NARAYANASWAMY RAVISHANKAR versus ASSTT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 03-10-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, ARIJIT PASAYAT, S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

-.
NARA YANASWAMY RA VISHANKAR
A
v.
ASSTT DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
OCTOBER 3, 2002
[9.N. KIRPAL, CJ., ARJJIT PASAYAT AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.]
B
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985:
Ss. 42, 43, 50 and 57-Heroin recovered from suitcase belonging to
accused-Search and seizure taking place at the Airport-Trial court acquitting C
the accused for non-compliance of ss.42 and 50-High Court convicting and
sentencing him for JO years RI-In appeal before Supreme Court pleas of
non-compliance of ss. 42 and 57 raised by accused were rejected-Held, the
search and seizure having taken place at a public place, namely, the Airport,
provisions of s. 43 were applicable-Therefore, non-compliance uf s.42, if D
any, is wholly irrelevant-As regards alleged non-compliance of s. 57, the
record shows that arrest of accused was revealed to superior officer, namely,
the Deputy Director-No search and seizure was conducted on the person of
the accused and, therefore, provisions of s.50 were not attracted-High Court
rightly convicted the acc11Sed
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
770 of 2002.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.2.2002 of the Chennai High
Court in Crl.A.No. 346 of 1992.
N. Natarajan, Senthil Jagadeesan and V. Ramasubramanian for the
Appellant.
B. Krishna Prasad (NP) for the Respondent.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
In the instant case, according to the prosecution, 5940 gms. of heroin
concealed in the bottom of a suitcase alleged to be belonging to the appellant
121
E
F
G
H
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A was recovered when he was attempting to transport the same from the
International Airport, Chennai to Singapore. The recovery memo was prepared
on 5th January, 1987 at 3.00 A.M. and thereafter the appellant was arrested
on that day at 2.00 P.M. The trial court acquitted the appellant by holding
that mandatory provis.ions like Section 42 and Section 50 of the Narcotic
B Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act")
had not been complied with.
c
In appeal, the High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and
convicted the appellant and sentenced him to I 0 years' imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs. I lakh and in default to undergo RI for one month.
In this appeal, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for
the appeilant that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not
been complied with. He further states that there was delay in arresting the
appellant which had not been explained and further that the provisions of
Section 57 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature have not been
D complied with.
In the instant case, according to the documents on record and the
evidence of the witnesses, the search and seizure took place at the Airport
which is a public place. This being so, it is the provisions of Section 43 of
the NDPS Act which would be applicable. Further, as Section 42 of the
E NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case, the seizure having been
effected in a public place, the question of non-compliance, if any, of the
provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is wholly irrelevant. Furthermore,
in the Mahazar which was prepared, it is clearly stated that the seizure was
made by PW- I. The Mahazar was no doubt drawn by one S Jayanth. But, the
F · contention of the learned senior counsel that prosecution version is vulnerable,
because· Jayanth has not been examined, is of no consequence because it is
PW-I who has conducted the seizure. With regard to the alleged non-
compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, the High Court has rightly noted
that PW-3 has stated that the arrest of the accused was revealed to his
immediate superior officer, namely, the Deputy Director.
G
It was also contended by the learned senior counsel that the ground on
which the appellant was arrested was not communicated to him. We find no
merit in this because the arrest memo clearly indicates the offence stated to
have been committed by the appellant under the NDPS Act. Further, the
record also shows that copy of the arrest memo Exh. P-20 was received by
H the appellant.
NARA YANASWAMY RA VIS HANK AR ••.ASSTT. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE J 23
In the instant case, no search or seizure was conducted on the person A
of the accused and, therefore, the provisio

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.