TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2130X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Koluttumottil Razak vs State Of Kerala [2000 (2) TMI 793 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed – Decided in favour of Revenue. - Criminal Appeal No.735 of 2000 - - - Dated:- 25-8-2015 - MRS. S.VIMALA, J For the Petitioner : Mr.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar JUDGMENT We are reminded of Justice Felix Frankfurter's immortal words in Antonio Richard Rochin Vs. People of the State of California [96 L. Ed. 183 (1951)], coincidentally a case pertaining to narcotics, wherein he described some types of conduct by state agents, although not specifically prohibited by explicit language in the Constitution, as those that shock the conscience in that they offend those canons of decency and fairness which express the notions of just ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng fresh notice or awaiting service. So far, the respondent is not served. 3.1. Further, it is represented by the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant that despite the best efforts being taken to serve notice on the respondents, the prosecution is not able to do so, because the respondents are stated to have left for Sri Lanka. In such circumstances, there is no possibility to serve notice on the respondents. 4.By the judgment dated 29.06.2000, the accused was acquitted of the charges under Section 8(c) r/w Sections 21, 22, 23, 28 and 29 of NDPS Act. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this appeal. 5.The main ground of appeal is that when the search of the baggages of the accused and seizure of contraband took place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-examination of the higher officer who is stated to have received the communication, has been commented upon by the Trial Court. The higher officer did not even put the time of receipt of the information on 31.08.1998. 10.The judgment of the Trial Court points out the non-observance of conditions stipulated under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Ex.P2 is stated to be the consent letter given by the accused for the personal search of him. It is the case of the prosecution that the letter was written by the accused himself. Ex.P13 is stated to be the confession statement of the accused. It is also stated to be in the handwriting of the accused. The investigating officer has himself admitted that both the signatures in Ex.P2 and Ex.P13 are not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge Bench of this Court held in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat : that non-compliance with the requirements of Section 42(1) and (2) would render the resultant search and seizure suspect, though that by itself may not vitiate the proceedings. 7.In the present case, unfortunately, apart from the evidence of the police officers there is absolutely no independent evidence to ensure confidence in our mind that the search was in fact conducted by PW 2 as ne has claimed. As his evidence is required to be approached with suspicion due to violation of Section 42 of the Act we may require corroboration from independent sources that is lacking in this case. In this case there is violation of Section 42(1) and (2) of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
