9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (9) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this case we have evidence of the officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau also who had tested the substance found from the appellant. The panchnama, also contains words 'received copy' written by the appellant. The said statement of the appellant was recorded in 1990. He retracted it in 1994. Till then he had not complained against any officer as regards the alleged beating or use of force nor he had stated that he did not know English. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. Thus the High Court was right in relying upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and in confirming the conviction of the appellant. Appeal dismissed. - 817 of 1998 - - - Dated:- 16-9-19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 108 of the Customs Act was recorded and on the same day in the evening at about 9.00 p.m. he was arrested. After obtaining the report of the Chemical Analyser he was charge-sheeted and prosecuted in the Court of Special Judge (NDPS) for Greater Bombay in NDPS Case No. 84 of 1991 for commission of offences under the NDPS Act and the Customs Act. 2. The learned Judge relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 - Mr. Menon, P.W. 2 - Mr. Rohatgi, P.W.5 - Mr. Dange and the evidence of Panch witness held that the appellant had brought 2 kgs. heroin with him and was in possession thereof. He, therefore, convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 21, read with Section 8(c) and Section 23 read with Section 28 and 8(c) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of this Court in State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh Others, JT. 1995 (9) SC 308, wherein it was held that though poppy straw was recovered from the bags of the accused, yet he was required to be informed about his right to be searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate, now stands overruled by the decision in Baldev Singh's case (supra). If a person is carrying a bag or some other article with him and narcotic drug or the psychotropic substance is found from it, it cannot be said that it was found from his 'person'. In this case heroin was found from a bag belonging to the appellant and not from his person and therefore it was not necessary to make an offer for search in presence of a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate. 5. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 'received copy' written by the appellant. The said statement of the appellant was recorded in 1990. He retracted it in 1994. Till then he had not complained against any officer as regards the alleged beating or use of force nor he had stated that he did not know English. Therefore, this contention also cannot be accepted. 7. Other contentions which were raised before the High Court were also raised before us. We agree with the reasons given by the High Court for rejecting them. In our opinion, the High Court was right in relying upon the evidence of aforesaid witnesses and the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act and in confirming the conviction of the appellant. As we do not find any substance in this appeal, it is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
