LexM. PRABHULAL versus THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
M. PRABHULAL
v.
THE ASSIST ANT DIRECTOR,
DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
SEPTEMBER 19, 2003
{Y.K. SABHARWAL AND B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
C
Sections 8(c), 8(1), 18, 21, 29 & 67: Conviction based on statements
made under Section 67 before Officers of Department-Allegation of
torture and harassment in obtaining the statement making it involuntary--
Delay in recording the statement put forth as one of the reasons to show
that statement was involuntary-Accused making no complaint of torture
D before the Magistrate-Vague stand of torture taken before Trial Judge
under Section 313 Cr.P. C.-ln such circumstances, the confessional
statement was voluntary-Also, accused failed to establish that any
prejudice was caused.
E
Recovery of the contraband in the presence of independent witnesses-
F
G
Not examined to prove the recovery-However, recovery proved by
examining the police witnesses-Whether conviction vitiated-No, particu-
larly having regard to the confessional statements of accused having been
held to be voluntary.
Section 41 (1 )-Scope of-Only a Gazetted Officer can be empowered
by the Central Government or the State Government-Empowered Officer
can either himself make an arrest or conduct a search or authorize an
Officer subordinate to him-However, such subordinate officer has to be
superior in rank to a Peon, Sepoy or a Constable.
Section 41(3)-Scope of-Vests all the powers of an Officer acting
under Section 4 2 on three types of Officers mentioned in Section 41 (I) and
41(2).
H
Section 42-Scope of-Empowered Officer-Has the power of entry
958
M. PRABHULAL 1·.ASSTL DIRECTOR DIRECTORA 1E OF REVENUE JN1ELLIGENCE
959
into and search of any building, conveyance or place, break open door, A
remove obstruction, seize contraband, detain, search and arrest any person
between sunrise and sunset in terms provided under Section 42(1)-ln
emergent situation above powers can be exercised between sunset and
sunrise without obtaining a search warrant as provided in proviso to
Section 42(1).
B
Sections 4 I (2), 42 and 43-Any Officer of any of the departments
mentioned in Section 42 is empowered to seize contraband etc. and detain
and search a person in any public place or in transit on existence of
ingredient stated in Section 43-Sections 42 and 43 do not require an
Officer to be a Gazetted Officer whereas Section 4 I (2) requires an Officer C
to be so.
Section 50-Right under-Held : gives a right to a person about to
be searched to ask for being searched in presence of a Gazetted Officer.
On 15th May, 1993 a truck and a car were apprehended and D
heroin weighting 66.t Kg. was seized from Accused No. 2, 3 and 6 at
the Customs House between 6 to 9 p.m. Accused No. 1, the main
Kingpin, was brother of Accused No. 2. Father of Accused No. l and
2 used to cultivate opium. The consignment in question was to be
received and sold with the help of Accused No. 3 for ultimate export E
to Sri Lanka through Accused No. 6. In all 11 accused were tried for
various offences under Section 8(c), 29 read with Sections 8(1), 29 read
with Section 21 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substance
Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Six were convicted by
the Special Judge. Two of the convicted accused succeeded in Appeal F
and in respect of the remaining four conviction and sentence has been
upheld by the High Court. The original Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6 filed
Appeal for Special Leave before this Court.
It was contended by the Appellants that their statements made
under Section 57 of the Act on which the Appellants have been found G
guilty were not voluntary; that the statements of Officers of Department
of Revenue Intelligence who were not Police Officers within the
meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Confessional
statement before such Officers are not admissible; that no independent
witnesses of the recovery have been examined; that non-compliance of
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A Section 42 of the NDPS Act vitiated the conviction.
Dismissing the Appeals, the Court
HELD : I. It has been established that the Customs Office was
B about 20 kms. from the place where the truck and the car were
apprehended. Having regard to the large quantity of the heroin, the
said vehicles with accused Nos. 2, 3 and 6 were brought to the Customs
Office. Further accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not knoExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.