New Delhi, June 17 (IANS) The Delhi High Court has pulled up the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) for shoddy maintenance of record diaries related to a drug peddling case.
The court last week asked the DRI to follow the proper rules and regulations in cases of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) while granting a bail to an alleged drug peddler who police said was caught with over four kilograms of heroin from the capital last year.

Justice S. Muralidhar while granting bail to Amarjeet Singh on a bail bond of Rs.100,000 and on the conditions that he will not leave the capital without permission and will cooperate in investigation.

In this case, the DRI did not prepare a proper case diary and accused in his petition has alleged that the agency had framed him unnecessarily.

D.C. Mathur, counsel for the accused, submitted in the court that the DRI had made numerous false statements in the witness account and preceding it in the notice served under Section 50 NDPS Act.

“The facts of this case show the immediate and imperative need for maintaining such a record by the DRI. It is hoped that the statutory procedures will strictly be followed and that the cases are investigated and prosecuted strictly in accordance with law,” the court directed.

“This court would like to impress upon the DRI that when it sends a team based on information received by it to effect an interception, it is likely that it is going to affect the liberty of the person so intercepted.

“Considering the gravity of the offence which is sought to be prevented or investigated, it is all the more necessary that every step taken by the officers of the DRI is backed up by records maintained at the DRI,” Justice Murlaidhrar said.

“The question is also about accountability of the intercepting team not only to the superior officers of the DRI themselves but also to the law. When a question arises whether in fact the interception took place in the manner as alleged by the DRI, and whether in fact the persons intercepted were present at the spot, and whether they were served notice, the records of the DRI should speak for themselves.”