TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 11
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se was that on 02.12.2006, the respondent was found in possession of 600 grams of Hashish. It was concealed in an iron trunk kept by him with M/s.Raj Luggage Room, Paharganj, New Delhi. 3. Admitted position is that on 01.12.2006 the respondent was going to London (U.K.) in flight No.VS 301 carrying two hand bags. On suspicion he was intercepted and questioned. Foreign and Indian currency of Rs. 16,63,867/- was recovered from his possession. Necessary proceedings were initiated against him in that regard. During the investigation of the said case, two bunches of keys, one visiting card of luggage room T-302, Paharganj along with some other documents were recovered. It was found that the respondent had booked an iron trunk with M/s. Ajay L....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned judgment, it transpires that the Trial Court has discussed all the relevant contentions of the appellant comprehensively. A number of material discrepancies, contradictions and infirmities have been noted in the impugned judgment to conclude that the evidence led by the prosecution was highly deficient to base conviction. This Court finds no valid reasons to deviate from the findings recorded by the Trial Court whereby the respondent was given benefit of doubt and was acquitted. 5. Admittedly, the respondent was in custody of the prosecution on 01.12.2006 when he was apprehended for possessing unauthorized foreign / Indian currency to the tune of Rs. 16,63,867/-. On his search, a bunch of keys, visiting card and some other docu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... its owner was not associated in the investigation. No plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution witnesses as to why pursuant to the disclosure statement regarding booking of an iron trunk with a luggage room at Paharganj, it was not recovered at the respondent's instance. He was not taken to the Luggage Room even for identification purpose. The natural course of action after respondent's apprehension could have been to immediately recover the iron trunk allegedly booked by him with the Luggage Room at his instance and to get him identified from the concerned individual present at the Luggage Room at the time of booking. Only photocopy of a passport containing the photo of the respondent was shown to the individual at the Lu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt to retrieve the trunk from PW-2 (Bhavesh Kumar Pandya). The contents of the trunk in question were not noted on any document though PW-2 (Bhavesh Kumar Pandya) admitted that they used to get recorded declaration about the contents of the locked objects in their register. Nothing is on record to show if the respondent had put any signatures or handwriting on any document at the time of booking the trunk with PW-2 (Bhavesh Kumar Pandya). No such handwriting was sent to handwriting experts to ascertain his signatures thereon. The Investigating Officer did not find out as to from where the respondent had arranged the heavy trunk; when it was arranged and for what consideration. It was also not verified as to from where the respondent had pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vidence produced by the prosecution can't be believed to base conviction for stringent provisions of the Act. The law on this aspect is that "stringent the punishment stricter the proof". In such like cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very zealously so as to exclusive very chance of false implication. The prosecution has failed to establish the commission of offence by the respondent and beyond reasonable doubt. It cannot be allowed to take benefit of the respondent's inability to establish his defence in 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Mere apprehension of the respondent is not enough. The evidence is scanty and lacking to establish that the contraband was recovered from the possession of the respondent in the manner alleged by the....