9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted that 03 packets of heroine sized by the Customs Official on 11.12.2009 from LCS, Attari Rail, Amritsar belonged to him., On the basis of this statement, the petitioner was taken into custody. Thereafter, his statement under Section 67 of the Act and 108 of the Customs Act was recorded(A-7). While making this statement, the petitioner denied 03 kg of heroine which was recovered by the Customs Staff from Attari Rail, Amritsar on 11.12.2009, was to be delivered to him. Since the recovery of 01 kg of heroine had been effected, he is facing trial in F.I.R No. 6 dated 02.02.2010 with regard to the fact that in his disclosure statement, he had admitted the recovery of 03 kg of heroine in December, 2009, belonged to him. This statement was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ritu Bahri , J. In the present revision petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, quashing of order dated 01.02.2011 (P-4) passed by Judge, Special Court, Amritsar is sought whereby the application made by the accused Harprit Singh for his discharge of the offences has been dismissed. A complaint dated 29.10.2010 under Section 21/23/28/29 of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') has been filed by Commissioner of Customs, Customs Preventive Commissionerate, Amritsar through Inspector of Customs, Land Customs Station, Attari Rail, Amritsar for recovery of 3.022 kgs of Heroin. In paragraph 9 of the complaint, it has been so stated that F.I.R bearing No. 6 dated 02.02.2010 u/s 21/29/61/85 of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en made to a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a case of Arjan Singh vs. State of Punjab, passed in Crl. Appeal No. 530 of 2010 on 14.03.2012 to contend that confessional statement made by the accused that he had hidden three bags of poppy husk in a room at this residence, thereafter, he lead the police to his residence to effect the recovery of the Narcotic substance was held to be unnatural and the Court set aside the order of his conviction and sentence by giving him benefit of doubt. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has argued that the accused in his confessional statement (A-6) has made reference to recoveries one relating to 3 kg of heroin recovered on 11.12.2009 and the other admission with re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the prosecution cannot be allowed to stand. Judgments of this Court are not to be read as statute and when viewed from that angle there does not seem any conflict between the two sets of decisions. It will not make any difference on principle that latter judgments pertain to cases under the Income Tax Act. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows :- (i) Adjudication proceeding and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously; (ii)Decision in adjudication proceeding is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution; (iii)Adjudication proceeding and criminal proceeding are independent in nature to each other; (iv)The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Inspector, Customs. The petitioner was arrested in F.I.R No. 6 dated 02.02.2010 under Section 21/23/28/29 of NDPS Act upon conscious possession and recovery of 01 kg of heroine. As per his disclosure statement made before the police (A-6), he submitted that 03 packets of heroine sized by the Customs Official on 11.12.2009 from LCS, Attari Rail, Amritsar belonged to him., On the basis of this statement, the petitioner was taken into custody. Thereafter, his statement under Section 67 of the Act and 108 of the Customs Act was recorded(A-7). While making this statement, the petitioner denied 03 kg of heroine which was recovered by the Customs Staff from Attari Rail, Amritsar on 11.12.2009, was to be delivered to him. Since the recovery of 0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reme Court in a case of U.O.I vs. Bal Mukand and others, wherein the procedure prescribed under the standing instructions were not adopted and the conviction was set aside. It was held that the statement made in the police custody, cannot be treated, made under Section 67 of the Act. In the present case, the petitioner had made a disclosure statement (A-6) before Bawa Singh Sub Inspector. This statement cannot be used against him, as made under Section 67 of the Act so as to charge him with the offence of recovery of 03 packets of heroin recovered/seized by the custom official on 11.12.2010. The statement made (A-6) by the petitioner is not admissible in evidence, as per Section 26 of the Evidence Act. Moreover, penalty proceedings had be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
