TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (10) TMI 881
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. It must be mentioned at the outset that three persons were arraigned as accused in the complaint filed by the DRI. Accused No. 1, Bantoo Lal (A-1) and Accused No. 2, Harbhajan Singh (A-2), were both declared Proclaimed Offenders (?POs?) during the pendency of the complaint. Consequently, the complaint proceeded only against Accused No.3 Mahendera Kumar Singhal (A-3), the Respondent herein. 3. Acting on an information, the officers of the DRI, mounted a round- the-clock surveillance on 1st October 1988 at Hapur Chungi, Ghaziabad. They were ultimately successful in intercepting a truck bearing registration No.DIL-1294. The truck was driven by A-1. The other occupant of the truck was A-2. On checking the truck, the officers of the DRI foun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ded by the DRI Officers, he stated that ?I was forced to admit my involvement?. 7. The trial court after analysing the evidence concluded that the case against the Respondent was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Although, the prosecution cited as witnesses, persons who had named the Respondent, none of them was produced for cross-examination. The said witnesses included Suresh, the second driver of the truck, a cleaner of the truck, a lift operator and a labourer Raghubir Singh. As far as the confessional statement of the Respondent was concerned, since he had retracted it and there was no independent corroboration of the said statement, the trial Court concluded that the Respondent was entitled to acquittal. 8. This Court has heard th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his was neither voluntarily nor truthful. He stated that he had been illegally detained by the DRI for about 48 hours and forced to sign blank papers. There is an endorsement on the said application by learned ACMM which forms part of the judicial record. Further, the order passed by the learned ACMM on 13th October 1988, while refusing bail to the Respondent at that stage, noted the submission made by his counsel that ?his confessional statement has been recorded under threat and after administering third degree method upon him.? 11. Consequently, this Court is unable to accept the plea of Mr. Aggarwala that there is no valid and legal retraction by the Respondent in the present case. 12. In Vinod Solanki v. Union of India (supra), the ....