2013 (8) TMI 1130 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction u/s 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
2. Legitimacy of the search and seizure procedures.
3. Voluntariness and admissibility of the statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act.
4. Discrepancies in timings and procedural lapses.

Summary:

1. Validity of the conviction u/s 21(c) of the NDPS Act:
The Appellant was convicted for an offence punishable u/s 21(c) of the NDPS Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with an additional three months of simple imprisonment in default of payment. The Appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the secret information received was a farce and that the introduction of the word "heroine" in the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act belied the prosecution's version.

2. Legitimacy of the search and seizure procedures:
The Appellant contended that the search and seizure were conducted improperly. The prosecution claimed that the Appellant was apprehended based on secret information and taken to the DRI office for a search. However, the defense argued that the Appellant was arrested at the Tourist Lodge and the handbag was planted on him. The prosecution's version was supported by the testimony of PW1, who stated that the search was conducted at the DRI office, and the recovery of 3.955 Kgs of heroine was made from the Appellant's shoulder bag.

3. Voluntariness and admissibility of the statement u/s 67 of the NDPS Act:
The Appellant argued that his statement u/s 67 NDPS Act was not voluntary and was recorded by the seizing officer himself. The prosecution countered that the statement was voluntary, as evidenced by the Appellant's medical examination showing no injuries and the absence of any immediate retraction when produced before the Court. The Court found the retraction to be highly belated and an afterthought, thus upholding the voluntariness of the statement.

4. Discrepancies in timings and procedural lapses:
The defense highlighted discrepancies in the timings of the Appellant's arrest and the place of seizure. The prosecution clarified that the entries in the Foreign Guest Register were made after the DRI officers had left and that the recovery was from the shoulder bag, not the personal search, making the notice u/s 50 NDPS Act non-essential. The Court found the discrepancies to be minor and inconsequential, with the prosecution proving beyond reasonable doubt that the case property and samples were properly secured and intact when presented in Court and CFSL.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellant. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.