9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (7) TMI 312X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs with a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each for the offences punishable under Section 23 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act. And, in case of default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of fifteen days. 2. The appellants challenge the impugned judgment, essentially, on four fronts. First, that the learned trial court has erred in convicting the appellants solely on the basis of self incriminating statements of the appellant Nitesh Patel, which were not made voluntarily. Secondly, the case set up by the prosecution is not supported by evidence on record. Third, that the sample tested by the Central Revenue Laboratory is not the sample of the seized substance allegedly sent to the said laboratory. And fourth, that the case has not been properly investigated. The Prosecution's Case 3. The appellants were charged for committing an offence punishable under Section 23 read with Section 28 and 29 of the NDPS Act. By an order dated 11.10.012 passed by the learned trial court, the appellants were charged that on or before 21.03.2011, they had conspired to export illegal psychotropic substances from India to Malaysia under a fake identity and without taking a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ily agreed. 6. Mr Puneet Sharma produced the parcel in question. The same was examined. It was a cardboard box containing five executive synthetic fibre bags. The envelope attached to the parcel contained a proforma invoice dated 24.02.2011 and Airway Bill No. 466420580086. The same indicated that the parcel was booked by Ramesh Bhai, 15 Ground Floor, Gold Souk Complex, CG Road, Ahmedabad, Gujrat and was consigned to Mr S. Ganeshan, No. AGF08, Pongsapuri Lakshmana Jaya, A. Kanpung Lakshmana, Batu Caves, Selangor Darulehsan - 68100, Malaysia. 7. On close examination of the said parcel, it was found that there were cavities stitched in the inner layer of the bags and the same contained a white powdery substance. The said substance was tested and was found to be amphetamine. Since the texture and the colour of the substance in each bag were similar, they were transferred into a transparent polythene bag which was weighed and found to be 2.4 kgs. Two samples of 5 grams each were taken from the said bag and put in zip lock packets. The said samples were put in paper envelopes and were marked as A-1 and A-2. The packing material containing the card board box, along with the five synthe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, for couriering it to Malaysia. It was alleged that Nitesh Patel had collected "the said shipment" from another courier company at Ahmedabad, namely, Patel On Board Courier (POBC) and "the shipment" had arrived from Chennai. It was alleged that Nitesh Patel was given the contract to receive "the shipment" and dispatch it further to the consignee (Ganeshan in Malaysia) by Rafiq Shaikh of M.R. Express Courier Mumbai, whose address was provided as K-104, Hanjar Nagar,Opposite Aghadi Nagar, Pump House, Andheri (East), Mumbai-93. 14. It is alleged in the complaint filed by the NCB that Nitesh Patel "had received a copy of the document i.e airway bill no. from Konnection Express Courier and Cargo, Royal Villah Room No.15, 3rd floor, 27/69, Venkatesh Street, Chintadripet, Chennai." 15. The Ahmadabad Zonal Office of NCB recorded the statements of Nitesh Patel and Sagar Iyer under Section 67 of the NDPS Act on 04.04.2011. It is alleged in the complaint that Nitesh Patel was shown a copy of the Proforma Invoice dated 24.02.2011, which was seized vide Panchnama dated 21.03.2011 (that is, seized from the office of Fedex) mentioning the shipper's name as Ramesh Bhai and the name of consign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6.06.2011 and voluntarily gave his statement. NCB alleges that while recording his statement, he was shown the Proforma Invoice dated 24.02.2011 and he submitted that "the said parcel" was booked by him through Nitesh Patel and dispatched from Konnection Express Courier and Cargo, Royal Villah, Chennai. He allegedly disclosed that the said parcel was dispatched through POBC, Ahmadabad and that he had contracted with Nitesh Patel to receive the shipment and to further dispatch it to Malaysia. He allegedly stated that he would give details of the consigner and the consignee on mobile phone or SMS to Nitesh. According to NCB, Nitesh Patel received a copy of the document named "Certificate" from Konnection Express Courier and on the basis of the said certificate, collected the shipment from the Ahmedabad office of POBC. 20. NCB alleges that Rafiq had packed "the said parcel with five Indian made synthetic fiber executive bags and concealed