Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (4) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Legality and correctness of judgment passed under Section 20 (b) NDPS Act - Possession of 600 grams of Hashish concealed in an iron trunk - Held that:- as there are inconsistencies and discrepancies, the statement of the Investigating Officer and the evidence produced by the prosecution can’t be believed to base conviction for stringent provisions of the Act. The law on this aspect is that “stringent the punishment stricter the proof”. In such like case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

f the respondent in the manner alleged by the prosecution on the said date and time. Therefore, the respondent rightly deserved the benefit of doubt and the impugned judgment on that score cannot be faulted. - Decided against the revenue - CRL.A.55/2013 - Dated:- 29-3-2016 - S. P. Garg, J. For the Appellant : Mr. P. C. Aggarwal, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr.S.S.Das, Advocate with Mr.Tarun Priyadarshi, Advocate ORDER S. P. Garg, J. 1. Present appeal has been preferred by Customs to challenge .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Admitted position is that on 01.12.2006 the respondent was going to London (U.K.) in flight No.VS 301 carrying two hand bags. On suspicion he was intercepted and questioned. Foreign and Indian currency of ₹ 16,63,867/- was recovered from his possession. Necessary proceedings were initiated against him in that regard. During the investigation of the said case, two bunches of keys, one visiting card of luggage room T-302, Paharganj along with some other documents were recovered. It was found .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

g two zipper bags having 12 small pouches and 4 small pouches respectively. The recovered substance was weighed and it was found to be 600 grams of Hashish. Necessary investigation/proceedings were carried out. Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act. Upon completion of investigation, a complaint case was filed by Mr.Uday Shankar Sharma, complainant, against the respondent for committing offence punishable under Section 20 of the NDPS Act before the Trial Court. In ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

arties and have examined the file minutely. On scanning the impugned judgment, it transpires that the Trial Court has discussed all the relevant contentions of the appellant comprehensively. A number of material discrepancies, contradictions and infirmities have been noted in the impugned judgment to conclude that the evidence led by the prosecution was highly deficient to base conviction. This Court finds no valid reasons to deviate from the findings recorded by the Trial Court whereby the resp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ow about this vital information, no attempt was made by the Investigating Agency to take the respondent to the place where he had booked the iron trunk containing contraband substance. The Trial Court has noted that the visiting card (Ex. PW1/N) recovered from the respondent did not contain the name of the luggage room. It merely contained the details as luggage room T-302, Main Bazaar, Paharganj. Name of M/s.Ajay Luggage Room, Paharganj, New Delhi did not find mention on the visiting card. It i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

. Even in report under Section 57 NDPS Act (Ex.PW-1/K) there is no indication of hotel Anoop or Ajay Luggage Room. It simply describes that during the personal search of the respondent, a visiting card of luggage room No.T- 302, Main market, Paharganj was recovered. At the time of proceedings at Luggage Room, its owner was not associated in the investigation. No plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution witnesses as to why pursuant to the disclosure statement regarding booking of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hoto of the respondent was shown to the individual at the Luggage Room and as per PW-2 (Bhavesh Kumar Pandya), he identified him to be the person who had booked the Luggage Room on 01.12.2006. Testimony of CW-1 is entirely contradictory to him. CW-1 is Rakesh Singh, employee at Ajay Luggage Room. In his examination-in-chief, he did not support the prosecution and did not identify the accused to be the individual who had booked the luggage in the Luggage Room. No TIP Proceedings for identificatio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

person who booked the trunk in question with them for a particular duration on any register / document. It is also unclear as to how much payment was received by PW-2 (Bhavesh Kumar Pandya) for booking the said trunk. He disclosed that at the time of booking the trunk, he had issued the receipt; the original of which was handed over to the respondent. Copy of the same was attached with the trunk. No such original copy of the receipt was recovered from the respondent at the time of his apprehensi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

No such handwriting was sent to handwriting experts to ascertain his signatures thereon. The Investigating Officer did not find out as to from where the respondent had arranged the heavy trunk; when it was arranged and for what consideration. It was also not verified as to from where the respondent had procured the contraband. It is unclear as to when the respondent had visited India and when the contraband was procured and kept in the trunk. The Investigating Agency did not ascertain as to what .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s seal No.6. The Trial Court also noted various discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of the panch witnesses PW-7 (Vijay Veer Singh) and PW-9 (Vijay Dhyani). It further observed that the trunk when produced in the Court on 04.07.2007 for the first time was not found properly sealed, as without breaking the seal and without disturbing the paper slip, the thread tied on the trunk could be removed. It also noted that the keys recovered from the respondent at the time of his apprehensi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very zealously so as to exclusive very chance of false implication. The prosecution has failed to establish the commission of offence by the respondent and beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be allowed to take benefit of the respondent s inability to establish his defence in 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Mere apprehension of the respondent is not enough. The evidence is scanty and lacking to establish that the contraband was recovered from the possess .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version