IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Section 67 NDPS Act is analogous to provisions of Section 108 of Customs Act.

Headnote:(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 409 - Transfer of proceedings from court of Addl. City Sessions Judge, No. 4 after the framing of charge to court of Addl. City Sessions Judge No. 10 - Proceedings came to be taken up by Court No. 10 on account of administrative order passed by City Sessions Judge and not u/s. 409 (2) Cr. P.C. - Order did not amount to assign a case to a subordinate court by Sessions Judge and did not suffer any illegality. (Para 8)
       (ii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 319 and 227 - Accused summoned by exercise of power u/s. 319 Cr. P.C. - Successor Judge has to commence proceedings afresh in respect of subsequently added accused - Trial court was justified in hearing application of such subsequently added accused before framing charge against him - Impugned order of trial court discharging such accused could not be said to be contrary to provisions of law. (Para 9)
       (iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 227 and 228 - Sufficient ground (or proceeding at the stage of framing charge - While applying judicial mind to material produced, Court should not apply strict standard prove- Respondent No. 1 accused was summoned for offences u/ss. 22 and 29 of NDPS Act r/w 120 B I.P.C. u/s. 319 Cr. P.C. - Statement of petitioner, one of the accused in the case, was recorded u/s. 67 NDPS Act but when he was not an accused Approach of trail Court was erroneous applying strict standard of proof when prosecution alleged element of conspiracy - Impugned order of discharge of respt. No. 1 was liable to be set aside. (Paras 11 to 15)
       (iv) Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 67 - Provisions of Section 67 NDPS Act is analogous to provisions of Section 108 of Customs Act. (Para 13)
       Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Trivedi, J. - Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. R.K. Shah appearing for the petitioner. Rule, Learned Advocate Kiran R. Jani with Senior Advocate R.B. Nayak having appeared in response to the notice issued to Respondent No. 1 has waived the service of rule. Similarly learned Advocate Mr. M.R Gehani who has appeared in response to the Notice issued to Respondent No. 2 has waived service of Rule. Learned APP Mr. A.J. Desai has waived service of rule on behalf of respondent - No. 3. By consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The petitioner is the original accused No. 2 of a Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994, which is pending at present in the Court of Additional City, Sessions Judge; Ahmedabad, Court No. 10. Respondent No. 2 is the original complainant on whose complaint, said Session Case No. 162 of 1993 has been registered under the provisions of Secs. 21, 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred as "NDPS Act"). The petitioner has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of order dated 12th May, 1997 passed by learned Additional City Sessions Judge. Ahmedabad, Court No. 10, below Exhibit 99 in the proceedings of Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994. That vide impugned Order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has discharged present respondent No. 1 who was arraigned as accused No. 8 in the proceedings of said Session Case No'. 162 of 1994 under Sec. 319 (1) of Cr. P.C. 1973.

3. That on receipt of intelligence report the Officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI for short) raided the Warehouse at International Airport, Bombay on 4-11- 1993 and under a panchnama seized a consignment lying at air cargo which was to be

exported through Kenya Airways. That on investigation said consignment was found to be containing 162 kgs. Methaqualone tablets which is also known as "Mandrex Tablets". That the Officers of DRI started further investigation as said consignment was found to be containing contraband material under the provisions of NDPS Act. That on further investigation, the Officers of DRI also seized another consignment from an abandoned ambassador car found on Gandhinagar Mehsana Highway on 12-1-1994. That the said consignment contained 166.750 kgs of Mandrex tablets. Similarly on 13-1-1994, Officers seized the consignment from the godown of Go to village containing 1489.6 kgs. Mandrex toblets. That the Officers of DR! recorded Statements of various persons during the investigation and on completion. filed a complaint in the Court of City Sessions Judge. Ahmedabad against (1) AGhint Navnitbhai Patel, (2) or Bipin Panchal, (3) Arvind Shivlal Soni. (4) Prahalatbhai Maganbhai Patel. (5) Revabhai Khembhai Patel, (6) Kashyap Arunbhai Patel, (7) Piyush Mulshankar Pandhya; and some other persons.

That the said case is registered as Sessions Case No. 164 of 1994 under the provisions of NDPS Act.

It may be noted that during the investigation the Officers of DRI also interrogated present respondent No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 has been cited as one of the witness in the said complaint.

4. That the proceedings of Session Case No. 162/94 was notified for framing of charge on the cause list of Addl. City Sessions Judge. Ahmedabad. Court No. 15. That pending the further proceedings present petitioner had moved an application-Exhibit 17 in the said proceedings under Sec. 319(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code"). It was prayed in the said application that the present respondent No. 1 along with one Amrutbhai Soni and Bimal Amrubhai Soni be summoned before the Court under Sec. 319 of the Code and be directed to, face the same charges that may be framed against present petitioner and other accused of said Sessions Case No. 162 of 1994. It appears from the record that learned Addl. City Sessions Judge. Ahmedabad. Court No. 15 fixed the said application for hearing. That on behalf of prosecution it wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

IMPORTANT POINTProvisions of Section 67 NDPS Act is analogous to provisions of Section 108 of Customs Act.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Section 67 NDPS Act is analogous to provisions of Section 108 of Customs Act.