9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (5) TMI 553X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in connection with an alleged recovery said to have been made from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar). The alleged recovery from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar) is of two polythene bags of 1 k.g. each. One of the bags was said to contain 1.4% of diacetylmorphine and the other bag was said to contain paracetamol and caffeine. In any event, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not advance any argum ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e found together, they cannot be implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act as in that case there was no warrant to arrive at such a conclusion at all as there was no evidence to suggest that there was any criminal conspiracy among the two. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited this judgment to lay emphasis on the point that merely because two persons are apprehended from the same spot and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed and / or produced as a witness, the foundation of a case under Section 29 could not be laid. This court concluded as under: 8. Upon considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that apart from the secret information that the prosecution is alleged to have received there is no other evidence to link the present petitioner with the recovery of the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel for the State submitted that while it is true that no recovery was effected from the present petitioner, a recovery of 1 k.g. of a substance containing diacetylmorphine was made from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar) and that the State was prosecuting the present petitioner under Section 21 read with Section 29 of NDPS Act on account of the recovery from the co- accused. The learned Counsel for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
