New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (4) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT

2016 (4) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT - TMI - Seeking modification in acquittal order - Smuggling of narcotic drugs and receiving about 30kg of heroin, hence truck seized - Held that:- Some serious doubts crept in the prosecution case that (i) whether the contraband was recovered from the truck or from Van, (ii) whether the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 were actually found present with the contraband in the Van or the contraband was found lying abandoned in the truck having cavity for conceal .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ion is reverse at the final disposal upon conclusion of trial that the view favouring accused charged with any offence has to be granted the benefit of doubt while returning the finding of acquittal in favour of guilty. As the appellant has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt even during trial or in appeal as well, whereas in the present case, there are doubts after doubts.Therefore, the acquittal order passed is correct. - Appeal dismissed - CRL.A. 787/2001 - Dated:- 29-3-2016 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred as the NDPS Act). 2. The case of the prosecution in brief was that a secret information was received by DRI officials that one Ramesh Behl (since deceased) (hereinafter referred as respondent No.1 ) was involved in the smuggling of narcotic drugs and that he would be receiving about 30 KG of heroin on that date (26.11.1996) in the afternoon at Azad Pur Subzi Mandi, Delhi from some persons who would come from Punjab; he will use Neptune colou .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ace was not found conducive for search, the Van and occupants were brought to the DRI office at ITO, New Delhi. Two panch witnesses namely Raju and Sandeep were joined in the proceedings and in their presence notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served to all the three occupants of the Van. Nothing incriminating was found from the personal search of the occupants. On search of the Van, one sack was found lying on the back seat which contained several packets which were taken to DRI offi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he contraband from Amritsar, Punjab to Delhi which was parked near Seb (Apple) Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi and the said truck was seized. Pursuant to the disclosure statement made by respondent No.1, his shop premises at Chandni Chowk, Delhi was searched and accused Mohammad Hanif (hereinafter referred as respondent No.3) found at the shop was summoned. His statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded wherein he admitted that he was in the drug trade with respondent No.1. Upon completion 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

stava, who is informant of the FIR a secret information was received on 26.11.1996 at about 10.00 AM in the office which was reduced into writing as Ex.PW1/B. As per said information, respondent No.1 who was dealing in narcotic drug was taking delivery of about 30 KG of heroin from some persons from Azadpur, Subzi Mandi, Delhi in the afternoon on that date and that he would be using his Maruti Van, mentioned above. Accordingly, a raiding team was formed and deployed at Subzi Mandi, Azadpur at ar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t has failed to appreciate that in the present case the recovery was made from the Car in possession of respondent Nos.1 & 2. The evidence against the respondents is by way of solemn testimony of witnesses and the panchnama duly signed by them, voluntary statements of the respondents, statement of Daulat Singh and other documents. Learned Trial Court should have appreciated the huge quantity of heroin which could not have been planted upon respondents and there was no allegation of enmity/gr .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by learned Trial Court. 7. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 expired during pendency of instant appeal and vide order dated 07.04.2015 proceedings were abated and his surety was also discharged. 8. From the material on record, it cannot be denied that on 26.11.1996 from 01.00 to 11.30PM the complainant / PW1 was busy with Nakabandi, interception, seizure, sampling and sealing of the contraband. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 were present with him from the time of interception at about 04.00PM ti .....

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 statement respondent No.2 had disclosed that he had brought the consignment from Punjab to Delhi in his Tata 407 truck bearing registration No.UP81C-9112 which was parked at Seb (apple) Mandi. Accordingly, he (PW6) went to spot along with two independent witnesses namely PW10 Shri Dharamvir and PW11 Shri Rohtas Mann, who were working in the Income Tax Department in the drum shape building at ITO and seized the said truck which had cavities concealed in the compartment. 11. As per deposition 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

ent No.2 on 27.11.1996. 12. It is further the case of the prosecution that as per statement of PW4 Shri B S Bakshi it was on the same date i.e. 26.11.1996 he was informed by the Assistant Director about the recovery of about 29 KG heroin from said Van possessed by respondent No.1 and his two associates. He was asked by the Assistant Director to conduct the search of the shop of respondent No.1 at 1408 Jhajjarwala Katra, Chandni Chowk, Delhi. Accordingly, he conducted the search of said shop vide .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

1.1996 prior information was with the DRI official only about the respondent No.1 taking the delivery of the narcotics from some persons from Punjab at Azadpur Subzi Mandi in the afternoon of 26.11.1996 for which purpose he would be using his blue colour Maruti Van bearing No.DL-3CG-5120. The said Van was intercepted when respondent No.1 was driving it and respondent No.2 was sitting by his side. The said Van was taken to DRI office at about 04.00PM on 26.11.1996 where on search thereof, a sack .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the statements of respondent Nos.1 & 2 that latter had used the truck Tata 407 for transporting this narcotic consignment from Punjab to Delhi on that date and that said truck was parked near Seb Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi. It is only during the proceedings of statements of respondent No.1 that it came to the notice of DRI officials that he was involved in narcotic trade in which respondent No.1 used to take delivery from one person namely Raju in Punjab and transported it to Delhi and delivered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

4 and other officials of DRI on 26.11.1996 in the afternoon. It is also a matter of record that said truck was seized by PW6 Shri K S Duhan in the presence of PW10 and PW11 in the afternoon of 26.11.1996 itself. 14. The appellant failed to explain on record that as to how the DRI officials searched the shop of respondent No.1 and seized the truck from Seb Mandi on 26.11.1996 when the seizure and sampling was still going on in the office of DRI in the presence of respondent Nos.1 & 2, who had .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

It was emerged on record from the evidence adduced by the appellant before learned Trial Court that with the seizure of the contraband, simultaneously search of the shop of respondent No.1 was done at the same time and respondent Nos.1 & 2 were present in the DRI office on 26.11.1996 itself. On one hand, the seizure, sampling and recovery of the contraband was being done by the team of DRI officials in their office premises itself in the presence of respondent Nos.1 & 2. On the other ha .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

said Tata truck was seized on 26.11.1996 itself in the afternoon lying abandoned from Seb Mandi and search of the shop of respondent No.1 was taken place from 05.00 to 06.30PM on the same date while the proceedings regarding seizure, sampling and sealing of the contraband continued in the office of DRI. 16. In view the facts recorded above, serious doubts crept in the case of prosecution to the effect that whether the contraband was recovered from the truck No.UP81C-9112 or from Van No.DL3CG-51 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ck, but it appears that in an effort to rope in all three respondents, the appellant mixed up the true facts of the case to such an extent that it was not possible to bring out the truth as to from where and whose possession the said contraband was recovered and whether it was recovered from the Tata truck or Maruti Van. 18. Further doubt crept in the version of the appellant that the contraband was seized while the delivery was being made by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 or whether it was .....

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