TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 43
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ( hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2) The case of the prosecution is as under: Acting on an information received on 21.05.1998, a batch of officers of N.C.B., EZU, Calcutta led by a Gazetted Officer proceeded for New Sarat Lodge at 77/1A, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta. After reaching there, the N.C.B. officers searched the room of the appellant herein who was staying in Room No.1 of New Sarat Lodge. The officers asked the appellant in writing as to whether he wanted to be sea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7) Challenging the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal being C.R.A. No. 269 of 2003 before the High Court. The High Court, by impugned judgment and order dated 31.08.2004, dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. 8) Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellant has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court. 9) By order dated 17.09.2007, this Court released the appellant on bail. 10) In this appeal, we find from the record that the appellant was originally represented by an amicus curiae - Mr. Mulkh Raj, who later stopped appearing for the appellant after leave was granted by this Court. Thereafter Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, learned counsel appeared for the appellant and bai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....required by the concerned officials of the Department, the appellant's conviction is rendered legally unsustainable and hence deserves to be set aside. 14) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the impugned order and urged for dismissal of the appeal. It was his submission that compliance of the requirements of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act has been done in letter and spirit and both the Courts rightly held the same to have been done and hence there arises no case to interfere in the impugned order. 15) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. 16) The point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was dealt with by the High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the Raid, stated: "We gave him off in writing whether he likely to be searched in presence of a Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer or a Gazetted Officer accompanying the raiding party. He agreed to be searched before the accompanying Gazetted Officer. Prior to search, we gave offer to him if he likes he can search the Gazetted Officer, N.C.B. Officers etc. But he declined." P.W.6, conducting the raid on the relevant date and time of seizure, supported the said version and stated: "We gave written offer that we want to search and disclosed to him whether he would like to be searched by a Gazetted Officer or a Magistrate or the accompanying Gazetted Officer, who was with us. He stated to us that he could be searched before our accomp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....apers were taken by the prosecution" we find that the other evidence on record is quite sufficient to prove the Charge against the Appellant. We find that the Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt against the Appellant and the points canvassed by Shri Jash have no manner of application in view of the discussion held hereinabove." 17) We are in complete agreement with the aforementioned finding of the High Court as, in our opinion, it is just, legal and proper calling no interference in this appeal. 18) Firstly, the High Court has recorded the finding keeping in view the law laid down by this Court in State of Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh & Ors., (2004) SAR (Criminal) 535. Secondly, since PW-7 himself was ....