2021 (12) TMI 235 - HC - Indian Laws

Smuggling - narcotics medicine covered under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - 4200 tablets of Zolpidam - 6000 tablets of Alprazolam - 12000 tablets of Tramadol - admissibility of statements u/s 67 of the NDPS Act - HELD THAT - The facts stated in the charge sheet do show prima facie the petitioners were dealing with narcotics and psychotropic substances in large scale. The petitioner Bablu Bhagwan Dangre allegedly had a company under the name of Krivi Infotech which used to deal with narcotic tables and an bank account in HDFC Bank, Nagpur and all the payments were received in this account in relation to the tramadol and other narcotic tablets were being used by petitioners along with Barun Chauhan. It is alleged all the orders of Tramadol tablets were received from India or other countries through mail or on phone were forwarded by Barun Chauhan for confirmation and thereafter to Mr.Lutz at Singapore through mail - Admittedly, the incriminating material has been seized from the mobiles, laptops of petitioners categorically demonstrate trafficking/ transportation/shipping/ external dealings in Tramadol and other psychotropic substances/drugs from India to UK and Singapore etc and petitioners are involved in external trading. The simplictor statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act may not be admissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, however the disclosure leading to discovery of facts within their knowledge that they were indulging in trade of narcotics, including Tramadol tablets in conspiracy with other accused persons coupled with other incriminating material seized on record is relevant in terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act - Even otherwise, per Section 66 of the NDPS Act, it is presumed the documents and other material seized and/or produced by the person are deemed to be conclusively proved and shall be used against such person unless contrary is proved. No ground is made out to release the petitioners on bail at this stage - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Recovery of narcotics tablets and arrest of accused under NDPS Act.
2. Involvement of accused in illegal trafficking of drugs internationally.
3. Admissibility of evidence obtained from laptops and mobile phones.
4. Application of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
5. Bail application based on lack of direct evidence linking petitioners to drug trafficking.

Issue 1: Recovery of narcotics tablets and arrest of accused under NDPS Act:
The judgment details the recovery of narcotics tablets, including Zolpidam, Alprazolam, and Tramadol, from different locations linked to the accused. The accused were arrested based on the recovery and voluntary statements made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, disclosing involvement in drug trafficking activities. The prosecution argued that the accused violated Sections 24 and 27A of the NDPS Act, justifying their arrest and denial of bail under Section 37 NDPS.

Issue 2: Involvement of accused in illegal trafficking of drugs internationally:
The judgment outlines the involvement of the accused in illegal trafficking of drugs at an international level. The accused were allegedly part of a network involved in shipping narcotics from India to countries like the USA, UK, and Singapore. Evidence obtained from seized laptops and mobile phones indicated their participation in trafficking, transportation, and external dealings of drugs, leading to their arrests and prosecution under relevant NDPS sections.

Issue 3: Admissibility of evidence obtained from laptops and mobile phones:
The defense argued against the admissibility of evidence extracted from laptops and mobile phones, citing challenges under the Indian Evidence Act. The prosecution relied on incriminating material seized from electronic devices, including chat records and transaction details, to establish the accused's involvement in drug trafficking. The judgment discussed the relevance of such evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, despite limitations on the admissibility of certain statements.

Issue 4: Application of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act:
The judgment referenced legal precedents regarding the mandatory requirement of Section 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act for electronic evidence. It highlighted cases where exceptions were made based on circumstances of obtaining certificates for such evidence. The court noted that the prosecution had obtained Section 65B certificates from a Cyber Forensic Expert, ensuring the admissibility of electronic evidence in the case.

Issue 5: Bail application based on lack of direct evidence linking petitioners to drug trafficking:
The defense contended that there was no direct evidence linking the petitioners to drug trafficking activities, emphasizing the inadmissibility of certain statements and evidence under the Indian Evidence Act. Citing legal precedents, the defense argued for bail, questioning the reliance on confessions and electronic evidence without proper certification. However, the court found prima facie evidence of the petitioners' involvement in drug trafficking, leading to the dismissal of the bail applications.

The judgment analyzed the issues comprehensively, addressing the recovery of narcotics, international drug trafficking activities, admissibility of electronic evidence, application of legal provisions like Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, and considerations for bail applications based on the available evidence and legal precedents. The decision to dismiss the bail applications was based on the prima facie evidence linking the petitioners to drug trafficking, despite challenges raised regarding the admissibility of certain evidence and statements.