2006 (5) TMI 553

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 13.07.2005 in connection with an alleged recovery said to have been made from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar). The alleged recovery from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar) is of two polythene bags of 1 k.g. each. One of the bags was said to contain 1.4% of diacetylmorphine and the other bag was said to contain paracetamol and caffeine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tances were recovered from them separately. The court held that although they were found together, they cannot be implicated under Section 29 of the NDPS Act as in that case there was no warrant to arrive at such a conclusion at all as there was no evidence to suggest that there was any criminal conspiracy among the two. The learned Counsel for the petitioner cited this judgment to lay emphasis on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onclusion that merely on the basis of secret information without the informant being named and / or produced as a witness, the foundation of a case under Section 29 could not be laid. This court concluded as under: 8. Upon considering the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that apart from the secret information that the prosecution is alleged to have rec....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....less and until and provider of such information is examined in court. 4. The learned Counsel for the State submitted that while it is true that no recovery was effected from the present petitioner, a recovery of 1 k.g. of a substance containing diacetylmorphine was made from the co-accused (Naresh Kumar) and that the State was prosecuting the present petitioner under Section 21 read with Sectio....