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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 872

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS.
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.
Stanley.
Versus
State through the Superintendent of Customs, Tuticorin
Crl.A.No.312 of 1996
Decided On : 30th June, 1998.

Advocates Appeared:
M. Abdul Nazeer, for Appellant.
P.N. Prakash, for P.Rajamanickam, Special Public Prosecutor, for Respondent.

Confessional statement made by accused while in custody cannot be relied upon.

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985-Section 67-Combessional statement made by accused-such statement made while accused in the custody-Held, accused being in prolonged custody statements given by him cannot be held voluntary and no weight/validity can be attached to the confessional statement.

       

Judgment

The appeal is preferred by the accused against the conviction and sentence imposed by Special District Judge, Madurai in C.C.No.284 of 1993 dated 18.3.1996.

2. The charge against the appellant/accused is that on 19.7.1990 in the early morning, the Customs Preventive Unit, Tuticorin, while conducting coastal patrol in the area around New Port, Tuticorin noticed one Vallam and that they intercepted that Vallam after hard chase and opening of fire and that they noticed one person jumped from Vallam and escaped from the scene and another person namely the first accused Stanley was found in the Vallam and that they found two parcels in that Vallam and that on examination of the said parcel, they found brown sugar worth about Rs.66 lakhs and that therefore, the accused is liable to be punished under Secs. 8-C, 21 of NDPS Act, Secs.29, 23, 25 and 135(1)(a)(ii) of the Customs Act.

2. The Superintendent of Central Excise, Customs filed the complaint against the appellant/accused and another accused Raghavan. As the said accused Raghavan absconded during the pendency of the proceedings. The case was split up against him.

3. The appellant/accused denied the charges levelled against him. To prove the charges against the appellant/accused, the complainant has examined P.Ws.1 to5 and marked Exs.P-l to P-29 and M.Os.1 to 4.

4. The case of the complainant as disclosed from the above evidence and document is as follows:

P.W.1 is the Superintendent in Central Customs Preventive Unit and he is also a Gazetted Officer. P.W.3 was employed as Inspector in Customs Preventive Unit, Tuticorin during the relevant period. P.W.3 namely Periasamy received an information at about 9.30 p.m. on 17.7.1990 The above information revealed that the appellant/accused was attempting to smuggle Narcotic Drug through Tuticorin coast in the boat belonging to one Peter which contain the number ‘117’. P.W.3 recorded the above information and sent the same in a sealed cover to Assistant Collector. He also informed the said fact to P.W.1 the Superintendent namely, Rajappa. The copy of the information received by P.W.3 is Ex.P-1. Thereafter, P.Ws.1, 3 and others were surveilling the coastal area. But, till early morning of 18.7.1990, no such occurrence took place. When P.W.3 was in his house at about 3.30 p.m. on 18.7.1990 he received another information and he sent the same in a sealed cover to Assistant Collector. The above information disclosed that the accused is making arrangement to smuggle Narcotic drug worth about several lakhs in the boat belonging to Peter. P.W.3 informed the said matter to P. W. 1 Ex.P-2 is the copy of the said information on 18.7.1990 at about 6.00 a.m. through one Sethuraj P.W.4 The information revealed that narcotic drugs are being transported in the boat belonging to one Peter through sea. Ex.P3 is the copy of the said information. Thereafter, at about 9.00 p.m. on 18.7.1990 P.W.1 and others proceeded in a boat for conducting surveillance over coastal area. They also proceeded to high sea and watched whether any boat is proceeding from the Srilanka coast. Since no boat emerged from that area. till 12.30 p.m. P.W.1 and others drove their boat towards new port namely. Kol Jatti and at that time, P.W.1 and others were surveilling the area through Binoculars. At about 1.00 a.m. on 19.7.1990, they saw a Vallam at a distance of 2 kms. from Kol Jatti. Then they rushed towards the said boat. On seeing P.W.1 and and others, the above Vallam started moving towards coastal area. Though P.W.1 gave signal to stop the boat, the boat was driven with a speed. Therefore, the officers opened 9 rounds of fire in the air as warning shots. Thereafter, the officers chased the Vallam and caught hold of the Vallam. When they were nearing the Vallam, a person in the Vallam jumped into the sea and escaped. P.W.1 and others found the accused in the Vallam with two gunny bundles. On enquiry, the accused disclosed his name and address. The accused also informed that




























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top