1993 (9) TMI 225 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail granted to the respondent.
2. Compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act.
3. Non-production of seizure mahazar.
4. Powers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials.
5. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act regarding bail.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Cancellation of Bail Granted to the Respondent:
The petitioner, Assistant Director of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, sought the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madras. The bail was initially granted based on the argument that no narcotic substance was seized from the respondent's person, and the seizure mahazar was not produced before the court. The Principal Sessions Judge had granted bail, noting that the respondent was present during the seizure of heroin from a co-accused and had given a voluntary confession statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.

2. Compliance with Mandatory Provisions of the NDPS Act:
The court emphasized the importance of complying with the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, specifically Sections 41 to 58. Non-compliance with these provisions could vitiate the investigation and trial. The court noted that the remand report detailed the seizure of heroin and the recording of statements from the accused, indicating compliance with the Act's provisions.

3. Non-Production of Seizure Mahazar:
The Principal Sessions Judge granted bail partly because the seizure mahazar was not produced in court. However, the High Court held that there is no provision in the NDPS Act requiring the immediate submission of the seizure mahazar to the court along with the remand report. The court noted that the remand report and other documents provided sufficient details of the seizure and the investigation. The court also emphasized the importance of sending vital documents to the court without delay to avoid the risk of embellishments or false implications.

4. Powers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) Officials:
The court discussed the powers of DRI officials under the NDPS Act, noting that they are empowered to investigate, search, arrest, and prosecute cases under the Act. The court clarified that DRI officials are not considered regular police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure but are a separate agency with specific powers under the NDPS Act.

5. Applicability of Section 37 of the NDPS Act Regarding Bail:
Section 37 of the NDPS Act imposes strict conditions for granting bail, requiring the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offense while on bail. The High Court held that the Principal Sessions Judge did not consider the stringent requirements of Section 37 while granting bail. The court emphasized that bail could only be granted if there was non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act that vitiated the investigation.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the order granting bail to the respondent, emphasizing the strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and the need for compliance with mandatory provisions. The court directed the respondent to surrender immediately and authorized the petitioner to take necessary steps to secure the respondent if he failed to surrender.