9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Conviction and sentencing under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. 2. Legality of search and seizure conducted at Embassy Hotel. 3. Admissibility of evidence related to secret information and hotel bill. 4. Allegations of planting evidence by the Investigating Agency. 5. Authority of the officer to record statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. Analysis: 1. Conviction and Sentencing: The judgment involves two criminal appeals challenging the conviction and sentencing of the accused under various sections of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The accused were found guilty of offenses under Sections 21 and 28 of the Act, leading to rigorous imprisonment and fines. Additionally, they were convicted under other sections, including Section 9(c) and Section 8(e) read with Section 30 of the Act. The Trial Judge concluded that the accused conspired to commit the offenses and were in possession of heroin, leading to their conviction and sentencing. 2. Legality of Search and Seizure: The search and seizure operation conducted at Embassy Hotel raised concerns regarding the absence of a search warrant. However, it was established that under Section 42 of the Narcotic Act, officers are empowered to search premises without a warrant under specific circumstances. In this case, the search was conducted before sunset, and the court found no infirmity in the search and seizure process, dismissing the argument against its legality. 3. Admissibility of Evidence: The defense raised objections regarding the non-production of secret information recorded by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and the hotel bill found in the accused's possession. The court ruled that the failure to produce the secret information did not prejudice the defense, and the presence of the hotel bill was deemed reasonable given the circumstances of the accused's confirmed flight departure later that night. 4. Allegations of Evidence Planting: The defense alleged that the Investigating Agency planted the heroin in the hotel room. However, the court rejected this claim, emphasizing that the accused were present in the room where the heroin was found and that the quantity and value of the substance made it implausible for the hotel management to plant it. 5. Authority to Record Statements: The authority of the officer to record statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act was challenged by the defense. The court determined that the officer was authorized to conduct the investigation and record statements, as evidenced by his position and the establishment of the Narcotic Control Bureau. Even if there were issues with the authorization, the presence of heroin in the accused's possession was deemed sufficient to uphold the conviction and sentence. In conclusion, after thorough consideration of the arguments presented by the defense, the High Court summarily dismissed both appeals, affirming the conviction and sentencing of the accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
|
