir Alam not produced from
JC.
Sh Rahul, Ld counsel for accused Md Babar through
VC.
IO of the case through VC.
Brief facts of the case are that 9620 tramadol tablets
weight 3.24 Kg was recovered in this matter from a parcel
destined to USA bearing AWB No. 33330874654 booked in the
name of Nikhil Verma but said Nikhil Verma never booked the
parcel and his ID was used by accused Mushir Alam in booking
the abovesaid parcel while Mohd. Babar supplied the medicines
to accused Mushir Alam and also provided the ID of Nikhil
Verma to accused Mushir Alam for use. Further accused Mohd.
Babar destroyed his mobile before being arrested in this matter in
order to destroy the evidence.
Arguments on charge already heard.
Ld SPP for NCB argued that in the present matter,
the parcel containing commercial quantity of tramadol tablets
were booked by accused Mushir Alam on fake identity of Nikhil
Page no. 1 of 5
-- 1 of 5 --
Verma and the parcel was destined to USA, the medicine and ID
was provided by accused Md Babar, accused Md Babar
destroyed his mobile and also destroyed the electronic evidence,
therefore, prays for framing of charge u/s 22 (c) r/w section 29
NDPS Act and 23 (c) r/w section 29 NDPS Act against both the
accused persons and u/s 201 and 204 IPC also the accused Md
Babar.
Ld counsel for accused Md Babar conceded the
charge.
Ld counsel for accused Mushir Alam argued that as
per case of NCB on basis of information on 19.04.2022 parcel
destined to USA was intercepted containing 12 footmats from
which there is recovery of 962 strips of tramadol. Each strip
containing 10 tablets and in total 9620 tablets were recovered. It
is further argued by Ld. counsel for accused that consignor of
parcel was Mr. Nikhil Verma and he stated that he never booked
the parcel, therefore, statement of Md. Faisal (courier agent
multi-modal Logistic Company) was recorded and he disclosed
that parcel in question was given to him by applicant/accused on
13.04.2022 whose mobile number are 9936161222 and
6387951710, thereafter he forwarded the parcel to Mr. Rajiv
Mishra (KC Enterprises) and as Mushir Alam known him
therefore, he did not open the parcel and earlier also the Mushir
Alam has given him parcel in name of Nikhil Verma to send the
same to USA and stated that present parcel also belongs to Nikhil
Verma gave Aadhar card and PAN card of Nikhil Verma, accused
paid Rs. 10000/- on 01.04.2022 and Rs. 10,000 13.04.2022 via
Phonepe in his PNB Bank account thereafter Mr. Rajiv Mishra
send the parcel to DHL with AWB no. 3330874654 and also send
Page no. 2 of 5
-- 2 of 5 --
the DHL AWB no. 72781007760 therefore, Mr. Rajiv Mishra
sent two parcel number and did not disclosed why one of the
parcel number was cancelled. It is further argued by Ld. counsel
for applicant that Manager of DHL Virender Singh has not been
cited as a witness nor his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act is on record
and there is only email of Mr. Virender Singh which has been
placed on record by NCB that they got parcel from Universal
Express but no witness has been cited from Universal Express
w.r.t. change in airway bill number. It is further argued by Ld.
counsel for accused that weight of 10 footmats was 1kg as per
invoice while weight of tramadol tablets was 3.2 kg therefore,
total weight must have been 4.24 kg but the weight of footmats
has been mentioned only 1 kg attached with AWB number. It is
also argued by Ld. counsel for accused that on the baggage tag,
the weight of parcel has been mentioned as 18.5 kg therefore,
there is difference of 17.5 kg in the weight of the parcel as the
invoice weight of the parcel was 1 kg and even if it is considered
then 3.24 kg was tramadol weight then also the weight of
packaging material can not be 18.5 – 3.24 (weight of tramadol) +
1 kg weight of footmats = 14.26. It is also submitted that in no
situation the weight of packaging material can be 14.26 kg. It is
further argued that the proceedings u/s 52 A NDPS Act has been
conducted in defective manner and there is violation of standing
order 1/88, therefore, prays for discharge of accused.
Submissions of all parties heard.
In the present matter, the parcel in question was
booked by accused Mushir Alam and statement of Mohd. Faizal
is on record to that effect. Mohd. Faizal has stated that the
accused earlier also booked the parcel with the name of Nikhil
Page no. 3 of 5
-- 3 of 5 --
Verma, Mr. Nikhil Verma has stated that he has not booked the
parcel and his ID has been used. Brother of accused Mr. Manjur
Alam has given statement that on asking of accused, he
transferred the amount to Mohd. Faizal. W.r.t. weight of the
parcel, there is email of Mr. Virender Singh from DHL filed that
AWB No. 72781007760 was returned due to mis-declared weight
and AWB number was re issued by DHL Express. The invoice
proforma was given by accused, therefore the weight mentioned
on invoice proforma can not be the criteria to determine the
weight of parcel due to which it was returned.
The parcel in question was containing commercial
quantity of contraband and same was handed over by the accused
Md Babar to co accused Mushir and then the same was booked,
there is CDR connectivity of accused Md Babar with co-accused
Mushir, the frequent location of the accused Md Babar is also of
Kanpur, though the accused Md Babar is resident of Lucknow,
there is recovery of chat from the mobile phone of co-accused
Mushir and in which they are talking specifically w.r.t. parcel in
question and amount, the mobile phone which was used at that
time was not handed over by the accused Md Babar to NCB,
therefore, chat could not be recovered from mobile phone of
accused. The parcel containing 3.24kg (9260 tablets) of tramadol
was destined to USA, therefore, there is prima facie sufficient
material on record to frame charge u/s 22 (c) r/w section 29
NDPS Act, 23 (c) r/w section 29 NDPS Act against both the
accused persons namely Mushir Alam and Md Babar. Accused
Md Babar also did not hand over his phone which was used at the
time of alleged offence and the chat which had been recovered
from the phone of co accused Mushir Alam, therefore, there is
Page no. 4 of 5
-- 4 of 5 --
prima facie sufficient material on record to frame charge u/s 204
IPC for destruction of mobile phone and not producing the same
for evidence.
Production warrants be issued against accused
Mushir Alam for the next date of hearing.
List for framing of formal charge on 04.03.2025.
(Sudhir Kumar Sirohi)
ASJ/Spl. Judge, NDPS/N. Delhi
06.02.2025
Page no. 5 of 5
-- 5 of 5 --