Amphetamine". The said substance was given to him by one Salim Bhai. 21. NCB alleges that consequent on the recovery of 2.4 kgs. amphetamine on 21.03.2011 and on the basis of the voluntary statement of Rafiq recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntary statements of the appellants (accused) recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, and the statements of Sagar Iyer Subramanium (PW8) and Mushahid Ali (PW18). It is also apparent from the record that apart from recording of such statements, no investigation of any value was conducted by NCB. 27. The Trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis that the statements of the appellant Nitesh Patel are corroborated by statements of Sagar Iyer (PW8) and Mushahid Ali (PW18). The said statements establish the case of the prosecution notwithstanding that no other evidence of dispatch of the parcel from Mumbai to Chennai and Chennai to Ahmedabad is placed on record. However, a closer examination of the statements indicate that the same do not reconcile with the material on record. 28. According to NCB, secret information was received by Mehak Jain, Intelligence Officer, DZU (who deposed as PW1). She had deposed that she had received secret information that some narcotic drug is concealed in a parcel bearing Airway Bill No. 466420580086, which is lying with Fedex Express Services India Pvt. Ltd. at their office at C-152, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase-II, New Delhi110064. Base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ana. 30. It is important to note that Ms Mehak Jain (PW1) also testified that Mr Puneet Sharma (PW5) had produced the parcel bearing Airway Bill No. 466420580086 along with documents - Invoice (Ex PW1/B-1) and Airway Bill (Ex PW1/B-2). The test memo was marked as Ex.PW1/C. 31. There is a material inconsistency between the weight of the sample of the illicit substance as drawn and the weight of the sample as received by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory. PW1 (Ms Mehak Jain) deposed that she had drawn two samples of 5 grams each and packets containing the same were marked as A1 and A2. The panchnama also reflects the same. The copy of the test memo indicates that the net weight of the sample received by the Central Revenue's Control Laboratory as 5.5 grams. It is also material to note that although the test memo (Ex PW1/C) requires that the weight of each sample be stated by the seizing officer, PW1 had not mentioned the weight of the sample in the relevant column of the pre-printed test memo. The copies of the test memo produced also indicate that there is some overwriting in one of the copies. The discrepancy in the weight of the sample raises doubt as to the case set up by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 36. Thus, even though the parcel in question was booked on 24.02.2011, Fedex did not dispatch it to its destination but detained the same as it appears that the security staff had found that there was some suspicious substance in the said parcel. It is apparent that this information was provided to NCB and the security staff had also informed its concerned employees that an NCB team would come and take the said parcel. Clearly, the said parcel was not intercepted by NCB while it was on his way in the normal course, to its destination. The courier service provider (Fedex) had detained the said packet and information in this regard had been provided to NCB. Notwithstanding the same, no investigation as to the discovery and storage of the parcel in question was conducted. The security staff of Fedex who had detected the same were not examined by the officials of the NCB. Nor, any inquiries were conducted to ensure that the parcel remained untampered after it was detained. However, NCB built a case that the information received was secret and had sought to present the case as if the parcel was intercepted while on its way to its destination in the normal course. But for the independ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RAMESH 15, GR. FL. GOLDSUKH COMPLEX, C.G. ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380009, INDIA, IN" 43. Although the Airway Bill in question (Ex PW1/B2) as well as the Proforma Invoice (PW1/B1) clearly indicated the address and the telephone number of the consignor, no further inquiry was made immediately on the seizure of the parcel on 21.03.2011. However, on 24.03.2011, the Superintendent, NCB sent a letter to the Zonal Director, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit of NCB seeking verification of the name, address and antecedents of Mr Ramesh Bhai (the consignor) as reflected in the Airway Bill in question. The Ahmedabad Zonal Unit of NCB responded by a letter dated 25.03.2011 (Ex.PW6/A) stating that an officer had visited the address of the shipper on 25.03.2011 and noticed that the address was that of a courier company in the name of "Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd.". The said office was run by Mr Sagar Iyer assisted by Mr Kumar Pillai. No person by the name of Mr Ramesh Bhai was found at the address. However, a business card in the name of "Indo Express Courier and Cargo" was obtained from the said office. The said visiting card (Ex PW6/B) was of Sagar Iyer and mentioned his mobile number as 9376195587. 44. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were annexed with the letter (Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B) thereafter formed the foundation of NCB's case. It does not appear that apart from accepting the said statements as correct, NCB undertook any worthwhile investigation in the matter. No document named "certificate", on the basis of which the Nitesh Patel is alleged to have collected the parcel in question, has been produced on record. Although it appears that a slip mentioning the CD No *517664804* forming a part of the documents marked as DW1/DC, may be the document referred to in the letter dated 05.04.2011(Ex PW6/C) but NCB has done little to establish the same. 49. Examination of the voluntary statement allegedly made by Nitesh Patel on 04.04.2011 (Ex PW7/A), indicates that the first page contains two paragraphs written in Nitesh Patel's own handwriting. The second paragraph records his request that the remaining statement be written on his behalf. The remaining statement is in question and answer form. 50. A plain reading of the said statement indicates that the alleged responses of Nitesh Patel to the questions allegedly put to him were to the following effect: (i) the parcel was received by him from a courier agency - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had no idea as why the weight of the parcel dispatched and received was different. 53. Statement of Sagar Iyer Subramanium (PW7/B) was recorded on 04.04.2011 and the same was sent by the Ahmedabad Zonal Unit along with the letter dated 05.04.2011 (PW6/C). In his statement, he stated that he ran a courier agency as a franchisee of Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. He acknowledged that he had signed as the authorized signatory of Ramesh Bhai, the shipper (consignor), on the Proforma Invoice (Ex PW1/B1). He stated that whenever a local courier brings a parcel, where the name of the sender is not available, he writes the address of his office and also signs the same. He admitted that the Proforma Invoice was prepared in his office. He stated that the parcel in question, which was dispatched from his office, was given to him by Nitesh Patel at his office. He also stated that Nitesh Patel had dispatched 15 such parcels in the past where the shipper's name was reflected as Ramesh Bhai. 54. On 06.04.2011, Mr Y.R. Yadav, Superintendent, NCB (who was examined as PW20) sent a letter (PW20/E) to the Zonal Director, Mumbai Zonal Unit informing him about the seizure of 2.4 kgs of amphetamine effected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... remotely suggest that Rafiq was not available at the address or on the phone numbers as available with the NCB were not genuine. Concededly, he was also not served any summons for further inquiries at the material time (that is prior to 06.06.2011). 58. Although, the statements allegedly made by Nitesh Patel and Sagar Iyer are the foundation of the NCB's case against the accused, no effective investigation was conducted to verify the information as contained in the said statements. Nitesh Patel had disclosed in his allegedly voluntary statement recorded on 04.04.2011 (Ex PW7/A) that the parcel was booked from Chennai on 23.02.2011 through Konnection Express Courier and Cargo and he had also provided the address and the phone number of the said agency. However, there is no document available on record, which would indicate that any investigation was conducted with regard to booking or dispatch of a parcel through M/s Konnection Express Courier and Cargo. In any event, no material has been placed on record regarding any ushc investigation. 59. Mushahid Ali (PW18), in his statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act (Ex. PW1/Z8) - which is relied upon to corroborate the state ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom him. Mr Yadav (PW20) had, in his letters (Ex.PW20/E and Ex.PW20/F) sent on 6.04.2011 and 7.04.2011, requested that inquiries be conducted by NCB Mumbai in a secret manner. Thus, even if his request was complied with, inquiries if any would have been done in a secret manner. There is no material whatsoever to indicate that Rafiq was evading NCB or avoiding any inquiries. His telephone numbers and his addresses were known to NCB and also provided to the Zonal Unit in Mumbai. It is also important to note that, admittedly, no summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were sent to Rafiq prior to 06.06.2011. This Court is unable to appreciate as to why Rafiq was treated as a wanted man in connection with the seizure of 2.4 kg of amphetamine. 