Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2021 (3) TMI 739

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ted on 27.09.2020. 2. The case of the prosecution as given in the Status Report is as under: "Based upon information received on 14-08-2020, a parcel bearing AWB No. 6098216305 lying at Sky Line Logistics, 71/3, Rama Road, Najafgarh Industrial Area, Delhi, which had been booked by one Lilesh Sen, Bhilwara, Rajasthan and destined to Deborah Wood, Adelaide, Australia, was examined. The said parcel was found to contain ladies clothes and 2 khaki colour cardboard and 24 plastic type envelopes. The 2 khaki cardboard contained 04 plastic packets, thereafter total 28 plastic packets were checked and were found to contain white powdery substance i.e. gave positive result for Pseudoephedrine. The total weight of substance was 3 Kgs.800 g....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....so produced by Manoj Gupta during his statement. In further statement of Lilesh Sen dated 28-9-2020, he had identified Manoj Gupta as the person who was present at Hotel Ashirvad and had taken his ID documents. Even owner of Tracon Courier in his statement dated 28-9-2020 also identified accused Manoj Gupta as the person who had come to book the said parcel "(AWB 6098216305)." 3. Mr. Ramneek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Pseudoephedrine is only a controlled commodity and therefore the rigor of Section 37 NDPS Act does not apply to the facts of this case. He contends that the only evidence against the petitioner are the statements given by Lilesh Sen and Vinod Singh which are not admissible in view of the judgem....