TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (2) TMI 542
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. The intelligence Officer of D.R.I. Mumbai, P.W. 10 receives a credible information about the manufacture of Methaqualone powder in a building in Basava Colony of Belgaum and manufacture of Mandrax tablets in a new patan building situated in Kakti village of Belgaum. P.W. 1 after conferring with superior officers visits Belgaum keeps watch of the place finds that the information received is true and shares the information with the Asstt. Director D.R.I. Bangalore. The raid on Patan building and the farm-house belonging to accused No. 1 is conducted on 7-11-1996. In patan building 225 Kgs of Methaqualone granules and 803 Kgs of mandrax tablets were found and seized. P.W. 1 to 4, P.W. 7 along with the local Central Excise Officers conduct the raid accompanied by panch witnesses and a photographer examined as P.W. 5. In Patan building the raid party finds with several machines installed in the premises manufacture of the Mandrax tablets was going on. The Mandrax tablets were being manufactured. P.W. 1 tested the incriminating material with the test kit, the result proved positive for methaqualone. Accused Nos. 1 to 6 were present at the time of search. The samples of the powder....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not fully ensured by P.W. 1 in particular. (h) Discrepancies between the weights of the samples seized and sealed on the spot (Mos. 1 to 26) and the weights of the samples received in the office of the C.E. (i) C.E. report Ex. P. 14 not satisfactorily proved. (j) Accused Nos. 1 to 7 had made statements before the respective officers, they are not shown to be involuntary. (k) Purported voluntary statement of accused No. 8 is prima facie shown to have been retracted. Consequence of retraction is kept open to be considered at relevant stage of this judgment. (l) Belated production of Ex. P. 1 before the court though needs to be taken serious note of, but is not shown to have prejudiced the accused, factually and legally. (m) Non-production of the photographs before the court though needs to be taken serious note of, but is not shown to have prejudiced the accused, factually. 4.  The court finds that the voluntary statement of accused No. 3 at Ex. P. 30 does not contain any incriminating material to sho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....powder and tablets were found from the appellant's factory. Thus the appellant's conviction under Section 22 of the NDPS Act is quite proper. Both the witnesses have further stated that on analysis the green substance which was found from one of the cabins was hashish. Therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 20(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act is also quite proper." 5. The Item No. 20 of Schedule-I describes the chemical composition of Methaqualone in the following manner. "20.METHAQUALONE : 2-Methly-3-0 tolyl-4 (3H)-quinazolinone" 6. The Counsel for the accused vehemently argued that according to pharmacology there are seven versions of Methaqualone described in the following manner. (i) 2-Methyl-3-0-tolyl-4-(3H)-quinazolinone. (ii) 2-Methyl-3-(2-methylplhenyl)-4-(3H) -quinazolinone. (iii) 3,4-dihydro-2-methyl-4-oxo-3-o-tolyl quinazoline. (iv) QZ-2 (v) Metholquizolone (vi) RIC-272 (vii) TR-Qualalude. 7. Therefore argued that the chemical composition as envisaged at item 20 of the schedule is alone the prohibited version within the def....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Corruption Act. If so done the panch witness would be in a position to understand the purpose and consequences of tests independently and they would be able to testify to the facts about conduct of test and the result noticed. The panchanama should reflect the independent factual perceptions of the panch witness at the scene of offence. 12. In the present case the panchanama recitals are vague. It appears that the witnesses do not know the basic aspects of the test and its result. It appears that as told by the investigation officer, the panch witnesses accept that the result proved positive for the Methaqualone. Such a perfunctory version of the mahazar does not satisfy the requirement of law. The self-serving evidence of P.W. 1 uncorroborated by the mahazar proceedings cannot be relied on. The distinguishing facts stated above makes the decision of the Supreme Court 1998 Crl. L.J. 4626 inapplicable to the facts of the case. When the objects seized is not proved as Methaqualone, the voluntary statements made by accused admitting guilt would be of no consequence in law. In that view the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. 13. Section 53 of the N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....been seized from the custody or control of any person, in either case, under this Act or under any other law, or (ii) has been received from any place outside India (duly authenticated by such authority or person and in such manner as may be prescribed by the Central Government) in the course of investigation of any offence under this Act alleged to have been committed by a person; and such document is tendered in any prosecution under this Act in evidence against him, or against him and any other person who is tried jointly with him, the court shall - (a) presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the signature and every other part of such document which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which the court may reasonably assume to have been signed by, or be in the handwriting of, any particular person, is in that person's handwriting; and in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested; (b) admit the document in evidence, notwithstanding that it is not duly stamped, if such doc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unlawful threat. The I.O. of D.R.I. Bangalore is entitled to interrogate the accused u/s. 67 but can not insist accused to give evidence as called upon under Ex. P. 33. Therefore the summons issued under Ex. P. 33 is illegal and bad in law. 19. Sec. 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act and Sec. 108 of the Customs Act are not analogous and there is no comparison between them. Under Section 67 of N.D.P.S. Act, there is no quasi-judicial enquiry but it is only an interrogation similar to the provision under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. In S.M.A. Sudath Aloysius v. Narcotic Control Bureau and Another, 2003 ALL MR (Crl. 455) Bombay it is argued for the prosecution that the statement recorded under Section 67 does not assume character of evidence. The provisions of Section 66 are not brought to the notice of the Court in the decision cited and it appears to be not well-argued case for the prosecution. 20. The procedures of search and seizure are dealt in Section 52 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is argued by the counsel for the accused that the deposit of the seized articles in the nearest police station is not complied. The provisions of Section 52 reads thus: "52. Disposal of persons arrested and ar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent, of central excise, narcotics, customs, revenue intelligence or any other department of the Central Government including para-military forces or the armed forces as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order by the Central Government or any such officer of the revenue, drugs, control, excise, police or any other department of a State Government as is empowered in this behalf by general or special order of the State Government, if he has reason to believe from personal knowledge or information given by any person and taken in writing that any person has committed an offence punishable under this Act or that any narcotic drug, or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which any offence punishable under this Act has been committed or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of the commission of such offence or any illegally acquired property or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act is kept of concealed in any building, conveyance or place may authorise any officer subordinate to him but s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....low the rank of peons, sepoy or constable to carry out arrest, search and seizure. Such delegated subordinate officers are called "authorised officers" they constitute a second category. 24. Sec. 42(1) authorises the State and Central Government by notification to empower the authorised officers u/s. 41(2) and similar rank of non-gazetted officers to investigate with powers of arrest, search and seizure. The special procedures of arrest, search and seizure u/s. 50 becomes applicable only to the officers named in Sec. 42 of the Act. The provision of Sec. 50 does not apply to first category of "empowered" gazetted rank officers contemplated in Sec. 41(2). Further the need to search in presence of gazetted officer u/s. 50 would come into play only when there is a personal search of the accused. When the premises baggage or luggage of the accused is being searched it would not amount to personal search and no need to comply the requirements of Section 50. In the instant case no personal search is carried out. The officers who effected search are all empowered gazetted officers u/s. 41(2), therefore the provisions of Section 50 do not apply to the facts of the case. 25. The ....