9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tropic Substances Act, 1985 ( N.D.P.S. Act for short). As the Sessions Cases arose out of the same incident and transaction, they were tried together. Likewise, as these appeals arise out of the same judgment and order, they are tagged and heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 1.1 Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1998 is preferred by Shantilal Haridas Patel @ Katori, who was accused No. 1 before the trial Court. 1.2 Criminal Appeal No. 692 of 1998 is preferred by Haji Suleman Khafi, Dinesh Alabhai Dhruv @ Diniyo, Jusab Razak Ali Sidi @ Dado, Khemraj Amrabhai Gadhvi and Gafar Suleman Khafi, who were original accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, respectively. 1.3 Criminal Appeal No. 634 of 1998 is preferred by Sidu Husen Sida and Chhagan Haribhai Kuchhadia @ Langdo, who were accused Nos. 6 and 8, respectively. 1.4 Criminal Appeal No. 624 of 1998 is preferred by Chandrakant Ishwarlal Acharya, who was accused No. 7 before the trial Court. 1.5 Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 1998 is preferred by Surendra Kathadbhai Jebalia, who was accused No. 9 before the trial Court. 2. The appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 1998 is represented by learned Advocate, Mr. Y. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the officers of D.R.I., Ahmedabad, was reduced into writing and was forwarded to the Assistant Director, D.R.I., Zonal Unit, Ahmedabad. Following this intelligence, action was initiated by the D.R.I. officers directing officers from Ahmedabad and Jamnagar to reach Junagadh and follow further directions. Accordingly, officers organized a watch as per directions given from time to time. Considering the intelligence, a watch was also kept at the Bridge on Narmada river, near Jhadheshwar/Bharuch to ensure that the consignment does not escape as the location in Junagadh district was not exactly known and the route was also not known. One of the trucks was identified and after some time, the second truck was also identified near Junagadh, and ultimately, both the trucks came to be intercepted on 11-5-1994 in early morning hours around 6-30, near Navagadh Bridge. Accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were found in the truck. The trucks were apparently carrying wheat, which was covered with a tarpaulin. On inquiries being made by the officers of D.R.I., they were informed that the trucks carried consignment of wheat, and for that purpose, requisite documents were also shown. However, because of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the 44 barrels was thus opened and all of them were found to carry Mandrax tablets. Samples were taken out and sealed in different packets, in a way that they maintain their individual identity with respective barrels. Samples were sealed. The remainder of the contraband was also properly sealed and weighed. II is recorded in the panchnama that the sealing was done in a manner which would leave no scope for any tampering without damaging the wax seal. The weight of the Mandrax tablets seized from one truck was 2597.300 kgs. and from the other, it was 2628.000 kgs. Thus, total weight was 5225.300 kgs. The panchnama containing all details was then concluded. The seized samples of Mandrax tablets were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.) and the F.S.L., after analysis, gave a clear opinion that the tablets were methaqualone tablets (Mandrax), a psychotropic substance. The officers of D.R.I., while inquiring into the matter, recorded statements of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, and thereafter, all the other accused persons under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was revealed that the barrels containing tablets were brought from some place near Bulsar Industrial Estate and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akhs each, in default, to undergo R.I. for three years. 4.5 It is against the said judgment and order that these appeals are preferred. 5. We have been taken through the record and proceedings of the trial Court and the learned Advocates for the appellants have canvassed various points to support the appeals. They have also relied on various decisions of the Apex Court as well as High Courts to derive support for the contentions raised. 6. The judgment and order of the trial Court is assailed mainly on following grounds :- A. There is non-compliance of mandatory requirements of Sections 42(2), 55 and 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act. B. The prosecution evidence regarding sealing and seizure of the material and safe custody of the samples is not trustworthy. C. Evidence in form of statements of accused persons recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act suffers from the defect of having been obtained under duress and compulsion. They cannot make the sole basis of conviction. The provisions contained in Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act is only an empowering provision so far as the officers are concerned. The statements could not have been considered by trial Court in light of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , but where had he kept it, whether it was kept in lock and key and whether it was properly sealed or not is not stated. It is contended that the evidence has come to the effect that the store room was not used, and therefore, the mandatory requirement of Section 55 is not complied with. 7.2 Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act requires that, on