9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (2) TMI 579X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udge, Greater Bombay by his judgment and order dated 25/28th June, 1993 in Special Case No. 255/89. Brief facts are the following. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the appellant was tried by the Special Judge along with other accused and also along with a connected case.On 5.3.89 officials of Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay (NCB for short) raided the houses of the co-accused. One of the co- accused by name, Raj Babu Pardan, pointed out the residence of the appellant situated at second floor. S.M. Mansion, 299 Bellasis Road, Bombay, thereby suggesting to conduct a raid in that promises as well Accordingly that house of the appellant was searched on 6.3.89 and some incriminating documents along with cash amount of ₹ 45,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. ]985. In the course of the search and seizure of the said premises along with the contraband tablets. an agreement dated 8.3.1989 supposed to have been signed by the appellant in favour of the promotor/builder was also seized by the officials. On the basis of the abovesaid materials, the prosecution presented the case before the Special Judge Greater Bombay. As noticed earlier, the case against the appellant was heard and tried along with another connected case and also along with some other co-accused. The learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay while acquitting the co- accused and also the appellant. in the connected case which related to the raid of the premi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in building no.8A1, Quba Co- operative Housing Societies Millat Nagar, Andheri, Bombay from which the contraband tablets were seized as belonging to the appellant. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, except the information received by the officials (Exhbt. No.34) panchnama (Exhbt, No. 33) report and the alleged agreement containing the alleged signature of the appellants no other acceptable evidence was let in by the prosecution to prove that the appellant was the owner and in actual possession of the said building, He also submitted that the reliance. placed by the prosecution on the statements of the appellant obtained under Section 108 of the Customs Act and 67 of the NDPS Act will be of no avail as the appellant has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... custody of the appellant or it has been furnished by him. In order to invoke the aid of Section 66, the prosecution should have established that the appellant is the owner and was in actual possession of the flat in question. Therefore, we are not able to accept the argument of the learned Additional Solicitor General. It is not in dispute that the appellant did not admit his signature in the agreement in question. The prosecution did not bother to produce any independent evidence to establish that the appellant was the owner of the flat in question by producing documents from concerned Registrar's office or by examining the neighbors. No statement has been made by the prosecution that inspite of the efforts taken by them, they could no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
