Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
Saran Gopal Krishnan – Petitioner
Versus
Narcotics Control Bureau, Kolkata – Respondent
CRR No. 75 of 2022
Decided On : 15-01-2024
Narcotic Control Bureau - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 73, Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. - Section 29 of the Extradition Act - The judgment discusses the issuance of warrants, recall of warrants, and the considerations for such actions under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Extradition Act. It also highlights the gravity of the offences, the role played by the accused, and the need for custodial interrogation in such cases.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a resident of Kerala residing in Dubai, sought to set aside warrants and orders issued by the Court of the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Barasat, in connection with a Narcotic Control Bureau case. The petitioner alleged procedural irregularities and violation of procedural safeguards.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the warrants and orders were issued in accordance with the law, considering the gravity of the offences, the role played by the petitioner, and the need for custodial interrogation. The court also noted the non-appearance of the petitioner and the commencement of trial for other accused persons.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of warrants, the petitioner's non-appearance, and the considerations for recall of warrants under the Criminal Procedure Code and the Extradition Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the gravity of the offences, the role played by the petitioner, and the need for custodial interrogation, as well as the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Extradition Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the revisional application, stating that any indulgence shown in such cases considering the conduct would amount to an abuse of process of law.
JUDGMENT :
SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.
1. The present revision has been preferred praying for setting aside of Warrant of Arrest dated 05.06.2018, Warrant for Proclamation and Attachment dated 21.02.2019, and order dated 05.10.2021, all of which have been issued/passed by the Court of the Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Barasat.
2. The Petitioner a resident of State Kerala, presently resides at Dubai (UAE) for employment.
3. The petitioner herein submits that he seeks to set aside the Warrant of Arrest dated 05.06.2018, Warrant for Proclamation & Attachment dated 21.02.2019, and the order dated 05.10.2021 rejecting the application seeking setting aside of warrant for arrest, all of which have been passed by the Court of the Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Barasat in derogation of the procedural safeguards provided therewith, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Constitutional Courts of India.
4. It is stated by the petitioner that the proceedings in this case has been initiated by the Narcotic Control Bureau relating to an incident on 12.12.2017 regarding delivery of substantial quantity of LSD blots and some quantity of MDMA to some of the accused persons.
5. During investigation it transpired that one of the accused Rhythm Das Roy transferred money to his friend Saran Gopal’s State Bank of India Account No. 20137002414 for further order and delivery to Niloy Ghosh and being a middleman Rhythm Das Roy gained monetary benefit of Rs. 800-1000 per gram of MDMA. Rhythm Das Roy also revealed that Saran Gopal Krishnan had asked him to deliver MDMA, LSD to Niloy Ghosh from one of his darkweb vendor of drugs available at Nashik and the vendor at Nashik further shipped the consignment to Niloy Ghosh at Calcutta through DTDC Courier service.
6. Another accused Kamlesh Baste, confessed that on the directions of one Saran Gopal, he shipped drugs to Niloy Ghosh of Kolkata. He further stated that he and Saran Gopal used to communicate through encrypted chat of darkweb, and Saran Gopal Krishnan used to send money through “BITCOIN” to Baste.
7. On 21.03.2018, the officers of Narcotics Control Bureau forwarded a Letter bearing No. 62/NCB/KOL/2017-1372-13 dated 21.03.2018 with a request to issue a Look-Out Circular in the name of the petitioner and accordingly Bureau of Immigration opened a LOC vide LOC Suspect No. 1841637 to 1841637.
8. The petitioner states that he was not given a fair chance to be heard by and before the investigating agency, since even before a notice U/s 67 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 was issued to the petitioner, a Look-out Circular was issued and a prohibitory order was passed against him which barred him to join and co-operate with the investigation, despite the petitioner having most bona fide intentions. In this manner, without there being any warrant, such illegal and coercive order of a Look-out Circular was issued.
9. As seen from the order under revision, the validity of the said LOC has now expired.
10. The petitioners’ prayer for Anticipatory bail was rejected by the Sessions Judge, 6th Court, Barasat on 19.09.2018.
11. That upon the non-execution of warrant of arrest, the Learned Trial Court was pleased to issue Warrant of Proclamation & Attachment against the petitioner vide order dated 21.02.2019.
12. The petitioner then filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India titled as, “Saran Gopal Krishnan v. Union of India through Intelligence Officer” bearing Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 141/2019 on 01.03.2019 seeking inter-alia for setting aside of the said Lookout Circular issued by the Union of India. Subsequently, the matter got registered on 07.05.2019. However, the same was withdrawn pursuant to an order dated 04.10.2019. Subsequently, a representation dated 20.10.2019 was sent to the NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU by the Petitioner, but to no avail.
13. Finally an application filed by the petitioner praying for recall of the LOC, W.A.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of gravity of offences, role played by the accused, and the need for custodial interrogation in determining the validity of warra....
The appearance of the accused petitioner before the Investigating Officer as per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court does not in any way negate the orders passed by the trial court which were sou....
The severity of the crime and specific allegations against the accused influenced the court's decision to issue warrants at the first instance.
The judgment established that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant should follow proper procedure and judicial guidelines, including the recording of satisfaction by the court.
Interlocutory orders affecting rights are revisable; non-bailable warrants must follow statutory procedures.
The failure to obtain a transit warrant and produce the accused within 24 hours constitutes a violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution, rendering the detention unlawful.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
