9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (12) TMI 35 - HC - CustomsAcquittal of accused by the trial court - illegal export - manner and procedure of drawing samples - held that - A criminal trial is a quest for truth. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and not by way of perfect proof free from all blemishes. Thus, I find the judgment of the learned Trial Court acquitting the Respondent as illegal and perverse. The same is set aside. The Respondent is convicted for offences under Sections 21(c), 23(c) and 28 of the NDPS Act.
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act. 2. Discrepancies in link evidence and sample marking. 3. Discrepancies in the weight of samples sent to CRCL. 4. Examination of panch witnesses and doctors. 5. Custody and handling of samples and case property. 6. Retraction of the Respondent's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act: - The court found that the Respondent was duly informed about his legal right to be searched before a Gazette Officer or a Magistrate, which he declined. Notices under Section 102 of the Customs Act and Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served on the Respondent, and the compliance was affirmed by the testimony of PW1 and the exhibits presented. 2. Discrepancies in link evidence and sample marking: - The primary reasons for acquittal by the learned Special Judge were the discrepancies in sample marking in the forwarding letters. However, the court found that the mentioning of sample A instead of A1 and B1 was an inadvertent typing mistake. The testimony of PW1 and PW10 corroborated that the samples marked A1 and B1 were sent to CRCL, and the error in the forwarding letter did not go to the root of the matter. 3. Discrepancies in the weight of samples sent to CRCL: - The discrepancy in the weight of samples was explained by PW10, who clarified that the difference in weight was due to the inclusion of the wrapper's weight. The court found that the explanation provided by PW10 was satisfactory and that there was no actual discrepancy in the sample weights. 4. Examination of panch witnesses and doctors: - The court noted that the absence of panch witnesses and doctors at the trial was due to their unavailability at the given addresses. However, their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were proved and corroborated the prosecution's case. 5. Custody and handling of samples and case property: - The court found that the samples and case property were kept in safe custody by PW1 and that there was no evidence of tampering. The sequence of events explained by PW1 was found satisfactory, and the delay in depositing the samples was justified by the circumstances of the case. 6. Retraction of the Respondent's statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act: - The Respondent's retraction of his statement on the grounds of duress was not supported by medical evidence. The court found that the Respondent was taken to the hospital immediately after apprehension, and no injuries were recorded. The statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was found to be voluntary and admissible. Conclusion: - The court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment of the learned Trial Court acquitting the Respondent was found to be illegal and perverse. The Respondent was convicted for offences under Sections 21(c), 23(c), and 28 of the NDPS Act.
|
