TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with Section 21(c) of the Act. Vide order dated 17.10.2011, they were sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine Rs. 1 lac , each. 2. Allegations against the appellants were that on 23.11.2005 at around 07.30 P.M., at Bus stop, outside New Delhi Railway Station, they were found in possession of 5.022 kg. of Heroin meant to be delivered to an individual. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to substantiate the charges. In their 313 Cr.P.C . statements, the appellants pleaded false implication and came up with the plea that they were lifted from their rented house on 22.11.2005 at about 02.00 P.M. by DRI officials. DW-1 ( Rajbir Singh) stepped in their defence. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival submissions of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rged that there are no good reasons to disbelieve the cogent and reliable testimonies of the official witnesses. Two panch witnesses were associated at the time of recovery of the contraband from the conscious possession of the accused. Bona fide attempts were made to produce them in the Court. However, they could not be served at the address given by them. Section 50 is not applicable as recovery was effected from the 'baggage'. The confessional statements were never retracted by the appellants. 5. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have perused all the relevant materials. The counsel for the appellants could not demonstrate what provisions of law were violated while effecting recovery from their possession. The contraba....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Deep Chand and Kuldeep Sharma, independent public witnesses at the time of recovery. Their signatures were taken on the panchnama (Ex.PW-2/K) and annexures (Ex.PW-2/B to Ex.PW-2/F). They were cited witnesses in the case. Efforts were made to serve the summons for their appearance before the Court. However, the addresses given by them were found fake. Their presence could not be secured during trial. No adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution for their failure to examine independent panch witnesses. The secret information (Ex.PW-1/A) was received on 23.11.2005 around 06.30 P.M. A raiding party was organised at about 07.30 P.M., the accused were arrested at a Bus stop, outside New Delhi Railway Station at a distance of 3 or 4 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....35 years, medium built and height. With this specific description, DRI officials arrived at New Delhi Railway Station and found that Malwa Express had already arrived. They went to the Bus stop outside New Delhi Railway Station and identified and recognised both the appellants with the bags in their possession. They were taken to DRI office and recovery of the contraband was effected . It is true that the DRI officials did not verify the timings of arrival of Malwa Express. Since the raid was sudden and there was time constraint it was not possible to ascertain the timings of arrival of Malwa Express. The evidence was collected that the appellants had travelled from Ludhiana to Delhi. Railway ticket (Ex.PW-2/L) was recovered from A-2. It wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment. Confessional statement of A-1 was recorded by PW-2 ( S.D.Sharma , Intelligence Officer, DRI HQ, New Delhi) which is Ex.PW-2/N. The Trial Court has dealt with aspect minutely and found that the confessional statements were not retracted categorically by the accused persons. In their 313 statements, they did not in clear words stated to have retracted the confessional statements. In the absence of prior animosity or ill-will, DRI officials were not expected to fabricate their confessional statements. Statement under Section 67 NDPS Act is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon by a Court against an accused provided it is found to be made by the accused voluntarily. Even retracted statement can be acted upon as per law if the retr....