SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. AHMADI., C.J.I., N.P. SINGH AND K. VENKATASWAMI, JJ.
Mohd. Alam Khan, Appellant
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau and another, Respondents.
Criminal Appeal No. 241 of 1996 (arising out of S. L. P. (Cri) No. 349 of 1995),
D/- 20-2-1996.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22 - Customs Act, 1962 - Section 108 - Argument – Offence of punishment - At outset it may be pointed out that appellant was tried by Special Judge along with other accused and also along with connected case - On officials of Narcotic Control Bureau Bombay - For short raided houses of co-accused - One of co-Accused by name pointed out residence of appellant situated at second floor suggesting to conduct raid in that premises as well - Accordingly that house of appellant was searched on and some incriminating documents along with cash Came to be seized - IN connection with that seizure appellant was brought to office of Narcotic Control Bureau Bombay for interrogation - While the appellant was in office of Narcotic Control Bureau Bombay for the purpose of interrogation the Intelligence Officer of Bureau received information to effect that appellant was having another flat in building Co-Operative Housing Society Bombay- Further information received was to effect that appellant was trafficking in and psychotropic drugs in a big way and he had stored Mandrex tablets numbering to that house - ON receipt of this information on evening of premises came to be searched in presence of – Held Court have considered the rival submissions - COURT do not think that the learned Additional Solicitor General is right in invoking of Section of Act for Section production of document which has been seized from the custody or control of any person or furnished by any person - In this case document namely agreement has not been seized from custody of appellant or it has been furnished by him - Appeal allowed
Judgement
K. VENKATASWAMI, J.:- Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 378/93 dated 18-10-94. The Judgment under appeal has confirmed the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 22 read with Section 8 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay by his judgment and order dated 25/28th June, 1993, in Special case No. 255/89. Brief facts are the following.
3. At the outset, it may be pointed out that the appellant was tried by the Special Judge along with other accused and also along with connected case. On 5-3-89, officials of Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay (N. C. B. for short) raided the houses of the co-accused. One of the co-accused by name, Raj Babu Pardan, pointed out the residence of the appellant situated at second floor, S. M. Mansion, 299 Bellasis Road, Bombay, thereby suggesting to conduct a raid in that premises as well. Accordingly that house of the appellant was searched on 6-3-89, and some incriminating documents along with cash amount of Rs. 45,000/- came to be seized. In connection with that seizure, the appellant was brought to the office of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay for interrogation. While the appellant was in the office of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay for the purpose of interrogation, the Intelligence Officer of the said Bureau received information to the effect that the appellant was having another flat No. 102, in building No. 8A 1 Quba Co-operative Housing Society, Millat Nagar., Andheri, Bombay-58. The further information received was to the effect that the appellant was trafficking in norcotic and psychotropic drugs in a big way and he had stored Mandrex tablets numbering 50,000 to 60,000 in that house. On receipt of this information on the evening of 7th March 1989, the said premises came to be searched in the presence of Panchas. In the search, the officials seized 50,000 Mandrex tablets contained in a maroon coloured bag along with certain documents.The samples of the said Mandrex tabletx were drawn under a panchnama. The Deputy Director of Narcotic Control Bureau, was informed about the result of the search. It may be noted that the said search was conducted when the appellant was being interrogated by the Narcotic Control Bureau, officials. It is also common ground that the said premises was under lock and key and the search party broke open the lock for conducting the search. In the course of the interrogation, the appellant was asked about the seizure of those 50,000 Mandrex tablets and he was said to have given statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, and also under Section 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act, 1985. In the course of the search and seizure of the said premises along with the contraband tablets an agreement dated 8-3-1989, supposed to have been signed by the appellant in favour of the promotor/builder was also seized by the officials.
4. On the basis of the abovesaid materials, the prosecution presented the case before the Special Judge, Greater Bombay. As noticed earlier, the case against the appellant was heard and tried along with another connected case and also along with some other co-accused. The learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay while acquitting the co-accused and also the appellant in the connected case which related to the raid of the premises situated at second floor S. M. Mansion, 299, Bellasis Road Bombay, convicted the appellant in respect of the seizure of 50,000 Mandrex tablets from flat No. 102 in building no. 8A1, Quba Co-operative Housing Society, Millat Nagar, Bombay and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs. One lac in default to undergo one year additional rigorous imprisonment. In fact, the learned Special Judge in paragraph 53 concluded as follows :-
"In view of my aforesaid discuss
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.