2016 (4) TMI 53 - HC - Customs

Seeking modification in acquittal order - Smuggling of narcotic drugs and receiving about 30kg of heroin, hence truck seized - Held that - Some serious doubts crept in the prosecution case that (i) whether the contraband was recovered from the truck or from Van, (ii) whether the respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 were actually found present with the contraband in the Van or the contraband was found lying abandoned in the truck having cavity for concealing the articles and the Van driven by respondent No.1 was intercepted separately and (iii) the version of the appellant that the contraband was seized while the delivery was being made by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 or whether it was seized from respondent No.1 and other accused persons were roped in later on. In view of the settled proposition of law that during the trial proceedings if there are two views possible, the view favouring the prosecution is to be adopted, however, the position is reverse at the final disposal upon conclusion of trial that the view favouring accused charged with any offence has to be granted the benefit of doubt while returning the finding of acquittal in favour of guilty. As the appellant has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt even during trial or in appeal as well, whereas in the present case, there are doubts after doubts.Therefore, the acquittal order passed is correct. - Appeal dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the narcotic drugs recovery from the accused.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act.
3. Credibility of the prosecution's evidence and witnesses.
4. Doubts regarding the actual possession and location of the contraband.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Narcotic Drugs Recovery from the Accused:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) received secret information about the smuggling of narcotic drugs involving respondent No.1. A raiding party intercepted a Maruti Van at Azadpur Subzi Mandi, Delhi, driven by respondent No.1 with respondent No.2 and another person as occupants. Upon search at the DRI office, 29.105 KG of opium was recovered from a sack in the van. Statements of the occupants were recorded, revealing that respondent No.2 used a truck to transport the contraband from Punjab to Delhi, which was subsequently seized.

2. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under the NDPS Act:
The prosecution argued that Sections 50 and 67 of the NDPS Act were duly complied with, and the procedure adopted was just and proper. However, the trial court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's timeline and actions. The search of the shop and seizure of the truck purportedly occurred while the respondents were still at the DRI office, raising doubts about the adherence to procedural requirements.

3. Credibility of the Prosecution's Evidence and Witnesses:
The prosecution presented 16 witnesses, including the informant and officials involved in the raid and seizure. Despite their testimonies, the trial court noted significant discrepancies. For instance, the truck was allegedly seized before the respondents made any disclosure about it, and the shop was searched while the respondents were still at the DRI office. These inconsistencies undermined the credibility of the prosecution's evidence.

4. Doubts Regarding the Actual Possession and Location of the Contraband:
The trial court observed that the evidence presented created serious doubts about whether the contraband was recovered from the truck or the van. The simultaneous seizure of the truck and the van's interception raised questions about the actual location and possession of the contraband. The court noted that the prosecution might have mixed up the facts to implicate all respondents, leading to uncertainty about the true source of the narcotics.

Conclusion:
The trial court acquitted the respondents, granting them the benefit of the doubt due to the prosecution's failure to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court upheld the trial court's judgment, emphasizing that the view favoring the accused should be adopted when there are doubts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' bonds were discharged.

Additional Orders:
- The proceedings against respondent No.1 were abated due to his death.
- Copies of the order were directed to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendents for compliance.
- The trial court record was ordered to be remitted, and related applications were disposed of.

← Previous Next →