TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 668
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, in default of payment of fine, for illegal sale of 30 Kgs. of poppy straw to the co-accused- A-2, who did not have valid licence as per the Maharashtra NDPS Rules, 1985. 2. Case of the prosecution is that the Inspector of Customs, NCCP Customs, Mumbai received intelligence information on 26th February, 2004 that the appellant was selling crushed opium poppy straw without any bills on cash basis from his premises at 6, Pravin Chambers, Keshvji Naik Road, Mumbai. Co-accused- Karim Patel was to purchase 30 kgs. of poppy straw. A raid was organized and Karim Patel was apprehended with 30 Kgs. of poppy straw. The raid was conducted by PW1- Bhaskar Shetty, Inspector of Customs, along with others incl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hout receipt and without medical prescription. A-2 did not have valid permit. After completion of investigation, both the accused were sent up for trial. 4. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses which included investigating officer who effected recovery of the contraband, Superintendent of Customs who received information, Assistant Chemical Examiner, the landlord of the premises in possession of the appellant as a licensee/ tenant and the PSI of the State Excise. 5. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant not only for the offence mentioned above but also for illegal possession of commercial quantity of poppy straw powder. 6. On appeal, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, quashed and set aside the conviction and sente....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t carry the label and the signatures. The same could not be linked to the appellant. PW2 was unable to say whether the bag produced had seal or label or not. He also submitted that record of the samples was not maintained. Panchas were not examined. Same Panchas were used for several occasions. He also submitted that the statement of the accused under Section 67 amounted to confession before police and was not admissible as held in Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31, Union of India v. Bal Mukund (2009) 12 SCC 161, Raju Premji v. Customs NER Shillong Unit (2009) 16 SCC 496 and Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417. Even if the statement of the appellant under Section 67 was admissible, it was a weak piece of evidence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is categoric that all the samples were in sealed condition. The appellant never retracted his statement under Section 67 to the effect that the contraband recovered from co-accused was sold by the appellant and that the said co-accused had no licence to purchase the contraband and thereby the appellant contravened the conditions of his licence. He was not in custody when his statement was recorded as is clear from the statement of PW2- Gerard Joseph, who recorded the statement. 9. After due consideration, we do not find any merit in the submissions on behalf of the appellant. Both the courts below have concurrently held that the appellant was found to have sold the contraband to the co-accused without any licence. The said finding, inter a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d place. Where recovery is from a public place, Section 43 applies. This Court reconciled the view taken in Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri (supra) and Sajan Abraham v. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 692 in larger bench judgment in Sukdev Singh (supra). It was held that in view of technological advancements, it may not be possible to record information as per the requirement of Section 42. Strict compliance by the investigating agency should not be required in an emergency situation so as to avoid misuse by wrongdoers/ offenders/ drug peddlers (2009) 8 SCC 539 - Para 34. Whether there is adequate substantial compliance is a question of fact in each case. Apart from the finding that present case is governed by Section 43, there is no ground to in....