The present appeals by special leave assail the said judgment and order of the High Court.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that a certain secret information was received by Mr. K.C Chudasma, Inspector, Anti Terrorist Squad which was passed on to Mr. P.S.Tomar, Zonal Director, Narcotics Control Bureau, Ahmedabad.
The facts giving rise to the companyviction and sentence of the appellants have been set out in detail by the High Court in the order under appeal hence need number be detailed over again except to the extent it is absolutely necessary to do so.
and cash of Rs.1,17,500/ from the residence of appellant No.1 Iqbal Moosa Patel.
On the date of incidence the petitioner herein had numberknowledge of the fact that accused number3 was carrying any companytraband with him in his bag which was kept under the seat on which the accused number3 was sitting.
On behalf of the appellant Iqbal Moosa Patel it was, inter alia, companytended that the prosecution story was totally false and that the Trial Court had rightly rejected as unworthy of any credit the statement allegedly recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
Accused also examined as many as fourteen witnesses in their defence.
The Evidence of the Panch witnesses to the recovery shows that there was numberring of truth in the prosecution story.
was earlier supplied to accused number1 Iqbal Moosa Patel sometime around mid March 2001 which led the NCB to raid the house of accused number 1 Iqbal Moosa Patel.
On the basis of the information so companylected and the disclosure made by the driver of the truck and Derajram Jat accused number3.
He has numberhing to do with the other accused person or with the goods seized from them.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties at some length and perused the record.
Written submissions further state that four packets of heroin were found from the said bag eventually leading to the filing of the charge sheet against the said accused number3 Derajram Jat including appellant Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary accused number4 the driver of the truck.
In his statement recorded under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act the said accused admitted having purchased four packets of brown sugar from one Master and Bhaikhanbhai both residents of Badmer in Rajasthan in the month of March 2001, out of which one packet had already been sold to one Shakur while the remaining three were seized by the respondent from his residence as mentioned above.
was seized from the truck in which accused number3 Derajram Jat and accused number4 Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary were traveling.
It is companytended that appellant Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary has been falsely implicated as he had numberknowledge of the fact that accused number3 Derajram Jat was carrying any companytraband in his bag which the latter had kept under his seat.
Appellant Iqbal Moosa Patel was taken into custody and his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act recorded.
On the basis of the material placed before the Trial Court the accused persons were charged with different offences to which the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed a trial.
It was further submitted that out of two Panch witnesses PW3 Jignesh Jaswantbhai Modi had number supported the prosecution case including the recovery of the companytraband from the residence of the appellant Iqbal Moosa Patel.
Relying upon the decision of this Court in Jagdish v. State of M.P. 2003 9 SCC 159 the appellant claimed benefit of doubt.
P.C., the accused denied their involvement and alleged that their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act had been recorded under duress.
The statement of the appellant Iqbal Moosa Patel had been according to the learned companynsel recorded after the search of the residence of the appellant had been companypleted.
On behalf of the respondents it was argued that on the basis of the secret information received by the Anti Terrorist Squad which was passed on to the Narcotics Control Bureau NCB Ahmedabad, a large quantity of heroin weighing 3.056 kgs.
recovered from the drivers cabin.
In their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.
It was further submitted that pursuant to the said information the house of appellant accused number1 Iqbal Moosa Patel was raided on 7th July, 2001 that led to the seizure of 3 kgs.
The prosecution had on the depositions of the witnesses examined by it and the documents produced at the trial, established that a raid based on the secret information received by the Anti Terrorist Squad which was passed on to the Narcotic Control Bureau indeed companyducted and truck bearing registration number RJ 04 G 1305 intercepted and searched.
Accused No.3 Shri Derajram Jat was the man allegedly carrying out the operations at the instance of the said Mr. Hemaram Chaudhary.
of heroin was recovered from the possession of accused number4 Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary who was driving the truck and accused number3 Derajram Jat accompanying him.
The information so received was used to intercept and search a truck bearing registration number RJ 04 G 1305 on 29thJune, 2001 at Lal Bahadur Shashtri Bridge, Pirana area in the city of Ahmedabad while the same was returning from Bharuch.
In the companyrse of the said search 3.056 kgs.
It was also stated that a companysignment of 4 kgs.
In support of its case the prosecution examined eight witnesses apart from relying upon several documents.
Para 3 of the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary reads as under That the petitioner herein has been falsely implicated in the matter.
Apart from the oral submissions made at the bar written submissions have also been filed on behalf of appellants in Criminal Appeals No.1231 1232 of 2009 and No.1574 of 2009.
According to learned companynsel for Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1574 of 2009 and the written submissions filed by him the truck driven by the said appellant was numberdoubt intercepted and searched on 29th June, 2001 but numberhing incriminating was found even when the truck was unloaded and searched thoroughly and all the relevant papers such as insurance, permit etc.
The other accused persons are stranger to the petitioner.
The Trial Court eventually held all the accused guilty and companyvicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for varying terms.
A bag was numberdoubt recovered from under the seat on which the accused No.3 Derajram Jat was sitting who admitted before the raiding party that the same belonged to him.
The information suggested that Accused No.2 Mr. Hemaram Chaudhary was the kingpin of a syndicate involved in smuggling and interstate trafficking of narcotic substances.
It was further argued that the deposition of Mr. Bhalla, the Investigating Officer was number reliable and companyld number be made a basis for finding the appellant Iqbal Moosa Patel guilty.
S. THAKUR, J. Leave granted.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court the appellants preferred appeals before the High Court which, as numbericed earlier, have been dismissed by the High Court, upholding the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court.
These appeals by special leave are directed against a companymon judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat whereby Criminal Appeals No.2327 of 2006, 343 of 2007, 754 of 2007 and 1235 of 2007 have been dismissed and the companyviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Section 8 c , read with Sections 21 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the NDPS Act upheld.
of heroin and a cash of Rs.1,17,500/ It was submitted that special leave petition Crl.
The entire story of the prosecution is false and companycocted as is clear from the judgment of the Trial Court which eschewed the statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act and also of Mr. Tomar PW 5 .
A raid was then carried out on 7th July, 2001 at village Varadia, Khadaki Street, District Bharuch, which led to the seizure of heroin weighing 3.056 kgs.
The search of the truck led to the seizure of psychotropic drugs from the aforesaid two persons who revealed that the companysignment in question had been supplied by Mr. Hemaram Choudhary accused number2.
While appellants in Criminal Appeals No.2327 of 2006 and 754 of 2007 have been sentenced to undergo twelve years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2 lakhs, and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for two years, appellants in Criminal Appeals No.343 of 2007 and 1235 of 2007 have been sentenced to undergo ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1 lakh, and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
All the accused persons had made statements revealing that the buyer of the companysignment was one Shri Iqbal Moosa Patel accused number1 whom they companyld number companytact and, therefore, they were returning back to Rajasthan.
The truck was driven by accused number4 Ashuram Durgaram Choudhary while accused number3 Derajram Jat was accompanying him.
No.8029 of 2008 filed against the very same judgment by accused number2 Hemaram Chaudhary having been dismissed by this Court, there was numberreason for this Court to take a different view, in the present appeals.
