9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (3) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inafter. The two accused are convicted for the offences under Sections 21 and 28 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. one lakh each, in default further rigorous imprisonment for the period of one year each. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are also convicted of the offence under Section 9(c) read with Section 21 of the Act, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of ten years each with fine of Rs. one lakh each. The Trial Judge also recorded conviction for offence under Section 8(e) read with Section 30 of the Act as well as under Section 135(A) of the Customs Act and under Section 30 of the Narcotic Drugs Act but separate sentenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be heroin. The two bags contained heroin weighing 1 kg. each. The raiding party also recovered two air tickets in the name of the accused on the flight which was leaving after midnight on August 3,1987. A hotel bill and a visiting card and boarding card were also found. On the visiting card found with each of the accused, there were several telephone numbers. After completion of search and seizure of various articles found in the room, the accused were taken in custody. Mr. Pradhan (P.W. 2) who was attached to D.R.I. as Sr. Intelligence Officer, thereafter took over the investigation in accordance with the direction of the Director and recorded statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Each of the accused in the statement admitted that they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Both accused Nos. I and 2 claimed that they were students and had nothing to do with heroin found in the room. The learned Trial Judge after careful perusal of the evidence and by exhaustive judgment came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved that accused Nos. 1 and 2 entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit offence under Sections 21 and 28 read with Section 29 of the Narcotic Act and the accused having custody of white powder containing morphine wanted to fly with it, on August 3,1987. The learned Trial Judge also held that though there is no conclusive evidence about accused No. 3 selling heroin to accused Nos. 1 and 2, accused No. 3 is also liable for conviction as heroin was found in his possession. The trial Judge on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is a reasonable ground that a search warrant cannot be obtained without affording opportunity for the concealment of evidence. In the present case Pardeshi had carried the search at 6 p.m. i.e. before sunset and we do not find any infirmity in the search and seizure. The first submission of the learned counsel is, therefore, rejected. 5. Miss Gupta then submitted that the secret information recorded by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence about the narcotics being concealed in Embassy Hotel was not produced at the trial and failure to do so should be construed adversely against the prosecution. We are not impressed by the submission. It is true that in DRI Form I the gist of information received is written down as per the normal p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The submission is required to be stated to be rejected. At the time of the search the two accused were found in the room and a large cardboard box containing heroin was lying in one corner of the room. The cardboard box was not hidden and it is impossible to believe that the accused would not , have noticed it. The management has also a key of the room with it and a submission was advanced to urge that the management could have planted heroin in the room. The submission is devoid of any merit. The heroin found is of a quantity of 2 kgs. and the value is very high and it is impossible that the heroin would be planted by the management, in flaps of a cardboard box to involve the customers of the hotel. It was also contended by the learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d record statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2. It was contended that Mr. Pradhan was not empowered to record statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. A statement can be recorded says the learned counsel, only by a person who is competent and who had been given sanction by the High Court under Oath Act. The submission is devoid of any merit. In the first instance a person recording statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act do not require sanction of the High Court. Secondly Mr. Pradhan deposes that he is a Gazetted Officer. Mr. Pradhan further deposes that the Ministry of Finance has created a cell known as Narcotic Control Bureau and in the year 1987 the cell commenced work in Bombay. The Director of DRI and the Cell were wor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
