9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Revision petition challenging order framing charges u/s 21(c) read with Section 29 NDPS Act and order holding prima facie material to proceed against petitioner and co-accused.
Details of the Judgment: 1. The Respondent DRI received secret information about a drug delivery on 9th September 2007. The Tata Indica car, driven by the petitioner, was parked at the designated spot. The Opel Corsa car arrived, and the co-accused transferred bags to the Tata Indica car. DRI officers intercepted both vehicles and found 14.871 kg heroin in the bags. 2. Statements of the petitioner and co-accused were recorded during the investigation. The DRI alleged that the petitioner was part of a conspiracy to possess and transport the narcotic drug. 3. The petitioner was granted bail by the Court, which opined that he was not aware of the drug transfer in the car. 4. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that there was no prima facie case against him. He retracted his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, claiming it was not voluntary. The co-accused's statement did not implicate the petitioner. 5. The DRI contended that there was sufficient material to charge the petitioner based on his statement under Section 67 NDPS Act, leaving the determination of voluntariness for trial. 6. The Court analyzed the facts and found that the petitioner was not in possession or conscious possession of the drug. The charges under Section 21 or Section 29 NDPS Act were not applicable to him. 7. The statement under Section 67 NDPS Act, though retracted, indicated the petitioner's knowledge of the drug delivery. However, there was no independent witness or co-accused statement supporting this claim. 8. The Court held that the DRI failed to prove the voluntariness of the petitioner's statement. The reliance on a previous judgment was deemed misplaced, and the petitioner was discharged from the case. 9. The impugned order on charges against the petitioner was set aside, and he was discharged from the case, while the trial continued for the other co-accused. 10. The petition was allowed, and the order was to be sent to the trial court promptly. End of Judgment
|