seizure and arrest, superior officer is required to be informed within 48 hours. It was contended that this requirement has been held to be mandatory by the Apex Court. There is no evidence to indicate its compliance. An attempt was made to show compliance of Section 57 by producing a communication at Mark 58/44, but the trial Court has not permitted that document to be taken on record as it was not coming from proper custody. It was contended that, even if it is exhibited, it does not comply with the requirements of Section 57 of the N.D.P.S. Act, as it speaks of only the seizure. There is total non-compliance so far as reporting of arrest is concerned. The accused persons have been arrested on various dates and no report in respect of their arrest has been sent to the immediate official superior, and therefore, there is non-compliance of Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, it is specifically written that the accused persons were given to understand that they are bound to give correct information to the interrogating officer, and if they give incorrect information, they can be prosecuted under the Indian Penal Code. It was contended that this itself is a threat because, unlike Section 108 of the Customs Act, Section 67 does not contain any provision which requires a person to give correct statement or which indicates that the inquiry assumes the character of a judicial inquiry. 7.5 It was further contended that the panchnama under which the material was seized cannot be relied upon because although the panchnama was started at the place where the trucks were intercepted on the highway and after finishing the work at that place, trucks were taken to Jamnagar office of D.R.I. No signature of the panch witness is taken, at that stage. It is also contended that the evidence of the panch witness indicates that he was in the D.R.I. office while the drums were opened and samples were drawn in the compound of the D.R.I. office at Jamnagar. Differently put, the sampling process was conducted in the compound of the D.R.I. office whereas the panch witne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the D.R.I. Countering the contentions raised by the appellants, it was submitted that, so far as compliance of Section 42(2) is concerned, Exh. 72, if read, would clearly show that the intelligence gathered was gathered and developed by the D.R.I. Zonal unit and it was immediately made over to the Assistant Director by Mr. Bakarawala and Mr. Wellington on 8-4-1994 itself. It was received by the superior, as can be seen from the endorsement made by him under his signature, on the very same day. It was submitted that, not only that, but action was taken upon the information, and therefore, merely because there is some lapse or mistake on the part of the officers in giving exact details in cross-examination, it cannot be said that there was non-compliance of Section 42(2) of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was submitted that contemporaneous record cannot be falsified or made doubtful by some such mistake that may have crept in because of lapse of time or the concerned officer not understanding the questions in its perspective. 8.1 It was submitted that so far as Section 55 is concerned, it cannot be said that it is required to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... number of packets, Mr. Pandya submitted that the samples were in all 46, but the 22 packets from the barrels seized from each of the trucks were put in one cover. That made two envelopes and the two oil samples together made four envelopes. If the F.S.L. report is seen, it clearly indicates existence of 46 samples. It was submitted that the F.S.L. report does not speak of any tampering. If there was any tampering, it would have been indicated by the F.S.L. and it was, therefore, submitted that the sealing and sampling was properly done and properly appreciated by the trial Court. 8.4 As regards Section 67, it was submitted that only accused Nos. 1, 7 and 8 made a complaint to the Magistrate that their signatures had been obtained by giving ill-treatment or by exercising coercion, threat and pressure. The rest of the accused have not retracted their statements till their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded at the trial. No evidence is led by the accused to show any ill-treatment by the officers of D.R.I. while recording statements under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It was submitted that onus is on person retracting his statement to pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpanied by corresponding duty and when an officer is empowered to call for certain information, the person from whom the information is called for is in duty bound to give correct information. Mr. Pandya placed reliance on Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code to derive support for this contention of his. 8.5 It was contended that the seizure panchnama was a running panchnama and there was no question of obtaining signature of the Panch witnesses at the place of interception because the Panch witnesses went together with the truck to the office of the D.R.I., at Jamnagar and, they had remained present all throughout the drawing of the samples, etc. He submitted that the interpretation sought to be given to the evidence is too technical. When a man says that he was in the office, it would include the precincts of the office as well. Therefore, when the Panch says that the samples were drawn in the compound and that he was in the office, he means that he was very much present at the place where the samples were drawn, and therefore, the panchnama and the drawing of samples may not be doubted. 