LexGIRISH RAGHUNATH MEHTA versus INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H [2016] 5 S.C.R. 204 GIRISH RAGHUNATH MEHTA v. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER (Criminal Appeal Nos. I 020-1021 of2009) SEPTEMBER 07 , 2016 [C. NAGAPPAN AND ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: s. 15 rlw. s. 8(c), s. 67 - Unauthorized sale of contraband - Opium poppy straw allegedly sold by appellant-accused without any bills and authorization - Co-accused was apprehended with 30 Kg. of poppy straw on raid by PWJ- Inspector of Customs and PW5 - Co-accused stated poppy straw was purchased by him from appellant without any bill - Positive test for presence of opium by field testing kit in sample collected - Appellant gave statement u/ s.67 that he had sold 30 Kg. of poppy straw powder to co-accused without receipt and medical prescription - Conviction of appellant - Propriety - Held: No serious inflr111ity in the findings recorded by the courts below in convicting and sentencing the appellant - Prosecution version based not only on the state111ent u/s.67 but also on evidence of recovery of the contraband immediately after sale and circumstances showing that the contraband was sold by the appellant to the co-accused, without any authorization - Maharashtra Narcotic Drugs and P!>ychotropic Substances Rules, 1985. ss. 42 and 43 - Applicability of - Discussed - s.42 applies when the contraband recovered from a building, conveyance or enclosed place and whereas s.43 applies where recovery is from a public place. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Both the courts below had concurrently held that the appellant was found to have sold the contraband to the co- accused without any licence. The said finding, inter (l/i(I, was based on the evidence of PWl, Inspector of Customs who seized the contraband from the co-accused. The evidence in the form of statement of the appellant himself (Ex.-20) u/s. 67 of the Narcotic 204 GIRISH RAGHUNATH MEHTA v. INSPECTOR OF CUSTOMS AND ANOTHER Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 before his arrest clearly shows that the appellant had sold the contraband to the co-accused who did not have any licence to put·chase thereof. The connection of contraband with the appellant was clearly established after which the burden was on appellant to show that he had effected sale to an authorized person. Recovery from the co-accused was from an open place to which Section 42 of the Act was not attracted. At the time of production of gunny bag no objection was raised on behalf of the appellant that the bag did not carry any label or sign of identity. The absence of label and sign of identity could not be presumed. The samples were duly tested by the chemical analyzer and were found to be intact. There was no serious infirmity in the findings recorded by the courts below in convicting and sentencing the appellant. [Para 9][210- A-D) State of Rajasthan v. Jag Raj Singh (2016) 6 SCALE 32; Tofan Singh 1( S1a1e of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31 : 2013 (9) SCR 962; Union of India v. Bal Mukund (2009) 12 SCC 161 : 2009 (5) SCR 205; Raju Premji v. Customs NER Shillong Unit (2009) 16 SCC 496 : 2009 (7) SCR 839; Noor Aga v. State of Punjab (2008) 16 SCC 417 : 2008 (10) SCR 379 - referred to. 2.1 There can be no doubt that the Court had to satisfy itself that the statement u/s.67 was made voluntarily and at a time when the person making such statement had not been made an accused. Whether the statement was voluntary and free from encumbrance had to be judged from the facts and circumstances of each case. [Para 11)(211-A-B] 2.2 However, in the present case, it is not necessary to go into this aspect as there was adequate evidence to prove the sale of the contraband by the appellant for which co-accused had been convicted and sentenced. The prosecution version was based not only on the statement u/s. 67 but also on the evidence of recovery of the contraband immediately after sale and the circumstances showing that the contraband was sold by the appellant to the co-accused, without any authorization. [Para 11)(211-C-D) 205 A B c D E F G H 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. A Abdul Rashid Ibrahim Mansuri v. State of Gujarat (2000) 2 SCC 513: 2000 (1) SCR 542; Sukhdev_Singh v. State of Haryana (2013) 2 SCC 212: 2012 (11) SCR 964; SajanAbraham " State of Kera/a (2001) 6 SCC 692 : 2001 (l) Suppl. SCR 335 - referred to. B c D Case Law Reference 2000 (1) SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.