TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 86
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pearing for the petitioner and Mr. P. Vishnu, learned Special Public Prosecutor (Customs) appearing for the respondent. 3. The case of the prosecution is that, based on information, on 01.07.2011, a team of officers from Air Cargo Intelligence Unit examined a courier parcel in Fedex Dedicated Courier Terminal. The said courier, consigned from Hyderabad to Maldives declared as books under Courier Shipping Bill No.2200 dated 01.07.2011. On examination of the parcel, it was found that it was regular cover of Fedex and inside the cover, it was found an another brown cardboard cover with sender's address as "from Naresh", 1st accused and the recipient's address was also the same. The said box contained two books and on scrutinizing the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er Sections 21, 23, 28 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. Whereas the respondent lodged the complaint for the offence punishable under Section 8(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 132 and 135 of the Customs Act. No sanction was accorded to prosecute the accused under Section 132 of the Customs Act. The said offence is no way connected to the petitioner. Though there were 4 boxes of contraband, the respondent had taken the sample from one box only and it is evident from the Mahazar. The samples were sent for analysis. The respondent stated that on a reasonable belief that the brown substance might be some narcotic, a test was conducted using Field Test Kit, and it tested positive for Heroin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... may mechanically report back that the sample analysed was the same as named or as described in the forwarding letter". 4.2. The above judgment is not applicable to the case on hand since it is arising out of conviction. The grounds raised by the petitioner can be considered only before the trial Court during the trial. Therefore, the documents which are cited before this Court cannot be tested without let in evidence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also cited a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case of Basant Rai Vs. State dated 02.07.2012, in which, it is held that "For example, if the 8 packets were allegedly recovered from the appellant and only two packets were having contraband substance and re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., he categorically admitted that, he was in charge of Fedex Express Services (India) Pvt. Ltd., and he was engaged in the courier clearance of international shipping. Therefore he is liable to be prosecuted under NDPS Act as well as Customs Act. 9. It is not the case of the petitioner that the samples were opened or missing. As per the test report dated 09.08.2011 of Assistant Chemical Examiner that all the seals were intact and were tallying with the facsimile seals kept in the Court letter and in the memo. It is further reported that the samples are in the form of brown coloured powder. It answers the test for the presence of Diacetyl morphine (Heroin) and is covered under N.D.P.S. Act, 1985. 10. In so far as the sanction is concerned, ....