Joginder Singh and Shivraj Singh, the drivers of the vehicle, were apprehended on the spot by the DRI officials.
was recovered from the machines lying in the said premises and a further quantity of 365 Kgs.
Both these persons made companyfessional statements to the DRI officials in the companyrse of investigation.
449 of 1989.
If yes, is a companyfes sional statement recorded by such officer in the companyrse of investigation of a person accused of an offence under the said Act, admissible in evidence as against him?
The appellants number stand companymitted to the Court of Sessions for trial.
was recovered from Gunny bags which were secreted underground in the out house of the Farm House.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. Are the officers of the Department of Revenue Intelligence DRI who have been invested with the powers of an officer in charge of a police station under Section 53 of Narcotic Drugs Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 herein after called the Act , police officers within the mean ing of Section 25 of the Evidence Act?
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.1988 of the Delhi High Court in Cr.
On the companyclusion of the investigation a companyplaint was lodged against the said two persons under Sections 21, 23, 29 and 30 of the Act and Section 135A of the Customs Act, 1962.
The disclosure made by these two drivers led to the search of a Farm House at Khasra No.417, Gadaipur, Mehrauli, New Delhi on the 13th/14th and 15th of July, 1986.
The appellants argued that the said statements were number admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act which provides that numberconfession made to a police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
1988 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.
The DRI officials learnt in the companyrse of investigation that the said hashish was to be exported through M s. Lee Muirhead I Ltd., and M s. Shiekh and Pandit, of Calcutta.
Mohan Lal Pandit and Tushar Pandit, the partners of the said two firms, respectively, were arrested.
A motor truck DEL 3 124 was intercepted on July 12, 1986 near Calcutta by the DRI officials.
In the companyrse of investigation the name of the other appellant Raj Kumar Karwal also surfaced.
It is against this companyclusion reached by the Division Bench of the High Court that the appellants are before us.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
55 of 1988.
These are the facts, briefly stated.
The machinery was meant to be exported to Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom by M s. Northern Exports Importers, Exporters and Commission Agents and M s. Modern Machinery and Instruments, both of New Delhi.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.12.
1451 of 1987.
On search a large quantity of hashish weigh ing about 743 Kgs.
WITH Special Leave Petition Crl.
One Subhash Narang who was arrested by the DRI officials implicated the appellant Kitpal Mohan Virmani.
170 of 1987.
Rev. No.
After the hashish was found hidden in the ma chines loaded in the said vehicle, the same was attached under a seizure memo.
K. Sen, Kapil Sibal, Anil Dev Singh, Harlinder Singh, N. Joshi, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal NP , Mrs. Sushma Suri, A.K. Srivastava and S.C. Agarwala for the appearing parties.
found companycealed in machines loaded in the said truck was recovered.
In the companyrse of the said search hashish weighing about 976 Kgs.
