IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
Somaskandaraja Vasanthan – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through Intelligence Officer NCB & Another – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 5 of 2010, 492 of 2010 & 31 of 2012
Decided on: 01-12-2014
1. The appellants herein are convicted of the offence punishable under Section 29 read with 8(c) and Section 21(c) read with 8(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (N.D.P.S.) Act and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1 Lakh i.d. S.I. for 6 months on each count by the Special Judge (N.D.P.S. Act) in Special Case No.88 of 2005 vide Judgment and Order dated 11/12/2009. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the appellants herein have preferred the present criminal appeals.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows :
On 30/1/2005 the Officer of Narcotics Control Bureau, Mumbai (hereinafter referred as NCB) received a secret information that at Room No.201 of Pooja Guest House, Sector-1, Plot No.22/35, Nerul, New Mumbai, Somaskandaraja Vasanthan (accused No.1) alongwith his associates was to deliver Heroin to Shri Lankan Nationals at around 12 noon. He had intimated the said information to the superior officers and alongwith a team of officers had gone to Pooja Guest House at around 12.30 p.m. A request was made to two persons from the hotel to act as panchas at room No.201. It is alleged that the accused No.1 had opened the door. The Officers had introduced themselves and had further informed him about the purpose of their visit. There were 3 more persons in the said room whose identity was disclosed subsequently. The officers found one black shoulder bag on the bed. They searched the bag. A polythene carry bag was found containing two clear polythene bags containing brown powder. The officer had tested a small quantity of brown powder from both polythene bags, which was detected positive for presence of Heroin. It is alleged that accused No.1 disclosed the source of the said contraband and had disclosed that he had come with the accused No.3 for delivering Heroin to accused Nos.2 and 4. The officers had followed the procedure of taking and sealing samples as well as contraband. The officers had complied with the mandate of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. In the personal search of accused No.3. a photocopy of identity card and advance receipt of Pooja Guest House were recovered and was taken into custody. The house search of the accused No.1 was carried out. Passports of accused Nos.1 and 3 were found in the said house search. A cell phone handset was also seized. The officer had then taken steps to trace the accused No.5. He was not found at his residence.
3. On 30/1/2005 statement of accused Nos.1 to 4 were recorded in the NCB office. It was revealed that there was a conspiracy between the accused and in pursuance to the said conspiracy, 2 kgs. of heroin was procured from the accused No.5 by accused Nos.1 and 3 to deliver it to accused Nos.2 and 4 at room No.201 of Pooja Guest House. The supervisor of Pooja Guest House i.e. Ravi Naidu disclosed to the police that room No.201 was booked in the name of Ravindran by two persons who were introduced by accused no.1. He had identified those two persons as accused Nos.2 and 4. Further statements of accused Nos.1 and 2 were recorded under Section 67 of the Act. Original accused No.5 was arrested on 6/6/2005. His statement was also recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. He had allegedly admitted that he had supplied Heroin to accused No.1.
4. After completion of investigation on 10/7/2005 complainant filed complaint before the Court. The case was registered as Special Case No.88 of 2005. The Special Judge framed charges under Section 29 read with 8(c) and under Section 21(1)(c) read with 8(c) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 against all the accused. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
5. P.W. 1 Anil Kodnani was working as the intelligence officer with NCB, Mumbai. He has deposed before the Court that on 30/1/2005 (Sunday) Superintendent Mr. Patil summoned him to the office urgently for an operational work. He was informed by Mr. Patil that they have rec
Dharampal Singh vs. State of Punjab (2010) 9 SCC 608
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.