Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2017 (12) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 1447 - HC - Indian LawsSeizure of goods - contraband and other documents - Held that: - Admittedly, in this case, the contraband was not seized pursuant to the search of the person of the accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the contraband was seized from amongst churidar materials kept inside the carton [M.O.13] in Rajeshwar Textiles. - The provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act will apply only when the contraband has been recovered from the search of the person of the accused and not from a bag or box, etc. There can be no pale of doubt that if an illicit article has been recovered from the search of the person of the accused in violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, the recovery will become suspect - In this case, the conviction of the appellant has been for possession of 3.750 kgs of heroin in a carton amongst churidar materials in the premises of Rajeshwar Textiles, where both Madhan [A1] and Chaval [A2] were available at the time of seizure. It was only on their showing, the carton [M.O.13] was opened and searched and heroin was recovered from amongst churidar materials. This Court is unable to countenance this submission, because Exs.P.4 to 10 and M.Os.1 to 7 are not illicit articles per se under the NDPS Act. The possession of these exhibits and material objects, viz., visiting card, delivery receipt, mobile phones, Indian currency, US dollars and Sri Lankan currency will not attract punishment under the NDPS Act, because they do not come within the definition of a Narcotic drug or a psychotropic substance. These documents and material objects will assume significance only as corroborative pieces of evidence and mere possession of that will not entail conviction under the NDPS Act. When a case under Section 420 IPC/135 of the Customs Act is committed to the Special Court, the question is, what procedure the Special Court should follow, whether the procedure under Chapter XIX or the procedure under Chapter XVIII of the Code? This has been answered by Section 44(1)(d) of the PMLA. Section 44(1)(d) states that the trial of the scheduled offence and the trial of the money-laundering case shall be conducted in accordance with Chapter XVIII of the Code. Such a dichotomy cannot happen under the NDPS Act, because the offence under the NDPS Act is not dependent upon the commission of an offence under another enactment, whereas, the offence under Section 3 of the PMLA is dependent upon the commission of an offence mentioned in the schedule to the PMLA. Hence, the comparison is misconceived. This Court does not find any infirmity in the conviction of the appellants by the Special Court warranting interference. As to the sentence, the trial Court has imposed the sentence of 14 years for each charge against the appellants. Interest of justice will be served if the sentence is reduced to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment, that being the minimum for the convicted offences - the sentence imposed in C.C.No.4 of 2013 by the II Additional Special Court for NDPS Cases, Chennai is reduced to 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment. Appeal disposed off.
|