TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1742X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rsely. Therefore, the statements of official witnesses in the absence of independent corroboration can certainly be relied upon. The prosecution has successfully proved its charge against the accused conclusively and affirmatively by leading sufficient cogent, convincing, reliable, ocular and documentary evidence, therefore, there is no question of accused being involved in this ease falsely. In the instant case though Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable, since recovery was not effected from personal search of accused but even then the officers of DRI had served both the accused with notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the accused had given their option that their personal search and search of the car might be conducted in the presence of Gazetted Officer. Shri SJS Chugh, being Gazetted Officer was there and search of both the accused and that of the car was conducted in his presence. Therefore, there was no violation of Section 50 of the NDPS Act in this case. The accused-convicts can be granted certain concession in that regard, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and considering that no previous conviction is alleged or proved against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I ) laid picket at toll barrier at Hoshiarpur-Garhshankar road towards Garhshankar side. At 10:35 hours, they intercepted an Indica car of white colour which was coming from Hoshiarpur side hearing Registration No. PB-02AJ-7288. The car was being driven by Raj Kumar @ Raju accused whereas accused Surinder Pal Singh was sitting on the front seat of the car. To ensure safe search of the car and personal search of occupants, the car was taken to office of Superintendent, Central Excise Range, Model Town, Hoshiarpur. The officers of DRI served notice under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short NDPS Act ) upon Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh. As desired by the accused, their personal searches and that of the car were conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and Shri SJS Chugh, Senior Intelligence Officer. Personal searches of the accused did not result into recovery of any incriminating material. However, when their Indica car was searched and its rear boot was opened, four packets wrapped with yellowish adhesive tapes were found concealed in the door of rear boot (dickey of the car). The gross weight of those four packets came ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... production warrants were obtained from the Court and then his statement was recorded. 6. PW2 Rajesh Sarswat, who on 28-4-2008, was posted as Inspector, Customs House, Amritsar, deposed that on that day case property was deposited with him by Investigating Officer Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, DR1 and he had made an entry in the malkhunu register; copy of the inventory being Ex. PW2/A. He proved the case property as Ex. PW2/B. 7. PW3 Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Intelligence Officer, DRI, Ludhiana, Investigating Officer of this case, deposed as per prosecution story supporting it on material aspects proving various documents. Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed. 8. Statements of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. in which all the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them were put to them but they denied the allegations contending that they are innocent and have been falsely involved in this case. The accused did not lead any evidence in defence. 9 After hearing arguments, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as mentioned above which left them aggrieved and they have filed the present appeals praying that the same be acce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sence of independent corroboration can certainly be relied upon. The prosecution has successfully proved its charge against the accused conclusively and affirmatively by leading sufficient cogent, convincing, reliable, ocular and documentary evidence, therefore, there is no question of accused being involved in this ease falsely. 14. Another argument put forward by learned counsel for the appellants-accused was that the mandatory provisions of the Act were violated while arresting the accused and effecting recovery from them, rendering the recovery to be doubtful. However, learned counsel for the appellants could not pin-point any specific provisions of the Act which might have been violated/flouted by the officers of the DRI while apprehending accused Raj Kumar @ Raju and Surinder Pal Singh and effecting recovery from them as well as while arresting Surinder Kumar Khanna. 15. In the instant case though Section 50 of the NDPS Act is not applicable, since recovery was not effected from personal search of accused but even then the officers of DRI had served both the accused with notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the accused had given their option that their personal s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