64. Be that as it may, Rafiq was apprehended on 06.06.2011 from the hotel Millennium Paharganj. When the NCB team reached the said hotel, he was not there. They waited till he returned and apprehended him as he approached the reception for seeking the key to his room. Rafiq as well as the room occupied by him were searched, however, no incriminating material was found. 65. PW1 has testified that at that stage - that is after Rafiq was apprehende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of M.R. Express. He further stated that he received commission of Rs.700/per kg for couriering the substances. 70. Rafiq was arrested on the same date 06.06.2011. Thus, his apprehension at the hotel Millenium, his examination under section 67 of the NDPS Act and his arrest was done in succession, He was effectively in NCB's custody after his apprehension as a wanted man. 71. PW1 in her cross-examination stated that she sent summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act to Nitesh Patel, Sagar Iyer, Mushahid Ali, Kasim Bhai and Salim Bhai. According to her, all the said summons were issued by her on 01.07.2011. It is important to note that although summons issued to Nitesh Patel, Sagar Iyer and Mushahid Ali have been placed on record (Ex.PW1/Z, Ex.PW1/Z-1 and Ex.PW1/Z-2); the summons allegedly claimed to have been issued to Kasim Ali and Salim Ali are not on record. There is no concrete evidence on record to indicate that any such summons were, in fact, issued or any efforts were made to make any inquiries from them. The summons issued to Nitesh Patel and Sagar Iyer indicate their addresses. The summons issued to Mushahid Ali does not indicate the complete address and merely menti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment is to be accepted, it would mean that he would prepare invoices in his office and sign the same in all cases where the local courier was not aware of the sender's name, address and other details. 75. On 11.07.2011, he was again asked the same question as to why he had signed as an authorized signatory of Ramesh Bhai if he did not know him. This time he responded by saying that Nitesh Patel used to come at the last moment and insist that it is necessary to send the parcel urgently. He stated that he knew Nitesh Patel and complied with his request. Nitesh Patel had told him to put his office address as that of the shipper Ramesh Bhai. Insofar as signing as an authorized signatory for Ramesh Bhai is concerned, he stated Nitesh Patel had told him that since he had put his address as the shipper, therefore, he should sign as an authorized signatory as well. And, on his asking he had done so. 76. The statement of Nitesh Patel was also recorded for the second time on 14.07.2011. It is material to note that whereas this statement is in the handwriting of Nitesh Patel; his first statement recorded on 04.04.2011 was not in his own handwriting for the ostensible reason that he was not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in July, they handed over the summons to him and asked him to go to NCB Office in Delhi, where he gave a statement in similar manner. He stated that when his first statement was recorded, he was under pressure to make the statement and was told that he would be let free if he made the statement. He stated that he went to NCB office on 14.07.2011 and reached the office at about 09:30 a.m. He met Ms Mehak Jain (PW1) and four or five other officers. He further stated that Ms Mehak Jain put questions to him regarding the consignment, to which he replied that he did not know anything about the consignment but thereafter, he was pressurized to write the statement as dictated by them. He stated that he was beaten and forced to write the dictated statement, which he wrote and signed. Thereafter, he was arrested and sent to jail. He further testified that from jail he sent a complaint through the Munshi of his jail ward and reproduced a photocopy of the same (Ex.DW1/A). He was cross-examined. He denied the suggestion that his statement was only recorded once and stated that it was done on multiple times. He also denied that he had any knowledge of the contents of the pages of his allege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cel was collected by Mushahid Ali of Nisha Couriers and Cargo at Chennai and he had thereafter dispatched the said parcel to Ahmedabad through M/s Konnection Express Cargo & Couriers and Patel On Board Couriers (POBC). The said parcel was thereafter collected by Nitesh Patel from the office of POBC and dispatched through Indo Express Courier and Cargo, run by Sagar Iyer (PW8), who in turn booked the parcel through Fedex to Malaysia on 24.02.2011. And, the said parcel was then seized on 21.03.2011 from the office of Fedex at New Delhi. PW8 had deposed that he was not a franchisee of Fedex and Ex PW1/B2 (Airway Bill) indicates that parcel originated at Freight Centre. Thus, it appears that PW8 had booked the parcel at Freight Centre. 