2003 (2) TMI 551 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Non-compliance with Sections 42(2), 55, and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
2. Trustworthiness of prosecution evidence regarding sealing and seizure of material and safe custody of samples.
3. Validity of statements recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
4. Reliability of the Search and Seizure panchnama.
5. Quality of investigation by the D.R.I. officers.
6. Conscious possession or knowledge of the accused regarding the psychotropic substance.
7. Consistency between the charge against the appellants and the findings.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Non-compliance with Sections 42(2), 55, and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act:
- Section 42(2) Compliance: The court found that the information received on 8-5-1994 was duly recorded and forwarded to the superior officer, Mr. V.P.C. Rao. Despite minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the officers, the contemporaneous record (Exh. 72) supported the prosecution's claim of compliance with Section 42(2).
- Section 55 Compliance: The court held that Section 55, which mandates police custody of seized articles, was not applicable as the D.R.I. officers retained custody. The evidence showed that the samples were sealed and forwarded to the F.S.L. without tampering, satisfying the requirement of safe custody.
- Section 57 Compliance: Although there was partial compliance with Section 57, the court deemed it substantial as a seizure report was made within the stipulated time. The absence of a report on arrests did not prejudice the accused, and the requirement was considered directory, not mandatory.

2. Trustworthiness of Prosecution Evidence:
- Sealing and Seizure: The court inspected the sealed envelopes and found no possibility of tampering. The samples were properly sealed, and the F.S.L. report confirmed they were received intact. The evidence of safe custody from seizure to F.S.L. was found reliable.

3. Validity of Statements under Section 67:
- Voluntariness and Duress: The court rejected the defense's claim of duress and prolonged detention, noting the lack of supporting evidence. The statements were considered voluntary and not obtained under threat or coercion.
- Legal Obligation to Provide Correct Information: The court interpreted Section 67, along with Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, to imply a duty to provide correct information. The statements were not vitiated by any alleged threat of legal action.

4. Reliability of the Search and Seizure Panchnama:
- Continuous Panchnama: The court found the panchnama to be a continuous document, with signatures obtained at relevant stages. The presence of panch witnesses during the sampling process was confirmed, and the panchnama was deemed reliable.

5. Quality of Investigation:
- Investigation Adequacy: The court acknowledged lapses in probing the source of the contraband and prosecuting all involved, but found the evidence against the accused sufficient. The investigation's quality did not prejudice the accused, and the collected evidence was deemed reliable.

6. Conscious Possession or Knowledge:
- Conscious Knowledge: The court found that the accused had conscious knowledge of transporting contraband. Their behavior and statements indicated awareness of the illegal nature of the cargo, and the contention of lack of knowledge was rejected.

7. Consistency between Charge and Findings:
- Conspiracy Charge: The court held that the absence of evidence connecting Haji Ismail of Dubai did not exonerate the accused. The evidence established their involvement in the conspiracy, and the charge was consistent with the findings.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court were upheld. The court found no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants and confirmed the judgment and order of the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad.