High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ARUMUGHAM
M. Loganathan - Appellant
Versus
Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2827 & 2828/94
Decided On : 27 April 1994
CRIMINAL - BAIL - NARCOTIC DRUGS AND PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES ACT, 1985 - SECTION 42(2) - MANDATORY PROVISION - NON-COMPLIANCE - BAIL GRANTED - CONDITIONS IMPOSED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, charged with offenses under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), sought bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were involved in the trafficking of heroin, which was seized during a search of their vehicle. The petitioners contended that the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, which require the recording of information about the commission of an offense in writing and the sending of a special report to the superior officer, were not complied with, and that this prejudiced their case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had been denied any definite information about the commission of the offense, which ran counter to the document supplied by the prosecution in the writ proceedings. The court held that Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is a mandatory provision and its non-compliance affected the prosecution case. The court also found that the mandatory directions required to be compulsorily complied with, namely, recording the details of information about the commission of the offense in writing by the respondent before proceeding further and sending the special report after the preparation of detention mahazar and seizure mahazar to the superior officer, as provided under Section 42, had not been done in this case.
Issues: 1. Whether the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act were complied with by the prosecution. 2. Whether the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act prejudiced the petitioners' case. 3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to bail.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act is a mandatory provision and its non-compliance affected the prosecution case. 2. The court found that the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act prejudiced the petitioners' case, as they were denied any definite information about the commission of the offense and were not informed of their right to be searched in the presence of a gazetted officer or a magistrate. 3. The court held that the petitioners were entitled to bail, as the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act created a presumption of prejudice to the accused.
Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioners on the following conditions: (1) Each petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties for a like sum each. (2) Except on the hearing dates, both petitioners shall reside within Trichirapalli Municipal town limits and report before the respondent daily at 10 A.M. and 6 P.M. until further orders. (3) They shall not move out of the said town on any account without the permission of this court. (4) They shall not indulge in meddling with the prosecution witnesses or in causing impediment to the trial and should not indulge in any of the offenses either under the special Act or under the regular law.
Petitioner Loganathan and Shiva Narayan, who have been arrayed as A3 and A2 respectively along with 11 others, charged with offences punishable under Section 8(c) read with 21, 23, 25 and 27A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'NDPS' Act in C.C. No. 24 of 1994 on the file of the Special Judge for E.C. Act cases, Salem, who were arrested and lodged to judicial custody, have come forward with these applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the occurrence involved in the whole case relating to both the petitioners along with others is one and the same and the points taken are common, with the consent of the Bar, I am disposing both these petitions, by passing this common order.
2.The conspectus of the facts is that at or about 11.45 A.M. on 15-5-1993 while the respondent was having a surveillance for the persons accused of the offences under the N.D.P.S. Act on intelligence spotted a light blue colour Ambassador car bearing the registration mark TNB 9346 parked near National Hotel at Salem, and in which, two persons were found getting into the same from the Hotel and that the said car proceeded towards Omalur Road, being followed by the respondent and that on covering a certain distance, at a place where a loaded public transport lorry was parked in the opposite direction in the same road, the car was stated to have stopped and one person from the car alighted and got into the lorry and on piloting by the said car, the lorry with the load of consignment followed, which was followed by the respondent's officials. At a place called Thallapallam on the same highway, both the lorry and the car were stopped and intercepted and on questioning, the respondent came to know that contrabands under the N.D.P.S. Act were concealed under the consignment of the lorry and that the inmates of the lorry as well as the car were responsible for the same and on finding the said place, being in a highway, inconvenient, for further follow up action, took the two vehicles along with responsible persons, including the petitioners herein to their office at Salem, where at about 9 P.M. on that day, the said lorry was searched and during the said sojourn, a huge quantity of heroin worth Rs. 1, 32, 20, 000/- weighing 66, 100 kgs. kept concealed under 1, 750 card board boxes containing slate pencils, which contraband was seized under the cover of mahazar at about 9 P.M. on the same day, attested by the witnesses. All the persons involved in the crime were arrested, investigation followed and several other accused were also secured. The contrabands were sent to the court according to the respondent in accordance with the procedure laid down in this regard. Consequently, a complaint was also lodged before the court at Salem and the trial of the case is yet to commence. It is thus seen that from 15-5-1993 onwards, the petitioners along with the other accused are in judicial custody for the offences aforemetioned.
3.For and on behalf of the petitioners it is stated that previously bail applications were filed but however the same were dismissed as withdrawn. Now, an attempt is being made on their behalf seeking the bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the following grounds :
(1) Mr. B. Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the petitioners dwells his first attack by drawing my attention to the fact that an inherent improbability lies in the case of the respondent against the petitioners as seen from the first detention mahazar, prepared at about 11.45 A.M. at Thallapallam by the respondent and the statement recorded from both the petitioners. There is inconsistency between the two, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the first detention mahazar, the respondent has stated that on spotting a light blue colour Ambassador car parked near the National Hotel at Salem, they found two persons coming from the hotel and
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.