MOOL CHAND GARG, J. - (1.)THIS order shall dispose of the criminal leave petition filed by the petitioner against the judgment delivered by the Trial Judge in Sessions Case No. 13A/06 which was committed to the Sessions by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, where a complaint was filed by the petitioner against the respondent -Aziz Ahmad and one Surender Mehta, who is no more, under Section 29 r/w Section 21 and 23 of the NDPS Act.
(2.)THE aforesaid complaint was based upon the statements allegedly recorded by the petitioner of the respondent and one Surender Mehta under Section 67 of the NDPS Act where reference was made to an earlier transaction about delivery of some consignment by Surender Mehta to one Sardar ji through the respondent which consignment was consisting of heroin and was sent to USA and was apprehended by the Customs Authorities from a person to whom the delivery was effected in early 1987. The statement of the Surender Mehta was stated to have been recorded on 5.7.1988 while the statement of the present respondent is stated to have been recorded on 22.11.1987 and on 23.11.1987 vide Ex.PW1/A, B and C. It was also their case that in those statements the respondent admitted the factum of receiving delivery of 2.4 kgms of heroin from Surender Mehta for delivering the same to one Sardar ji near Nanakpura and that the said Sardarji was caught red handed along with the aforesaid heroin.
After the committal, charges were framed by the Additional Sessions Judge against the respondent to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. During the course of trial, the complainant examined only two witnesses, namely, PW -1 R.D. Gupta and PW -2 Surinder Gupta, Assistant Commissioner at IGI Airport, New Delhi. During the cross -examination of these witnesses specific suggestion was given by the respondent that the statements relied upon by the petitioner were not made by the respondent voluntarily and in fact it was got procured under duress in some other case for which a complaint was filed by the brother of the respondent to the concerned MM at the relevant time and that the said statement was also retracted immediately.

(3.)THE trial court after taking note of the cross -examination of the two witnesses relied upon by the petitioner and the defence witnesses produced on behalf of the respondent opined that it is a case where the statement relied upon by the prosecution was not given by the respondent voluntarily and further that the said statement had been retracted and there was no other evidence led by the petitioner to corroborate that statement. It has been categorically stated by the Additional Sessions Judge that from the statement of the two defence witnesses it is clear that the respondent, Aziz Ahmad was subjected to maltreatment and coercion and therefore, in these circumstances, the charges against him were not made out and he acquitted the respondent. It is also a matter of record that no rebuttal to the allegation of torture or to substantiate the statement of the respondent under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was led. Similarly, there is no evidence on record regarding apprehension of Dolly Batra, who alleged to have received contraband from Sardar ji, who was caught red handed.