2009(4) Supreme 723
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gauhati High Court)
S.B. Sinha and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Raju Premji — Appellant
versus
Customs NER Shillong Unit — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1647 of 2007
with
Criminal Appeal No. 956 of 2009
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2047 of 2008)
Decided on : 06-05-2009
(1999) 6 SCC 172; (2008) 4 SCC 668 – Relied upon.
(b) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 53 – Customs Officers are invested with the powers of Officer Incharge of Police Station – It does not debar the police officers of their powers under the Act. (Para 11)
(c) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 67 – Voluntariness of the confession must be judged from facts and circumstances of each case. (Para 23)
(2007) 8 SCC 254; 2008 (9) SCALE 681 – Relied upon.
(d) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 50 – Evidence obtained during even an irregular search is admissible and conviction can be based on such evidence. (Para 25)
AIR 1961 Kerala 8 – Cited with approval.
(e) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 67 – Confession retracted amounts to have not been made. (Para 26)
(f) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Section 29 – Contraband not found in possession of the appellants – Burden of proof therefore never shifted on them. (Para 26)
Facts of the case :
1. Appellant Raju Premji (A-4) was a resident of Shillong. He had been carrying on business in shoes in West Bengal. Appellant Arun Kanungo (A-3) is a resident of Meghalaya. They along with two other accused, namely Yashihey Yobin (A-1) and Lishihey Ngwazah Ngwazah (A-2) were prosecuted for commission of offences under the NDPS Act.
2. On a tip off house of Yobin was searched in course whereof he took out one suitcase wherein he had allegedly kept the packet of heroin. However, no heroin was found therein. On interrogation on the spot, Yobin informed that his brother-in-law, Lisihey Ngwazah, accused No.2, must have removed the same. He instructed his wife to contact him and ask him to come back immediately with goods. Accused No.2 after sometimes turned up with a black bag on his shoulder. On being asked, he opened the bag and took out the contents thereof which included one suit case cover of camouflage denim made of synthetic fabric and one green polythene bag, on opening whereof, one plastic packet containing white powder wrapped with two pieces of English newspaper was recovered.
3. On another tip off the appellants was nabbed. Physical search was made of the appellants but nothing was found. They were interrogated whereupon they allegedly disclosed that the drugs were in possession of accused No.1.
4. Whereas accused No.4 retracted from his confession on 4th November, 2003, other accused including accused No.3 retracted therefrom while making their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
5. The appellants were convicted. Appeal preferred by them before the High Court have been dismissed by the reason of the impugned judgment.
Finding of the Court :
Appellants are not guilty.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
Leave granted.
1. These two appeals involving common questions of law and fact are directed against a judgment and order dated 6th September, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3(SH) of 2006 and 4(SH) of 2006 affirming a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 21st June, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Shillong in Criminal (NDPS) Case No.26/2003 whereby both the appellants were convicted under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’) and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each; in default of payment of fine, to further undergo a rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Appellant Raju Premji (A-4) was a resident of Shillong. He, however, had been carrying on business in shoes in West Bengal. Appellant Arun Kanungo (A-3), however, is a resident of Meghalaya. They along with two other accused, namely Yashihey Yobin (A-1) and Lishihey Ngwazah Ngwazah (A-2) were prosecuted for commission of offences under the NDPS Act.
3. Before placing on record the factual matrix of the matter, we may notice that whereas accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted for possession of 380 gms. of heroin, appellants herein were convicted under Section 25 of the Act for abetment thereof as they purported to have associated themselves with finding prospective buyers in disposing of the contraband.
4. The prosecution case in brief is that D. Pakyntein, PW-11, an Inspector in the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, NER Shillong, received an information from Special Operation Team of Meghalaya Police through N.K. Bhandari, PW-4, at about 7.50 p.m. on 19th August, 2003 that one Yasihey Yobin of Dum Dum, Nogthymmai, accused No.1, had kept some heroin at his residence and if a search is conducted immediately, the contraband may be recovered. Thereafter Pakyntein contacted R.M. Chyne, Superintendent (PW-7), B. Kar, Inspector (PW-2) and N.K. Bhandari, PW-4. All of them proceeded towards the residence of accused No.1 to conduct the search. On reaching there, they met the members of the Special Operation Team alongwith Yobin. After the particulars of Yobin were ascertained, his house was searched in presence of independent witnesses R.V. Dkha, PW-3 and D. Khyriem, PW-8, in course whereof he took out one suitcase wherein he had allegedly kept the packet of heroin. However, no heroin was found therein. On interrogation on the spot, Yobin informed that his brother-in-law, Lisihey Ngwazah, accused No.2, must have removed the same. He instructed his wife to contact him and ask him to come back immediately with goods. Accused No.2 after sometimes turned up with a black bag on his shoulder. On being asked, he opened the bag and took out the contents thereof which included one suit case cover of camouflage denim made of synthetic fabric and one green polythene bag, on opening whereof, one plastic packet containing white powder wrapped with two pieces of English newspaper was recovered.
5. Indisputably, however, the information was received by M. Kharkrang, Additional Superintendent of Police, PW-9, from his source who informed that he had been offered to sell drugs by some people and they have to meet him at Keating Road, whereupon plain clothes policemen were posted, who nabbed the appellants therefrom. They were brought to the office of the Superintendent of Police. Physical search was made of the appellants but nothing was found. They were interrogated whereupon they allegedly disclosed that the drugs were in possession of accused No.1.
At that point of time, the Customs Officers were informed. Whereas the police officers reached the village of accused No.1 first, the Customs Officers joined them later.
6. Appellants herein were in the custody of the police officers since evening of 19th August, 2003. Their custody was handed over to the customs officers. It
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.