9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ams. The parcel that is booked is not booked in the name of the petitioner but in the name of one Rakesh Kumar. Even the ID proof, which was submitted, was not of the petitioner but of Rakesh Kumar. Rakesh Kumar is alleged to be an employee of DHL, the courier agency. The article was recovered in the possession of the courier agency. The discrepancy that is being further pointed out is that the article was booked on 17.08.2013 and was allegedly dispatched from the Chandigarh branch on 17.08.2013 and reaches Delhi on 24.08.2013. For the period between 17.08.2013 and 23.08.2013, the article admittedly remained in the possession of DHL but there is no tracking report or status with regard to said period of seven days. Further, the statement under section 67 of NDPS Act, of the petitioner, relied on by the respondents, is not as incriminating as is sought to be projected. It only records that whatever mistake he and his owner have committed, he apologises for the same and in future, he shall not book any parcel in which there are drugs. Further as per the petitioners the statement was not voluntary and has been retracted immediately. Thus, there are reasonable grounds for beli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept in the box. Photograph of the screen displaying the X-Ray image of the box showing concealment in the items kept in it was taken with the digital camera available with the staff of DHL in their X-Ray room and the print out of the same was taken and signed by the Panchas. Shipment along with detention memo No.538885 was taken to preventive room from DHL warehouse for detail examination. 4. It is further alleged that One AWB Jacket was affixed with the said shipment, which was found to contain AWB No.3272012763 and invoice. Said AWB was having details as follows:- From Mr. Rakesh Kumar, RECP, H.No.81/3270, Near Janta SR Secondary School, Rajpura, Patiala-110028, INDIA. Tel: 01130580324, to S.Pserli, RECP Strandweg. 41. Sutz 2572, Switzerland, Tel.41793824743 Contents: Painting on wooden frame, weight 8.5 kgs.. Customs Value: 6026.00 INR Vol. Wt. 8.5, Imp/Exp. Type: Permanent, shipper account : 530666495, Insurance Value: ₹ 00.00 date : 24.8.2013, Shipment No.3272012763 Sender's Reference: N94740017, AWB No.32720l2763. 5. The invoice recovered from the Jacket was having following details:- From Mr. Rakesh Kumar, RECP, H.No.81/3270, Near Janta SR Seconda ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enquiries. Since the recovered substance was a narcotic substance, it was seized vide Panchnama Dated 29.08.2013. Test Memo in triplicate was also prepared during the Panchnama proceedings. Seized goods and samples were handed over to Sh. Ajay Hooda, Custodian of DHL for safe custody vide Superdarinama dated 29.04.2013. 10. It is alleged that the documents recovered from the consignment, revealed that the consigner of the shipment was Rakesh Kumar, therefore, summon U/s 67 of NDPS Act were issued to him. In compliance, of the summon Rakesh Kumar appeared before the complainant officer and tendered his voluntary statement U/s. 67 of NDPS Act dated 11.09.2013, wherein he is alleged to have disclosed that he was working as courier business and the franchisee of DTDC Courier Company. He further disclosed that the consignment booked with the DHL AWB No.3272012763 was not booked by him. He further disclosed that he himself enquired in this regard from Naresh, Stationary In-Charge of DTDC Courier Company and Mr. Naresh Kumar stated that the aforesaid consignment was originally booked by the franchises of DTDC Mr. Cheema SCO-38, sec-7 Chandigarh under the DTDC airway bill reference No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered his statement U/s 67 of NDPS Act wherein he allegedly disclosed that consignment booked under DTDC Airway bill No.N94740017 dated 16.08.2013 was booked by Mr; Surbir Singh with his ID proof through his company. 15. It is in these circumstances it was alleged in the complaint that consignment in question was originally booked by Mr. Surbir Singh-the petitioner with his ID from Chandigarh. He in his statements dated 18.09.2013 and 19.09.2013 U/s 67 of NDPS Act, is alleged to have disclosed that he was the consigner of the consignment booked under DTDC Airway bill No. N 94740017 dated 16.08.2013 and that said consignment was booked by him under the instruction of his employer Harmeet Singh. He is further alleged to have disclosed that he and his employer, Mr. Harmeet Singh were aware about the contents of the consignment. Petitioner is also alleged to have disclosed that besides him, Mr. Methew the friend of his employer is also involved in drug trafficking. Petitioner, is also alleged to have disclosed that he was involved in the booking of parcels containing drugs and he was doing this to earn more money. 16. That in view of the statement of the petitioner, his employer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded as 8.5kg in the DHL Express Airway Bill, whereas it is shown as 8kg 200gm in the parent DTDC Air Way Bill. The seized courier parcel has been clearly and extensively re-packaged in DHL packing material indicating that the package had been opened and contents tampered / substituted as the original DTDC packing had been removed / replaced by DHL material. 21. It is contended that only three representative samples of 5 grams each were taken from the ten packets allegedly recovered as concealed narcotic content from the impugned courier which indicates that there was just one packet and not ten as claimed by the prosecution, and that the drawing of 5 gram sample weight indicated that it was not a cannabis-based narcotic substance for which the mandated sample quantity is 23 grams per sample, laid down vide Section 1.6 and 1.7 of Narcotics Control Bureau Standing Order 1/88. 22. It is submitted that the physical properties and weight of the representative sample received by the Chemical Examiner, CRCL, New Delhi differ substantially from those recorded in the accompanying Test Memo. Whereas the Complaint, Panchnama and Test Memo refer to the alleged narcotic substance as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eged narcotic substance was not of commercial quantity, as 9 of the 10 recovered packages were neither tested nor sampled. 28. It is contended that the Petitioner has been in custody since 20.09.2013. 29. Per contra, Mr. Aggarwal, Special Public Prosecutor has further relied on the alleged confessional statement of the petitioner wherein he is alleged to have stated that whatever mistake he and his owner have committed, he apologises for the same and in future he shall not book any parcel in which there are drugs. As far as the discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in drawing of sample, custody, conveyance and forensic examination of the alleged narcotic substance, is concerned, learned Public Prosecutor has not been able to counter the same except to deny the allegations. 30. Section 37 of the NDPS Act reads as under:- 37. Offences to be cognizable and non-bailable. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) (a) every offence punishable under this Act shall be cognizable; (b) no person accused of an offence punishable for offences under section 19 or section 24 or section 27A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 17.08.2013 and was allegedly dispatched from the Chandigarh branch on 17.08.2013 and reaches Delhi on 24.08.2013. For the period between 17.08.2013 and 23.08.2013, the article admittedly remained in the possession of DHL but there is no tracking report or status with regard to said period of seven days. 34. Further, it is pointed out that there is variance even in the weight of the article, which is booked by the petitioner, and the one, which is seized. The article weight booked by the petitioner was 8.200 Kgs and the weight of the article seized was 8.5 kgs. Even the description of the goods hand-craft wooden painting is changed to painting on wooden frame . Further, with the seized article there was an invoice attached which was in the name of Rakesh Kumar; which was different from the invoice that was annexed to the consignment. 35. Further, the statement under section 67 of NDPS Act, of the petitioner, relied on by the respondents, is not as incriminating as is sought to be projected. It only records that whatever mistake he and his owner have committed, he apologises for the same and in future, he shall not book any parcel in which there are drugs. Further as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
