9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (11) TMI 139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng in Air India at the Madras International Airport. P.W. 1 is an Intelligence Officer. On 3-5-1990 at the time of clearance of passengers, P.W. 1 found the petitioner entering into gents' toilet and after some time coming out. He was intercepted by P.W. 1 on suspicion. He was escorted to Air India Intelligence Unit room. In the presence of witnesses he was searched. The petitioner was having one plastic bag kept concealed inside his jatti. When the bag was opened, it was found to contain four 1 kg. gold bars and three 10 tolas gold bars all with foreign markings. The petitioner was not in possession of any valid permit. The gold bars worth about Rs. 15,22,325/- were seized under mahazar. On the same date, the petitioner gave a statement ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I shall point out that the first two points have been elaborately dealt with by both the courts below and they held that the sanction was valid there was evidence to show that all the materials have been placed before the sanctioning authority before granting sanction and that there is no contradiction between the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 8. Therefore, I need not go deep into the said submissions, as the factual aspects have been correctly decided by both the courts below. 7.Regarding the third point, it is submitted by the Counsel for the petitioner that Section 102 of the Customs Act is an analogous provision to Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotrophic Substances Act and that the Apex Court in Saiyad Mohd. Saiyad Umar Saiy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable only when the search was conducted on prior information and otherwise Section 50 would not be attracted and in the case of a search on suspicion, the question of complying with the requirements under Section 50 would not arise. 10. In the similar line, I had also an occasion to consider this aspect in the judgment reported in 1087 M.L.J. (Crl.) 364 (Deepa Ghosh v. State) in which I held that Section 50 of the N.P.D.S. Act will not be applicable to the case where the person accused of an offence was searched only on suspicion. 11. Therefore, the arguments on the strength of the rulings by the Apex Court, while interpreting Section 50 of the N.P.D.S. Act, would not be of any use for the petitioner. In the instant case, there i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
