TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 53
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ho would come from Punjab; he will use Neptune colour Maruti Van bearing registration No.DL-3CG-5120 for taking the delivery of the narcotic. Accordingly, a raiding party was formed and on reaching the Subzi Mandi exit gate intercepted the said Maruti Van being driven by respondent No.1, co-accused Gurdev Singh (hereinafter referred as respondent No.2) was sitting by his side; and another person by the name of Dault Singh was sitting on the back seat. Summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were served upon the occupants of the Van and as the place was not found conducive for search, the Van and occupants were brought to the DRI office at ITO, New Delhi. Two panch witnesses namely Raju and Sandeep were joined in the proceedings and in their presence notices under Section 50 of the NDPS Act were served to all the three occupants of the Van. Nothing incriminating was found from the personal search of the occupants. On search of the Van, one sack was found lying on the back seat which contained several packets which were taken to DRI office and examined after opening in the presence of above noted two panch witnesses and occupants of the Van. The contraband weighing about 29 KG was r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the recovery was made from the Car in possession of respondent Nos.1 & 2. The evidence against the respondents is by way of solemn testimony of witnesses and the panchnama duly signed by them, voluntary statements of the respondents, statement of Daulat Singh and other documents. Learned Trial Court should have appreciated the huge quantity of heroin which could not have been planted upon respondents and there was no allegation of enmity/grudge against the officers of the department. The statements of the respondents were recorded voluntarily without any pressure which is admissible under the law. Sections 50 & 67 of the NDPS Act had already been duly complied with and the procedure adopted by the appellant was just and proper. However, learned Trial Court has acquitted all the respondents without appreciating the facts mentioned above. 6. I have heard learned counsels for parties and gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court. 7. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 expired during pendency of instant appeal and vide order dated 07.04.2015 proceedings were abated and his surety was also discharged. 8. From the material on record, it cannot be deni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd in the DRI office and had not yet made any disclosure about his shop. Respondent No.3 was found present at the said shop of respondent No.1. He was summoned and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was recorded on 27.11.1996. Thereafter, all the three respondents were arrested. 13. Accordingly, from the evidence it was emerged that on 26.11.1996 prior information was with the DRI official only about the respondent No.1 taking the delivery of the narcotics from some persons from Punjab at Azadpur Subzi Mandi in the afternoon of 26.11.1996 for which purpose he would be using his blue colour Maruti Van bearing No.DL-3CG-5120. The said Van was intercepted when respondent No.1 was driving it and respondent No.2 was sitting by his side. The said Van was taken to DRI office at about 04.00PM on 26.11.1996 where on search thereof, a sack containing the contraband was recovered from the back seat and the proceedings about seizure, recovery, sampling and sealing thereof continued until at about 11.30PM that night. However, there is no record to show that any further information was received by the DRI official till that time. The statement of respondent Nos.1 & 2 were obviousl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the DRI office on 26.11.1996 itself. On one hand, the seizure, sampling and recovery of the contraband was being done by the team of DRI officials in their office premises itself in the presence of respondent Nos.1 & 2. On the other hand, the said truck was also seized on the same date in the afternoon before the seizure and sampling of contraband and search of the shop of respondent No.1 had taken place while the seizure and sampling were going on between 05.00 to 06.30 PM. Accordingly, it was established that while the alleged contraband was seized at about 04.00 PM on 26.11.1996 proceedings regarding its seizure and sampling and sealing thereof continued until 11.30 PM night in the presence of respondent Nos.1 & 2. The said Tata truck was seized on 26.11.1996 itself in the afternoon lying abandoned from Seb Mandi and search of the shop of respondent No.1 was taken place from 05.00 to 06.30PM on the same date while the proceedings regarding seizure, sampling and sealing of the contraband continued in the office of DRI. 16. In view the facts recorded above, serious doubts crept in the case of prosecution to the effect that whether the contraband was recovered from the truck....