8.6 Regarding the quality of investigation, it was submitted that the D.R.I. officers a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.S. Act, there is evidence of witnesses, who intercepted the trucks and found the contraband concealed beneath wheat bags in barrels specially designed and fabricated to camouflage as if the barrels contained oil. 9.3 Accused Nos. 1, 7 and 8 have made complaint of ill-treatment on their production before the Magisterial Court and there is material to show that they were sent for medical check up/treatment. However, no evidence, as to what was found by the doctor in respect of the allegation of physical violence and ill-treatment, has come on record. 9.4 All the accused persons retracted their statements before the trial Court in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 9.5 The evidence can be divided into three parts broadly - (1) the statements under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act; (2) the depositions of D.R.I. officers -Panch witnesses; and (3) panchnama and F.S.L. report. 9.6 A relevant factor would also be the fact that accused Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 could be arrested after a long time, namely, accused Nos. 7 and 8 were arrested on the 12th December, 1994, (after 7 months), accused No. 9 was arrested on the 5th June, 1995 (after 13 months) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en it down. He says that by that, he means that he had not immediately written down. He says that the information was received in English. He agrees that he had not written down the information. He says that the information was passed over by him to his colleague-Bakarawala. He had informed Bakarawala in English, which was written down by Bakarawala, which he had seen himself. It was written in English. He says that it was signed by him and Bakarawala both. He says that when this information was given to Mr. Rao, he was present. The information was passed over to Mr. Rao within 45 minutes of Bakarawala writing down the same. He says that copy of the information received was not maintained. 10.2 Mr. Bakarawala is examined as P.W. 2 at Exh. 71. In examination-in-chief, he says that the intelligence was received by him and Daniel Rajkumar both. He says that the information was typed out by him and signed by him as well as Daniel Rajkumar. The said information was put into a sealed envelope and was given to the Assistant Director, Mr. Rao. There is an endorsement and signature of Mr. Rao under the written down information. He identifies the signature and that is how the information ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and then typed out. When an information is received on telephone, it is natural that the man giving the information would quickly pass over the information leaving hardly any time for the recipient to note it down in details. One has to scribble it down and then formulate it in sentences and that exactly appears to have been done in the instant case. Non-availability of such writing will not outweigh the available evidence. The verbal evidence is supported by contemporaneous record. The record gets support of oral evidence in general. A little discrepancy in evidence may be outcome of lapse of memory or even exaggeration or embroidery added by the witness. In our view, the discrepancy does not, in substance, affect its trust-worthiness. It would be appropriate to quote what the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in such situation in Paragraph 15 in the case of State of U.P. v. Anil Singh, AIR 1988 SC 1998 ; 15. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een cross-examined on this point, but he sticks to his version. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Karnail Singh v. State of Rajasthan JT 2000 (10) SC 506, wherein in Paragraph 11, the Apex Court observed that Section 55 mandates an officer-in-charge of the police station to take charge and keep in safe custody articles seized under the Act within the local area of that police station, which may be delivered to him and shall allow any officer who may accompany such article to the police station or who may be deputed for the purpose to affix his seal. It was urged before the Apex Court that, after seizure, the goods were sent to the Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau, who, as per law, being in-charge of the police station, has not affixed the seal on the articles and the samples and the whole procedure followed was illegal which entitled the appellant to be acquitted. The Apex Court did not accept the contention observing that it was without substance for the reason that the officer required to affix seal, etc. under Section 55 of the Act would be the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station as distinguishable f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cates that the samples were received intact. Thus, there was no tampering. If there was any tampering, the report would have indicated the same. 10.4.4 In order that the contentions can be properly appreciated, we had called for the muddamai from the trial Court and, we ourselves, inspected the same in presence of learned Advocates in the open Court. It was inspected by the learned Advocates also. The learned Advocates for the appellants tried to convince us that tampering would be possible, if a safety razor blade is inserted beneath the flap of the envelope and the envelope is cut, the sample can be removed and/or replaced and the envelope can be again put into original condition by applying gum between the two layers which could have been cut apart and it would not be possible even to know that the envelope has been tampered with. This was stated because the slip containing signatures of the panch witnesses, the accused and the officer concerned was wrapped around the envelope but not on the opening sides. 