2015 (10) TMI 2130 - HC - Customs

Criminal appeal dismissed citing delays, procedural issues, and evidentiary doubts under NDPS Act

Union of India Versus A. Sadikkeen And. Zackkaria

The court dismissed the criminal appeal due to significant delays in trial proceedings under the NDPS Act, non-compliance with procedural provisions, ... Illegal possession and transport of 27 kgs of heroin - Whether accused convicted in year 2000 can be called upon to face sentence after 15 years of acquittal? - Appellant contends that search of baggage of accused and seizure of contraband took place in a public place; compliance of Section 42(2) not required, Section 43 is applicable - No breach of Section 57; with evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.5, substantial compliance with provisions of Section 57 - Held That:- Violation of Section 42(1) and (2) of NDPS Act; search and seizure have become suspicious - Accused found entitled to be acquitted – Decision made in the case of Koluttumottil Razak vs State Of Kerala [2000 (2) TMI 793 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] followed – Decided in favour of Revenue. Issues:1. Delay in trial proceedings under the NDPS Act.2. Compliance with procedural provisions under the NDPS Act.3. Validity of evidence and compliance with Section 57 of the NDPS Act.4. Delay in enforcing the sentence after acquittal.5. Admissibility of evidence and compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act.6. Non-recovery of key evidence and doubts in the prosecution's case.7. Applicability of legal precedents to the case.Analysis:1. The judgment highlights a significant delay in trial proceedings under the NDPS Act, where the case was pending for several years with multiple adjournments and attempts at serving notice to the respondent. Despite efforts, the respondent remained unserved, raising concerns about the efficiency and fairness of the legal process.2. The main ground of appeal revolved around the compliance with procedural provisions under the NDPS Act, specifically focusing on the applicability of Section 42(2) versus Section 43 during the search and seizure of contraband in a public place. The argument centered on whether there was a breach of Section 57 and if there was substantial compliance with the provisions, leading to a critical issue for consideration.3. The judgment questioned the validity of evidence presented, particularly regarding the possession and transportation of heroin by the accused. The prosecution's failure to comply with Section 42(2) and Section 50 of the NDPS Act raised doubts about the arrest and confession of the accused, emphasizing the importance of procedural adherence in securing convictions.4. Another issue raised was the delay in enforcing the sentence after the accused's acquittal in 2000, prompting a discussion on the timeliness and fairness of legal proceedings, especially when calling upon the accused to face the sentence after a significant period post-acquittal.5. The judgment delved into the admissibility of evidence and compliance with Section 42 of the NDPS Act, highlighting the non-recovery of key evidence and the resulting doubts in the prosecution's case. The court emphasized the need for corroborative evidence and adherence to procedural requirements to ensure the integrity of the legal process.6. Non-recovery of crucial evidence, such as the key used to open the baggage containing contraband, created substantial doubt in the prosecution's case, underscoring the importance of establishing a clear chain of evidence and maintaining the integrity of investigative procedures.7. Lastly, the judgment applied legal precedents, such as the decision in Koluttumottil Razak vs State of Kerala, to assess the case's merits and determine the accused's entitlement to acquittal based on the facts presented. The court's reliance on established legal principles underscored the importance of consistency and precedent in judicial decision-making.In conclusion, the judgment dismissed the criminal appeal based on the outlined reasons, emphasizing the critical issues of procedural compliance, evidentiary validity, and the timeliness of legal proceedings under the NDPS Act.