9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (7) TMI 1006X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.6042 of 2013 in the case of coaccused, Pramod Narhari Manjrekar and submits that the role of the applicant is similar to that of coaccused and no discretion should be exercised in favour of the applicant. 4. Heard learned advocate for the applicant and learned APP for the respondent State of Gujarat and considered the order dated 01.05.2013 passed by this Court rejecting the bail application filed by coaccused Promod Narhari Manjrekar, wherein this Court has taken into consideration the order dated 31.01.2013 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court dismissing bail application of another coaccused Sujal Vijaybhai Patel in Criminal Misc. Application No.14483 of 2012 and judgment of Bombay High Court in the Case of M.V.Hency v. Raviprakash Goyal in Criminal Misc. Application No.3295 of 2005 and order passed by the Apex Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.1845 of 2010 arising out of SLP [Cr.] No.4135 of 2010 and provisions of Sections 8, 9, 22 and 76 in the context of definition of Section 2[xxiii] OF NDPS Act and Rules 53 and 54 of the NDPS Rules. Order dated 01.05.2013 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No.6042 of 2013 r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packages were concealed and camouflaged among the food packets. The officers suspected the said goods to be Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances and samples, each of 10 gms., were drawn from each of the packets for getting the same tested to ascertain their exact nature. 3.1In order to ascertain the veracity of the manufacturing details contained on the labels of the 37 packets of 'off white coloured crystalline substance' declared as 1(4methylphenyl) 2methylaminopropan1one as per the request of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad, the officers of Central Excise, Sangli, searched the premises of M/s.Kamud Drugs Pvt. Ltd., Sangli, under panchnama dated 4.12.2011. During the course of panchnama the officers found 431 kgs of the same item i.e 1( 4methylphenyl) 2methylaminopropan1one, pertaining to different batch numbers as detailed below : Sr.No. Batch Number Manufacturing Date Quantity 1 MAD 11001 ' Nov2011 401 kgs 2 MAC 10016 'Mar2010 17 kgs 3 MAC 10018 'Mar2010 06 kgs 4 MAC 10021 'Mar2010 02 kgs 5 MAC 10023 'Mar2010 06 kgs TOTAL 432 kgs The above table clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE. The DFS also confirmed that METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE was covered under NDPS Act, 1985. The total value of 432 kgs of METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE comes to Rs. 432.00 Crores approximately in the illicit international market. 3.3 Further, the officers of Central Excise during the course of Panchnama dated 04.12.2011 also seized a consignment of 81 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride from the premises of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited having Central Excise Registration as AABCK1455BXD001 (a registered dealer under Central excise) for the purpose of further investigation. The said 81 kgs of Ketamine Hydrochloride pertained to the following batch numbers: Sr. No. Batch Number Quantity 1 KHP 10001b 32 kgs 2 KP120911017 07 kgs 3 KP120914013 3 kg 4 KP121011002 1.8 kg 5 KP120914011 16 kg 6 KP120911020 17 kg 7 KP121914014 1 kg 8 KP121014001 1 kg 9 KP120914021 2.850 kg TOTAL 81.65 Investigations carried out revealed that the 81.650 kgs Ketamine Hydrochloride was actually manufactured by the manufacturing unit - M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Limited N6 & 8, M.I.D.C., Kupwad Block, Sangli416436, Maharashtra under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is to be noted that coaccused Abhijit Prabhakar Konduskar filed Special Criminal Application No.1353 of 2012 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code and under Sections 22, 23, 24, 25, 27A, 28, 29, 30, 38 read with Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act for issuance of directions to respondent No.2 viz. Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to send the sample as seized on 3rd December, 2011 at Air Cargo, Ahmedabad for retesting in any of the laboratories of the Central Government, including Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or Central Revenue Control Laboratory at New Delhi on the ground that contraband seized was not METAMPHETAMINE, which came to be rejected by this Court vide order dated 11.05.2012. 4.1 That another coaccused Sujal Vijaybhai Patel had filed successive bail application being Criminal Misc. Application No.14483 of 2012 under Section 439 of the Code raising various contentions, including that the substance viz. Contraband is not mentioned in ScheduleI of NDPS Rules, 1985 based on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of M.V.Henry v. Raviprakash Goyal in Criminal Misc. Application No.3295 of 2005 and order passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder made or conditions of licence granted. Section 8 prohibits export from India of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances except for medical or scientific purpose that too by way of licence permitted or authorization. In a matter before the Apex Court the drugs which were seized from the person who claimed to be Ayurveda Acharya and otherwise had a licence and had also produced requisite documents complying with the provisions of Section 67A along the application of bail. These drugs fell under the purview of ScheduleG and H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Thus, in matter before the Apex Court, exception contained in Section 8 of the Act was found to be applicable. 34. In absence of any licence, permit or for authorization for medicinal or research purposes either for the purpose of manufacturing or possession or for sale or for import or export of the said psychotropic substances, the case of applicant accused does not fall under the exceptions carved out under Section 8 of the NDPS Act. Section 76(1) read with Section 9 of the Act contemplate making of rules by the Central Government for carving out purposes of this Act and not in contravention thereof which of course woul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to see that case of prosecution does not fall under the NDPS Act and Rules by indulging into getting the samples tested from one or the other institutions to show that the contraband in question is distinguished. 7.1 This Court has perused the detailed record in this case as well as earlier orders passed by this Court in cases of coaccused and the contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant about method, standard and parameters to be complied for testing by DFS, Gandhinagar and Haffkin Institute, Maharashtra and recommendations by United Nations about recommended methods for testing such substances for use by National Narcotics Laboratory, which are in the realm of evidence to be appreciated by the trial court. Further, due to the aforesaid attempts made by accused, the trial is getting delayed. 7.2 So far as report submitted by DFS, Gandhinagar based on standard and method of carrying out tests of the substance of the subject complaint is concerned, there is no iota of doubt about the legality and validity of the report since DFS, Gandhinagar is also recognized by law and having creditworthiness and reputation in the country and considering oral order dated 31.01.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