10.4.5 We had inspected the envelopes and prepared a note which was signed by us and forms part of the record. The note runs as under :- In light of the contentions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the envelope could be easily slided off without breaking the seal as only one seal is applied at the ends of the cotton ribbon. However, we do not find any substance in the much pursued contention that, after sliding off the cotton ribbon, the envelope can be easily cut by inserting a safety razor blade under the flap and can easily be replaced by applying gum between the two layers of that side. The reason is that the paper containing signatures of panch witnesses is wrapped almost till the edge of the envelope which would make inserting safety razor blade under the flap almost impossible without damaging the paper wrapped around the envelope. We also find that there is no substance in the contention that it can be resealed by applying gum between the two layers. The reason is that the envelope containing the sample is a cloth-backed paper envelope and if it is cut from one side, that would leave the threads visible from the cut edge of the envelope, reflecting tampering of the muddamal envelope. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention that the sealing was not properly done and it exposed the samples to possibility of tampering. It was contended that possibility ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .S.L., Ahmedabad, which says that 46 packets were received in a sealed condition, and therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention regarding tampering or possibility of tampering of muddamal. 10.4.10 An attempt was made to raise a suspicion in respect of number of packets because of reference to four packets and 46 packets at different places. This doubt gets cleared because the panchnama says that the samples of contraband were drawn from each of the drums and they would make 44 packets and two samples of oil were drawn and they would make two packets and the total comes to 46 packets. It appears that, at some stage, for convenience, 22 packets of contraband seized from each of the trucks were put in one envelope each making two envelopes and two samples of oil, making total of 4 packets, and therefore, at two different places, there is slight difference in the number of packets indicated. But this variance or discrepancy cannot be considered sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt about genuineness of muddamal samples which would go to the root of the matter. As we have seen, the panchnama speaks of 46 packets and, therefore, reference to four packets made by Cheta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record of the case and the trial Court ought to have then considered its evidential value and then taken a decision to rely on the same or not. He, therefore, urged that the document may be exhibited, at this stage. 10.5.2 P.W.4-Prafulsinh Sarvaiya (Exh. 78), in Paragraph 26, refers to Mark 58/44 and says that he had made a report regarding seizure to Deputy Director of D.R.I., Ahmedabad, on the 13th May, 1994 by that letter. He also says that there is short signature of Mr. R.K. Singla, Deputy Director, D.R.I., Ahmedabad. The trial Court observed that the letter can be produced only through the recipient and, therefore, it upheld the objection raised by the defence that it is not coming from proper custody. 10.5.3 It would be appropriate to note, at this stage, that the original complainant is the D.R.I. office, Ahmedabad. Exh. 58, the list with which the communication is produced at Mark 58/44 has been produced by learned Special Public Prosecutor, who represents the complainant, and therefore, it could not have been said that it is not coming from proper custody. The document was only sought to be proved by prosecution through Mr. Sarvaiya, who had made the report and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat in State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 1994 (3) SCC 299, the Court held that provisions of Sections 55 and 52 which deal with the steps to be taken by the officer after making arrest or seizure under Sections 41 to 44 are by themselves not mandatory. It was also observed that, if there is substantial compliance, mere absence of any such report cannot be said to have prejudiced the accused. 10.5.6 In Gurubax Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 2001 SC 1002, the Apex Court observed in Paragraph 9 as under :- 9......It is true that provisions of Sections 52 and 57 are directory. Violation of these provisions would not ipso facto violate the trial or conviction. However, I.O. cannot totally ignore these provisions and such failure will have a hearing on appreciation of evidence regarding arrest of the accused or seizure of the article. 