82. It is material to note that there are no documents which would even remotely suggest that Rafiq had booked any parcel from Mumbai to Mushahid Ali in Chennai. Similarly, there are no documents to establish that any parcel dispatched by Rafiq from Mumbai was received by Mushahid Ali. According to the statement of Mushahid Ali (Ex.PW 1/Z8) - which is relied upon by the Prosecution as the statement corroborating the statement made by Nitesh Patel (Ex.PW ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ence in the interest of justice. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to any proceedings under this Act or the rules or orders made thereunder, other than a proceeding before a court, as they apply in relation to a proceeding before a court." 85. By virtue of Section 53A of the Act, a statement signed by a person before any officer empowered under Section 53 for investigation of offences, during the course of inquiry, would be relevant for the purpose of proving the truth of the fact stated in the said statement in circumstances set out in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 53A of the Act. 86. In the present circumstances, none of the said circumstances exist. Nonetheless, the facts stated by Nitesh Patel and his statements have been accepted as proved by relying on the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act. It is doubtful whether the provisions of Section 67 of the NDPS Act can be read in a manner so as to circumvent the conditions as set out in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 53A of the NDPS Act. The question whether the statement made by accused under Section 67 of the Act is admissible in evidence has been referr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion with regard to the quality and effect of the said evidence, then it is permissible to turn to the confession in order to receive assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach on the said other evidence. That, briefly stated, is the effect of the provisions contained in Section 30. The same view has been expressed by this Court in Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh where the decision of the Privy Council in Bhuboni Sahu's case has been cited with approval." 89. In Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence: (2018) 8 SCC 271, the Supreme Court held that "it would be inappropriate to base the conviction of the appellant purely on the statements of co-accused". 90. In Mohammed Fasrin v. State: (2019) 8 SCC 811, the Supreme Court after noting that the question whether confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are admissible has been referred to the larger bench of the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu(supra), observed as under: "Even if it is admissible, the Court has to be satisfied that it is a voluntary statement, free from any pressure and also that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng. Further, Nitesh Patel testified that he was called to the NCB office on two consecutive days and he was made to sit idle for several hours. He stated that the officers asked him about his family members, educational qualifications etc. and took his signatures on papers. In his cross examination, he affirmed that he did not know the contents of the other pages (the ones written by NCB officers) of the statement (Ex PW7/A). 95. In so far as second statement (Ex PW1/Z4) is concerned, Nitesh Patel testified that he was beaten and forced to write the statement. He further testified that he had retracted the said statement by a letter dated 19.07.2011 sent from the jail. There are serious doubts as to whether such a letter was sent. But even ignoring the same, it is doubtful whether the said statement was voluntary. Nitesh was in effective custody of NCB officials and was arrested and sent to jail from the NCB office. Sagar Iyer (PW8) had no reason to be present at the NCB office on 14.07.2011, as his statement had been recorded a few days earlier on 11.07.2011; nonetheless, he was present at the NCB office and has signed the statement (ExPW1/Z4). He was an interested party as the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... siness connection between Nitesh Patel and PW8. 