9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Compliance with mandatory provisions under Sections 50, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act. 2. Admissibility of the voluntary confession statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions under Sections 50, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act: The appellant contended that the trial court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions under Sections 50, 52A, 55, and 57 of the NDPS Act, which should vitiate the trial. Section 50 mandates that searches must be conducted in the presence of a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate if the accused so requests. The appellant argued that there was only partial compliance with Section 50 and no compliance with Sections 52A, 55, and 57. The court analyzed whether Section 50 was applicable, noting that it applies when an officer searches a person under Sections 41, 42, or 43 of the NDPS Act. The court concluded that since the search was conducted on suspicion during a routine check and not based on prior information, Section 50 was not applicable. This position was supported by the Supreme Court ruling in State Of Punjab v. Balbir Singh, which clarified that Section 50 is not applicable in chance recoveries without prior information. Regarding Sections 52A, 55, and 57, the court noted that the Central Government had issued a standing order detailing the procedure for the disposal of seized narcotic drugs, which was complied with. The court also held that Sections 55 and 57 are not mandatory, and non-compliance would not affect the prosecution's case unless prejudice was shown. Consequently, the appellant's contentions regarding non-compliance were rejected. 2. Admissibility of the Voluntary Confession Statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act: The appellant challenged the admissibility of the voluntary confession statement (Ex. P3) recorded by the Customs Officer (P.W.6), arguing that it did not meet the mandatory requirements of Section 164(2) Cr.P.C., which requires a statutory warning that the accused is not bound to make a confession and that it may be used against him. The court distinguished between Section 67 of the NDPS Act and Section 15 of the TADA Act, noting that Section 67 pertains to obtaining information for satisfying whether there has been a contravention of the Act, whereas Section 15 of TADA involves recording confessions with a statutory warning. The court held that Section 67 does not require a statutory warning and that the Customs Officer's recording of the statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act was admissible. The court also referenced various judgments, including Divakaran v. State of Kerala and Pran Nath v. Union of India, which supported the admissibility of statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act without the need for compliance with Section 164 Cr.P.C. The court found that the appellant's statement was not retracted until the trial, indicating its voluntariness and truthfulness. Conclusion: The court upheld the conviction under Section 8(c) read with Section 23 of the NDPS Act and Section 135(a) of the Customs Act, finding no merit in the appeal. However, the sentence was modified to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, with a default sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment.
|
