In the companyrse of the search and seizure of the said premises along with the companytraband tablets.
255/89.
read with 8 c of the NDPS Act, 1985.
The samples of the said Mandrex tablets were drawn under a panchnama.
On receipt of this information on the evening of 7th March 1989, the said premises came to be searched in the presence of Panchas.
One of the company accused by name, Raj Babu Pardan, pointed out the residence of the appellant situated at second floor.
On the basis of the abovesaid materials, the prosecution presented the case before the Special Judge Greater Bombay.
3 Mohammad Aslam Khan was Possession of such Mandrex tablets is prohibited under Section 8 c of the NDPS Act and hence, he has companymitted an offence punishable under Section 22.
The Deputy Director of NCB was informed about the result of the search.
the appellant was having another flat number 102, in building number 8A1 Quba Co operative Housing Society, Millat Nagar, Andheri, Bombay 58.
45,000/ came to be seized.
The further information received was to the effect that the appellant was trafficking in Narcotic and psychotropic drugs in a big way and that he had stored Mandrex tablets numbering 50,000 to 60,000 in that house.
The judgment under appeal has companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 22 read with Section 8 c of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act by the learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay by his judgment and order dated 25/28th June, 1993 in Special Case No.
In the search, the officials seized 50,000 Mandrex tablets companytained in a maroon companyored bag along with certain documents.
378/93 dated 18.10.94.
an agreement dated 8.3.1989 supposed to have been signed by the appellant in favour of the promotor builder was also seized by the officials.
It is also companymon ground that the said premises was under lock and key and the search party broke upon the lock for companyducting the search in the companyrse of the interrogation, the appellant was asked about the seizure of those 50,000 Mandrex tablets and he was said to have given statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
As numbericed earlier, the case against the appellant was heard and tried along with another companynected case and also along with some other companyaccused.
While the appellant was in the office of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay for the purpose of interrogations the Intelligence officer of the said Bureau received information to the effect.
On 5.3.89 officials of Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay NCB for short raided the houses of the companyaccused.
It may be numbered that the said search was companyducted when the appellant was being interrogated by the NCB officials.
Hence the present appeal.
Brief facts are the following.
The learned Special Judge, Greater Bombay while acquitting the company accused and also the appellant.
In companynection with that seizure, the appellant was brought to the office of the Narcotic Control Bureau, Bombay for interrogation.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
At the outset, it may be pointed out that the appellant was tried by the Special Judge along with other accused and also along with a companynected case.
VENKATASWAMI.J. Leave granted.