10.5.7 With the above legal propositions set out by the Apex Court, it clearly emerges that the requirement of Section 57 is not mandatory. Non-compliance of requirement of Section 57 will not ipso facto vitiate the trial or conviction. However, it cannot be totally ignored. The prosecution would suffer if there is total non-compliance of Section 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idence adduced by the prosecution to find out whether there are any other facts and circumstances to corroborate the retracted confession. It is not necessary that there should be corroboration from independent evidence adduced by the prosecution to corroborate each detail contained in the confessional statement. The Court is required to examine whether confessional statement is voluntary; in other words, whether it was not obtained by threat, duress or promise. If the Court is satisfied from the evidence that it was voluntary, then it is required to examine whether such statement is true. If the Court on examination of the evidence finds that the retracted confession is true, the part of the inculpatory portion could be relied upon to base the conviction. However, prudence and practice require that Court would seek assurance getting corroboration from the other evidence adduced by the prosecution. 10.6.2 It is, thus, clear that conviction can be founded on retracted confessional statement of accused. If the Court finds that the statement was voluntary and it was true, then even if it is retracted, the inculpatory statement could be relied upon to base conviction. At the most, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicated that the accused were meted out with ill-treatment, and therefore, the statements being not freely or voluntarily given, they cannot be relied upon in light of Section 24 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125, Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra 1980 (4) SCC 600 and Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah and Anr. v. D.K. Guha and Ors. 1973 (1) SCC 696. The argument was countered by the respondents by relying on Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code and the decisions in the cases of K.I. Pavunny v. Assistant Collector (H.Q.), Central Excise Collectorate, Cochin 1997 (3) SCC 721 and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab (I) AIR 1952 SC 214. 10.6.5 There is no dispute that a series of statements were recorded from many of the accused persons. But that by itself is not a ground to infer that the statements were given under duress. It cannot be overlooked that persons involved in such organized criminal activity would not readily volunteer to give inculpatory statement. In such situation, a tactful and specialised method of interrogation may be requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.R.I. authorities to the accused persons on various occasions as and when they were required to be interrogated till their arrest. Undisputedly, the summons carry signature of the accused to show proper service. In absence of evidence or material to the contrary, there is no reason to doubt the authenticity and genuineness of such contemporaneous record maintained by the office of D.R.I. No ill-will or animosity is even alleged. We find no substance in this contention. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer Paragraph 11 of the judgment in the case of Poolpandi Superintendent, Central Excise 1992 (3) SCC 259, where the Apex Court observed the purpose of inquiry under the Act and other similar statutes will be completely frustrated if the whims of the persons in possession of useful information for the department are allowed to prevail. For achieving the object of such an enquiry if the appropriate authorities be of the view that such persons should be dissociated from the atmosphere and the company of persons who provide encouragement to them in adopting a non-cooperative attitude to the machineries of law, there cannot be any legitimate objection in depriving them of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ject to any public servant, fails to do so, he is punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and failure to give information legally bound to give, which is required for the purpose of preventing commission of an offence, is made punishable, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. It was contended that Section 177 casts a duty on a person 'legally bound' to furnish information. The term legally bound has been defined in Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code, which runs as under :- Section 43. The word illegal is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action and a person is said to be legally bound to do whatever it is illegal in him to omit. Therefore, it was contended that the accused persons called upon to give information under Section 67 cannot be said to be legally bound to give correct information. 10.6.10 Section 177 clearly provides that, if a person who is legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant furnishes information which is not correct with knowledge, is liable to be punished. Differently ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the statements recorded in exercise of power under Section 67 of the Act were obtained under threat of legal action emanating from the officers recording the same. As a consequence, it cannot be said to be vitiated on that count. The contention that statements were not voluntary cannot be accepted. It would also be appropriate to note that even while retracting their statements none of the appellants has raised this ground. This contention is raised for the first time before this Court and deserves rejection and is rejected. 