Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2018 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1985 - HC - Indian LawsSmuggling - offences contemplated by Sections 21(c) and 23(c), read with Section 28 of the Act - inconsistencies in the testimonies of the various witnesses who deposed regarding the seizure effected - HELD THAT:- Once the test reports, using the Field Testing Kit of the NCB team, and as provided by the CRCL, are discarded from consideration, the only evidence, to indicate that the parcel booked at Student Infoline Courier contained heroin, was the statement, of the appellant, recorded under Section 67 of the Act. The statement of Umesh Madan only proved the fact of booking, by the appellant, of the parcel at Student Infoline Courier and its subsequent booking, by Umesh Madan, at Aramex. It did not throw any light on the contents of the parcel. True, in response to a leading question, put to him, during the recording of his statement, under Section 67 of the Act, on 17 th April, 2012, the appellant did state that he had booked a parcel, containing heroin, at Student Infoline Courier in April 2011, the fact of the parcel containing heroin figured only in the suggestion contained in the leading question put to him in that regard. That apart, the said statement was retracted, by the appellant, by way of a written retraction, placed in the file of the case relating to the recovery of 410 g heroin from the appellant, as recorded by the learned Special Judge in the statement, of the appellant, under Section 313 of the Cr PC on 18th February, 2014. The statement of the appellant, under Section 67 of the Act, having been recorded in the office of the NCB, and having been retracted by the appellant subsequently, it cannot be safely said that the statement was voluntary, especially in respect of an entirely different consignment, being investigated in an altogether different case. In the absence of any other corroborative evidence, I am not convinced that a case of attempt to export heroin from India, can be said to have been made out against the appellant, solely on the basis of his statement under Section 67 of the Act. The prosecution has not been able to prove, conclusively, that the appellant had attempted to export heroin, and that he had, therefore, committed the offences contemplated by Section 21(c), 23(c) and 28 of the Narcotics, Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - appellant is, accordingly, acquitted of the said charges, and shall be released forthwith, unless required to be detained in any other case - Appeal allowed.
|