TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 726X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hnagar had convicted the accused guilty for the aforesaid offences, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 15 years and pay a fine of rupees one lakh with default stipulation. Accusations which led to the trial of the accused are essentially as follows: On 17.10.1994 at about 6.30 p.m. Inspector of Customs Sri B.K. Srivastava, Incharge Customs Station Khunwa, District Siddharthnagar, received an information that a person carrying Charas from Nepal shall be passing through the Customs Barrier (Khunwa Check Post). Consequently, Sir B.K. Singh, complainant (PW-1) summoned two independent witnesses and took position near the Barrier. At about 7.00 p.m. a Jeep bearing No. UTD 5560 was seen coming from Nepal side and when it reach ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the officer and the remaining charas was duly sealed. Since transportation of charas was in violation of Section 8 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the Jeep containing the charas was also seized. A Panchnama of the said recovery, interrogation and seizures was prepared at the spot which were signed by the accused, witnesses and the Customs Officer. The prosecution i.e. Union of India filed the criminal case no.68 of 1994. According to the complaint, statements of the accused recorded by the Inspector and the Superintendent are voluntary statements, and admissible in evidence. In his voluntary statements recorded the accused clearly admitted the time, place and mode of recovery of the seized charas which was cleverly concealed in the Jeep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmation has not been disclosed. 2. That there is non-compliance of Sections 42 and 43 of N.D.P.S. Act. 3. That the only so called independent witness has not supported the prosecution case. It casts serious doubt in the recovery of the contraband. 4. Failure of investigation to make full report of all particulars to his immediate superior and non-compliance of procedure laid under Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, is fatal for the prosecution. 5. That no fair and proper option as required under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act was given to the accused before taking his search. According to the High Court the factual position indicated that the accused was not the real culprit. The owner of the vehicle and two other persons who ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the High Court was not justified in its conclusions. Learned counsel for the State of U.P. supported the stand of the appellant. There is no appearance on behalf of the accused in spite of service of notice. We find that the High Court has not analysed the evidence in it proper perspective and has acted on surmises and conjectures. It has also acted on irrelevant materials leaving out of consideration relevant matters. The fact that there was admission of the accused before the Customs authorities has not been dealt with by the High Court. Such admission is not hit by either Section 25 or Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short the 'Evidence Act'). The effect of such admission was a relevant factor. Additionally ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
