9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s point, it cannot led to an inference that the three witnesses had not deposed correctly about the manner in which, the time at which and the place from where the appellant was apprehended by the DRI Officers. It has been found by the High Court that the search was carried out by the officers referred to under Section 41 and, therefore, they were not required to comply with the provision of Section 42. The High Court has further found that P.W. 2 was an empowered Officer and since the search was carried out in his presence and under his supervision, the proviso to Section 42 had no application. For all these reasons we do not find any substance in this contention. Sub-section 2 of Section 52 provides that every person arrested and article ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P.W. 2) who was then working as Assistant Director of D.R.I. at Bombay, held that their evidence was trustworthy and can safely be relied upon as it was also corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3 Anthony Fernandis, who was the Manager of the hotel in which the appellant had stayed. The trial Court further held that the evidence of these three witnesses clearly establishes that from room No. 201, which was occupied by the appellant, 2 packets containing 3.8 Kgs. of heroin was found. The evidence of P.W. 3 further discloses that the appellant was the only person staying in that room and that on search by the officers P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, 2 packets of heroin, 2 passports, one in the name of Djama and other in the name of Abdul Rehman but bearin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat he was not really in the hotel at that time and that he was called from the other hotel which belonged to the same owner and which was at the distance of 5 to 7 minutes walk. As a Manager he was looking after both the hotels. It appears that because the appellant was seen with a telephone in his hand he had inferred that he was called from his room. The fact remains that the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 is consistant on the point that while the appellant was near the reception centre and had the telephone receiver in his hand, two officers of DRI had gone there, that they had tried to apprehend the appellant and at that time there was some scutfle and appellant had tried to run away. Therefore, in our opinion, even if there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. This point was taken for the first time before the High Court. It has been found by the High Court that the search was carried out by the officers referred to under Section 41 and, therefore, they were not required to comply with the provision of Section 42. The High Court has further found that P.W. 2 was an empowered Officer and since the search was carried out in his presence and under his supervision, the proviso to Section 42 had no application. For all these reasons we do not find any substance in this contention. 6.It was lastly urged by the learned Counsel that there was delay in forwarding the sample to the Magistrate. Sub-section 2 of Section 52 provides that every person arrested and article seized under warrant issued under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
