1999 (8) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....D.P.S. Act and was thus guilty for the offence punishable under Section 21 read with Section 8(c) of the Act. The other charges of conspiracy and abatement were held not proved and, therefore, the learned Judge acquitted him of those offences. The charges under Section 30 of N.D.P.S. Act and Section 135 of the Customs Act were also held not proved. Feeling aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has filed this appeal. 2.The trial Court after appreciating the evidence of S.M. Sawant (P.W. 1) who was then working as an Intelligence Officer in the office of Directorate of Revenue at Bombay and that of Krishna Kumar (P.W. 2) who was then working as Assistant Director of D.R.I. at Bombay, held that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt to establish that it was the appellant who was in possession of those articles. 4.It was contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the evidence regarding the appellant having entered the hotel at about 6.30 p.m. and that he was followed thereafter by the officers of the D.R.I. is not believable as P.W. 3 Anthony Fernandis had stated in his earlier statement recorded by the D.R.I. Officers that the appellant was in his room No. 201 and as there was a phone call from outside, he was called from his room and while he was talking on telephone, two persons had come from outside. In his deposition before the Court, this witness had clearly stated that he was not really in the hotel at that time and that he was called from the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... was really for that reason a surveillance was kept by the DRI Officers and only after his identity was confirmed that they had tried to apprehend him. The Officers did not have any information to the effect that he had kept or concealed in Room No. 201 of that hotel any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance. It was under these circumstances that the room was searched with a view to find out whether there was any incriminating article in that room. It was not put to P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that they had not recorded the reasons or that they did not have the necessary authorisation for the purpose of carrying out the search. No such point was taken before the trial Court. This point was taken for the first time before the High Court. It has been....