SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(Guj) 647

Gujarat High Court
Judgename :K.R.VYAS, M.S.Parikh
MOHMADKHAN RASULKHAN PATHAN - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 169 of 1991
Decided On : 12/22/1997

Advocates Appeared: M.J.BUDDHBHATTI, S.A.PANDYA, SUNIL C.PATEL

Headnote:(a) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Secs. 20(b)(I) and 50 — Bombay Prohibition Act, 1959 — Sec. 66(I)(b) — On secret information a raid was conducted by the High officers of the Narcotic Department — 16 kgs. of `charas was recovered from the accused standing near a crossing of a High Way — Panchas were called but those were not examined — Objection raised about their non- examination — Held, law does not require in all cases to call Panchas from the same locality and then to examine them.

       It is not a rule of law that in all cases and under all circumstances when a raid is carried out or when a person is apprehended, the concerned officer should go in search of some well known persons from nearby place. In a matter like the present where there is some immediate information received the concerned officers were required to act fast for the purpose of finding out the truth of the information. It would, therefore, be natural for them to make immediate arrangement of Panchas to accompany the officers to go to the place. There would hardly be any time left at the place of incident for making any arrangement for other independent persons. Once-again it is not a rule of law that Panchas in all cases have to be examined when the officers such as Custom Officers were present and in whose presence the Panchnama was recorded and who have been examined in the case.

       [Para 7]

       (b) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sec. 52(3) — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sec. 102(3) — Non- compliance of the procedure prescribed in Sec. 102 CrPC — This will not effect the proceedings as the raiding party was adopting and following the procedure as per Sec. 52(3) of NDPS Act.

       Section 52 (3) of the NDPS Act says that every person arrested and article seized shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay to the officers stated in Clause (a) or (b) thereof and Clause (b) thereof refers to Sec. 53 which in term speaks about officers of certain departments which include excise/custom departments. Section 52-A introduced with effect from 29.5.1989 deals with disposal of seized narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances. The concerned Custom Officials in this case, upon having some secret information had to undergo the arrangement of raiding and apprehending the accused in possession of around 16 Kgs. of Charas as per the detailed facts noted hereinabove. The procedure that has been followed by the concerned Custom Officers is one under the provisions of the NDPS Act.

       [Para 10]

       (c) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Sec. 50 — Non-compliance of this mandatory provision — Accused was not given the choice of search in the presence of High Officer — Held, this is only essential and mandatory when the officers dealing with the case and search are as mentioned in Sec. 42(I) — But where the raiding party consists of Gazetted Officers then the provisions of Sec. 50 are not to be complied.

       It is specifically made clear that such of those officers mentioned therein, i.e., in Sec. 42 (1) are required, on receiving an information, to reduce the same to writing and also record reasons for the belief while carrying out arrest or search as provided under the proviso to Sec. 42 (1). Supreme Court has not considered whether such of the officers referred to in Sec. 41 (2) is required to record reasons while acting under Sec. 41. As discussed earlier, we are of the opinion that the officers referred to in Sec. 41 (2) and Sec. 42 (1) are different and distinct ones. Officers referred to in Sec. 41 (2) are superior officers while officers referred to in Sec. 42 (1) are subordinate officers.

       [Para 11]

M. S. PARIKH, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant Mohmadkhan (Mahmudkhan) Rasulkhan pathan has brought under challenge his conviction under S. 20 (b) (1) of the narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (of short n. D. P. S. Act) and S. 66 (1) (b) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000. 00, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year rendered by the learned additional City Sessions Judge, by his impugned judgment and order dated 4-1-1991 in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1990.

( 2 ) IT is the prosecution case that pursuant to secret information received by the complainant Mr. A. S. Saiyed, Inspector, Customs (Preventive), Ahmedabad on 22- 8-1989 the proceedings were undertaken. Mr. Saiyed reduced the information into writing, placed it in a sealed cover and delivered the same to the Superintendent of Customs, Mr. P. D. Nair. Both of them then went to the Assistant Collector (Preventive) Mr. Thakur and handed over the sealed cover to him. According to Mr. Saiyed one D. R. I. Form (I) was also filled in which was scrutinised by the Assistant collector. Two Customs Inspectors Mr. Batham and Mr. Barot were thereafter called. The matter was discussed amongst all the aforesaid officers and a raid was arranged. Mr. Saiyed went outside the office for calling Panchas, after whose arrival necessary particulars with regard to names and addresses of the Panchas were recorded and primary panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, the raiding party consisting of superintendent Mr. Nair, Customs Inspectors Mr. Saiyed and Mr. Barot alongwith the Panchas left the Customs House in the Government car, Mr. Batham following the car on his motor cycle. They accordingly reached Isanpur Four Roads around 12-45 p. m. on the same day, namely, 22-8-1989. The appellant, referred to herein as the accused, was ultimately found standing alongwith a tin container as per the secret information received by the concerned Inspector. Customs Inspector Mr. Saiyed in the company of the two Panchas initially went to the place where the accused was standing with the container and upon inquiry having been made by Mr. Saiyed regarding contents of the tin container, the accused informed Mr. Saiyed that it contained household articles. In the meantime the Customs Superintendent Mr. Nair and other officials reached the place. Mr. Nair disclosed his identity and also that of the members of the raiding party to the accused. Upon being asked, the accused informed that he was Mohmadkhan Rasulkhan Pathan by name and upon being asked about the contents in the tin container, he stated that it was belonging to him and it contained 16 Kgs. of "charas". It was the prosecution case that on account of rain showers Mr. Nair informed Panchas that it would not be convenient to prepare panchnama at that place. One more reason for doing so was that people were gathering at the place. The Panchas having agreed to leave the place for the customs House they proceeded for going to Customs House accordingly. The container was placed in the dickey of motor car which was then locked. They accordingly in the company of the accused reached the Customs House, where they opened the dickey and the container was taken out in the presence of the Panchas and the accused. They all then went to the Customs House more particularly in the C. I. U. room where the tin container was placed on one table. At that time over and above the persons of the raiding party Mr. Thakur, Assistant collector of Customs, Mr. Joshi, Inspector and other 2 to 3 officers of the Customs department were present. Thereafter in the presence of the Panchas the container was opened. One gunny bag was taken out from the container. It was tied with red plastic string. It contained the inscription reading "909 Basmati Rice". The gunny bag was then opened and four plastic transparent bags were found therefrom, three bags were weighing 5 Kgs. e


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top