9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 1043X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion was that on 20th May 2003 the Respondent, a British passport holder, was intercepted at 00:20 hours in the security lounge at the departure hall of the IGI Airport, New Delhi. He was slated to travel by Flight No. KL 872 from New Delhi to Amsterdam. The Respondent was found carrying one black colour hand bag and on enquiry it was disclosed that he was carrying two checked-in baggages for which the KLM Airlines had issued two baggage tags Bearing Nos. KL 476422 and KL 476423. 3. In the presence of two panch witnesses Prafull Nayak and Pradip Kumar, the Respondent was taken to the baggage belt area where he identified two black colour zipper bags bearing brand name 'East-Pak'. Both bags were brought to the Customs Counter. On the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded in which he is supposed to have admitted to the ownership of the narcotic substance recovered from his checked-in baggages. He is purported to have stated that the semi-solid black colour substance was given to him by one Mr. Jan and that he was aware of the fact that carrying, keeping and exporting narcotics substance was an offence in UK, Holland as well as in India. The statements of the two panch witnesses i.e. Praful Kumar Nayak and Pradeep Kumar were also stated to have been recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. 5. The representative samples were sent to the Central Revenues Control Laboratory ('CRCL') for chemical analysis. The report dated 6th June 2003 of the CRCL confirmed that the sample ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated before the Magistrate before whom he was produced that he was treated well by the officers because he was frightened that he would be taken back to the airport and would be again mistreated. He claimed to have been inflicted injuries on his right shoulder for which he received treatment from the jail doctor. He produced the documents received from the jail authorities regarding his treatment and marked them as Ex.DW-1/G-1 to G-5 and DW-1/H and 1/J. He stated that five months after he was jailed, he made a retraction application in his own handwriting in three pages (Ex.DW-1/K). 8. In his cross-examination by the SPP, the Respondent stated that he did not make any complaint against the Customs Officers who dictated to him the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also not aware as to who had conducted the test at the spot regarding the nature of the substance recovered. (iii) PW-1 also could not state the time consumed for testing or completing the formalities. He could not disclose the name of the Customs Officers who recorded statement of the Respondent under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. (iv) The Respondent is stated to have produced keys of his two checked in baggages and they were used to open them but the keys were not produced in the Court. There was no evidence as to where the keys had gone after the baggages were opened. (v) A perusal of the entry under which the recovered articles were deposited in the malkhana revealed overwrit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd any error having been committed by the trial Court in its analysis of the evidence or in the conclusions reached by it. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner was unable to explain how one of the panch witnesses was simply given up by stating that he had been won over by the accused when there was no basis for such statement by the SPP. Also the address of the other panch witness was not traceable. This raised serious doubts on whether the recovery and seizure took place in the presence of the said two panch witnesses. Having recorded that the seizure of the contraband from the checked-in baggages took place in their presence, the failure to produce them as witnesses would result in an adverse inference being drawn against the pros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
