9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (12) TMI 86 - HC - CustomsSmuggling - heroin - contraband item - quantitative analysis of the sample not done even as per the report - sanction required to prosecute the accused for the offences under NDPS Act or not - HELD THAT - It is not the case of the petitioner that the samples were opened or missing. As per the test report dated 09.08.2011 of Assistant Chemical Examiner that all the seals were intact and were tallying with the facsimile seals kept in the Court letter and in the memo. It is further reported that the samples are in the form of brown coloured powder. It answers the test for the presence of Diacetyl morphine (Heroin) and is covered under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. In so far as the sanction is concerned, no sanction is required to prosecute the accused for the offences under NDPS Act. In so far as the Customs Act is concerned, the Principal Commissioner of Customs had accorded sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence under Section 135 of Customs Act. The petitioner is prosecuted for the offence under Section 135 of Customs Act and not for the offence under Section 132 of Customs Act. Further there is typographical error, instead of Section 9(c) of NDPS Act, it has been typed as Section 8(c) of NDPS Act in the complaint and it is nothing but a curable defect and it is not a ground for quashing the proceedings as against the petitioner. This Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.56 of 2016 on the file of the Special Court under E.C. N.D.P.S. Act, Chennai as against the petitioner - Petition dismissed.
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to quashing of proceedings in a criminal case under the E.C. & N.D.P.S. Act, Chennai based on the allegations of smuggling contraband substances in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 and N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Details of the Judgment: 1. Allegations and Charges: The prosecution alleged that contraband substances were concealed inside books and attempted to be smuggled out of India in violation of the Customs Act, 1962 and N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. Charges were framed under various sections of the NDPS Act and Customs Act based on the investigation and sanction accorded. 2. Contentions of the Petitioner: The petitioner, represented by counsel, argued that he was not individually served summons and was only representing the company during the enquiry. It was contended that no offence of smuggling was committed by the petitioner and the charges under Section 8(c) of the NDPS Act were not applicable. Additionally, discrepancies in the investigation process and lack of quantitative analysis of the contraband were raised. 3. Legal Precedents Cited: The petitioner cited judgments from the High Courts of Gujarat and Delhi regarding procedural irregularities in handling contraband substances and the importance of following proper procedures to avoid miscarriage of justice. However, the court noted that these judgments were not directly applicable to the current case. 4. Prosecution's Case: Further investigation revealed that the sender of the parcel was fictitious, and the petitioner, as the in-charge of courier clearance, was found liable under both the NDPS Act and Customs Act. The test reports confirmed the presence of contraband substances in the seized samples. 5. Sanction and Typographical Error: The court clarified that no specific sanction was required to prosecute under the NDPS Act, and the sanction obtained was for the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act. A typographical error in the complaint regarding the section under the NDPS Act was deemed curable and not a ground for quashing the proceedings. 6. Court's Decision: After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the court declined to quash the proceedings against the petitioner under C.C. No.56 of 2016. The Criminal Original Petition was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed accordingly.
|
