TMI Blog1997 (3) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years plus fine of ₹ 1 lac and in default of such payment to undergo further R.I. of 1 year. (2) I have, heard the parties, (counsel for the appellant has raised only three technical pleas - (i) that by not complying with the mandatory requirements of Section 42 of NDPS Act the prosecution failed to prove that the information was reduced into writing; (ii) that Section 50 of the said Act has also not been complied with; and (iii) that there is non-compliance of Section 57 of the said Act. (3) Taking the second plea first, I find that the law laid down in the case of Belbir Singh reported as 1994 Jcc 303, stands duly clarified and explained in the judgment in the case of Nandi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea of the Customs Authorities could be described as a public place. The Luggage Hold Area is an area set apart in the departure hall after the Airlines Check-in counter and the immigration counter. When the passengers check-in their luggage to be loaded into the luggage hold of the aircraft and collect their boarding cards and they thereafter pass through the Immigration Check Counter and reach the Customs counter. There they are checked up by the Customs Authorities and the Luggage Hold Area is behind the Customs Counter which area is not open to public and the entry is restricted. In that sense that area cannot be described as a public place because the entry thereto is restricted. The luggage after check-in is brought to this area before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision. It was for the prosecution to prove that every mandatory requirement under the Act had been duly complied with by producing the best evidence available. By not placing the report on record and by getting only a bald statement made by a prosecution witness who was in a position to produce the said record, but did not produce it, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution and the benefit thereof goes to the appellant (Refer to Illustration (g) of Section 114 of Evidence Act). (6) It is not the case of the prosecution that non-observance of Sections 42 and 57 of N.D.P.S Act has not caused any prejudice to the accused. Therefore, no such benefit would be available to the prosecution with regard to withholding the ori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