101. PW8 had produced a photocopy of a print out of data (PW8/DA) allegedly maintained by him. This document was sought to be voluntarily placed on record by PW8 during his cross examination. No such document was produced by him or disclosed earlier. Interestingly, it indicates that PW8 had booked parcels in the month of February, 2011 to consignees in Malaysia through other courier companies (UBS and DHL) as well. He did not disclose this in any of the earlier statements. The printout contains various columns. It is discernable that the same purports to include name of the courier company (DHL/UBS/Fedex); the date of shipment; the name of the shipper; the name of the consignee, the quantity; and weight. Two columns mention numbers. Presumably one of them mentions the airway no. One of the column indicates the name NITESH AFL in every row. The print out does not indicate the heading of the column and the data point against which the same is recorded. This is also a self serving statement and not a part of the evidence led by NCB. 102. Third, the statement of Mushahid Ali (Ex.PW1/Z8) is also of little evidentiary value. It is interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (PW1/Z8) stated that he neither knew the shipper (Ramesh Bhai) nor the consignee (Ganeshan), as reflected in the said invoice. He, therefore, could notpossibly provide any information as to the parcel which was finally dispatched by Sagar Iyer (PW8) to Malaysia. 107. NCB was fully aware of that it did not have the evidence to connect the parcel allegedly sent by Mushahid Ali (if at all one was sent) and the parcel in question, namely, the parcel dispatched by Sagar Iyer (PW8). It appears that in order to connect the two, NCB sought to project a case that the documents under which the parcel in question was dispatched, namely, the Proforma Invoice (Ex. PW1/B1), the Airway Bill in question and the VISA manifest report (Ex.PW1/B2), were received by Mushahid Ali along with the parcel received by him from Mumbai and then forwarded by him to Ahmedabad. PW18 did not testify to the aforesaid effect in his examination-in-chief recorded on 15.05.2015. Therefore, the learned SPP sought permission to cross-examine Mushahid Ali (PW18) and was granted the said permission. In this cross-examination by the learned SPP, a suggestion was made to PW18 to the effect that he had been shown copies of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l'. The said parcels were against CD No.*517864804*. However, according to the testimony of Mushahid Ali, "there was only one parcel". This is inconsistent with the POBC Delivery Run Sheet, which indicates two pieces received from Chennai (MAA). Conclusion 112. To summarize the above, NCB has founded its case on statements of the accused Nitesh Patel, Sagar Iyer (PW8) and Mushahid Ali (PW18). Notwithstanding that there is little evidence to corroborate the statements, the Trial Court accepted the said case on the premise that the self-incriminating statements of the accused were corroborated by the statements of Sagar Iyer(PW8) and Mushahid Ali (PW18). As discussed above, the said premise is erroneous and therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 113. Unsubstantiated statements recorded by NCB in their offices are intrinsically weak evidence and of limited evidentiary value even though the same may be considered as admissible. It would be unsafe to convict any person solely on basis of such statements. It is equally unsafe to accept such statements as corroborative of one another, in cases where hard evidence to establish whether such statements are true or false exi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... documentary evidence was produced to establish that Nitesh Patel had paid any charges to Sagar Iyer for his services; (vi) according to the statement of Nitesh Patel (Ex PW7/A), the parcel in question was collected by his employee Ibrahim but no enquiries were made from him; (vii) Nitesh Patel had stated that he received the money from Angaria "Vishnu-Vijay" and had also provided the address of the said Angaria but no investigation/enquiries were conducted in this regard; (viii) according to Mushahid Ali, he had delivered the parcel to Kasim Bhai and subsequently (two-four day later) accepted the parcel from him for being dispatched to Ahmedabad but no inquiries were made from him; (ix) althoughPW1 stated that she had issued summons to Kasim Bhai on 01.07.2011, the same are not on record and in any view, PW1 conceded that the summons were not followed through as the address was incomplete; (x) according to the statement of Mushahid Ali - which is relied upon by NCB - the records relating to dispatch of couriers were taken by NCB Chennai but said records to establish the dispatch of the courier to Ahmadabad has not been produced. If PW1 is to be believed, the same were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