10.6.11 Another contention that was raised to assail the statements under Section 67 was that they are hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act and Article 20(3) of Constitution of India. It was contended that, whatever is stated by such person would be irrelevant in light of Section 24 of the Evidence Act. Reliance was placed on State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya AIR 1960 SC 1125, Balkishan A. Devidayal v. State of Maharashtra 1980 (4) SCC 600 and Ramanlal Bhogilal Shah and Anr. v. D.K. Guha and Ors. 1973 (1) SCC 696. In reply, it was contended that, a protection under Article 20(3) of the Constitution would be available or Section 24 of the Evidence Act w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Evidence Act will not be available to the appellants. 10.7 Coming to the contention regarding the panchnama being not reliable on the ground of signatures of the panch witnesses were not obtained at the place where the trucks were intercepted; that presence of panch witnesses during sampling procedure is doubtful; and that there is no compliance of Section 50, we find that the panchnama is a continuous and running panchnama, which was recorded from the time when the trucks were intercepted and every page of the panchnama bears signature of the panch witnesses as well as the accused persons and the Seizing Officer. We find that it is recorded in the panchnama itself that because it was not practicable to undertake inspection of the drums on the road for want of equipments, the trucks were taken to D.R.I. office at Jamnagar. It is not as if the panchnama was concluded at the place and, therefore, non-signing of the panch witnesses at the place of incident before leaving for Jamnagar will not affect the authenticity or reliability of the panchnama. It has to be also remembered that the panch witnesses have remained present throughout, and that aspect remains established. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be accepted. 10.9 The procedure for search and seizure was also assailed. It was contended that mandatory requirements under Section 50 of the Act have not been complied with while conducting search of person of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. It appears that, there is no material to indicate compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act while conducting search of person of accused Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, but that does not put the appellants to any advantage for the reason that nothing incriminating under the N.D.P.S. Act is found from person of accused Nos, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and therefore, no prejudice can be said to have been caused. The contraband is round from bed of the truck from underneath wheat bags and for that requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not required to be complied with. The contention regarding non-compliance of requirements of Section 50 will not benefit the appellants case. 10.9.1 Contentions regarding improper sealing, want of evidence of safe custody and possibility of tampering have already been discussed, and therefore, the contention regarding defect in search and seizure cannot be accepted. 10.10 Next, is the contention regarding conscious possess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... D.R.I. officers have not bothered to go to the root of the source of manufacture and supply of the Mandrax tablets. They have also not prosecuted persons against whom there was material to implicate them, and therefore, the investigation is not of a quality upto the mark. This contention cannot be accepted for the reason that the foregoing discussion clearly reveals that there is cogent and reliable material to establish nexus of the accused persons with the crime and non-probing into the source of supply or non-prosecution of persons against whom there is material by itself cannot help the accused persons unless a prejudice is caused to the accused. 10.11.1 It was also contended that, independent evidence, though available, was not collected by the D.R.I. officers which could have supported the prosecution story as a whole including involvement of the accused. It was contended that evidence regarding hotel where accused stayed under fake name, the purchase of diesel from petrol pump, etc. is not collected. In our considered opinion, if there was no other evidence or if the evidence was not wholly trustworthy, want of such corroborative evidence might have made a difference. Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons, we do not find any merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellant-convicts, which would call for any interference in the judgment impugned. No other contention was raised to assail the judgment. 11. Learned Advocate Mr. Jhala as well as Mr. Ahuja made an alternative submission that the sentence imposed on the accused-appellants is unduly harsh, disproportionate and discriminatory. Therefore, if the Court finds that conviction is rightly recorded, then the sentence may be reduced. We find no special reasons for interfering with the quantum of sentence. The learned Judge has considered all the contentions raised before him and has used his judicial discretion. Nothing is shown to indicate improper exercise of judicial discretion by learned trial Judge. The appellants are found to be involved in drug trafficking on a large scale. Some have antecedents of smuggling activity. If drug menace is to be curbed, persons proved to have been involved therein need to be sternly dealt with. In our opinion, no interference is called for even for quantum of punishment. 12. The appeals must fail and are dismissed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
