9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1283X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suspicion, said packet was detained vide detention memo No.538885 dated 25.08.2013. Said packet was manifested for export by Flight NO.BA0142 dated 25.08.2013 from the Delhi to LHP and was listed at serial No.146 of Courier Shipping Bill CSB 11-15752 dated 25.08.2013. 3. It is further alleged in the complaint that two panch witnesses were called and customs preventive Inspector conducted the X-ray of the afore-mentioned box in their presence and was satisfied about the concealment in the items kept 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: 011305803 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, remaining Substance, was kept in two transparent pouches converted into cloth pulanda and sealed with Custom Seal No.02.07 with the particulars of the case. Thereafter, the cloth pulanda containing remaining substances, concealing material were kept in the same Card Board Box of the shipment and converted into a cloth pulanda and sealed with the Custom Seal No.02-07 with the particulars of the case. 9. Shipping Bill, Invoice and AWB were resumed for the purpose of further 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Mr. Jagbeer Singh Cheema franchises of DTDC Chandigarh was summoned and she had tendered her statement dated 18.09.2013 U/s 67 of-NDPS Act, wherein she disclosed that on 16.08.2013 one Surbir Singh came to her office and booked one consignment under Airway bill No.N 94740017 dated 16.08.2013 and Mr. Surbir Singh submitted his ID at the time of booking the consignment. 14. Mr.Jagbeer Singh Cheema the Franchises of DTDC, Sec-7, Chandigarh was summoned and he tendered 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 h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bill N94740017 dated 16.08.2013 bears no signatures of the consignor. The content description in the DTDC Air Way Bill refers to a single piece of 'hand-craft wooden painting' whereas the invoice attached to the incriminating to the Airway Bill refers to the contents as five pieces of 'Painting on Wooden Frame'. The accompanying bill further differs in description of billed content as 'Hand-Carved Wooden Painting'. The weight of the seized consignment is 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 subst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ealed packages containing alleged narcotic substance were recovered from the contents of the impugned parcel. However, only one package, out of the 10 recovered packages, was allegedly field tested, and a single set of representative sample taken for chemical analysis. Field Test allegedly indicated THC+ (a cannabis-constituent) in the alleged concealed narcotic content, yet a single sample set of 5 gms, instead of 25 gms was drawn. The alleged 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 be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
