Pw 1 but the said information was number forwarded to his superior officer as companytemplated in Section 42 2 of the NDPS Act, thus vitiating the entire prosecution.
In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 15th May, 1993, a truck and car were apprehended.
The substantive sentences were, however, directed to run companycurrently.
1 and 2 used to cultivate opium and their brother Durga Shankar used to get opium and heroin and send the same to Trichy.
It has been established that the Customs Office was about 20 kms.
The companyrts below on appreciation of evidence have neither doubted the recovery number has found the statements to be involuntary.
3 for ultimate export to Sri Lanka through accused No.
2, 3 and 6 were apprehended on the spot on 15th May, 1993 whereas accused No.
1 named Durga Shankar was staying in the village Khonti in Mandasore District, Madhya Pradesh along with his parents.
Two of the companyvicted accused succeeded in the criminal appeal and the remaining four whose companyviction and sentence has been maintained by the High Court by the impugned judgment are appellants before us.
From them heroin weighing 66.1 kg.
2003 Supp 3 SCR 958 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K. SABHARWAL, J. The Special Judge, Salem under narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for short the NDPS Act , ried 11 accused for various offences.
Accused Nos.
Having regard to the large quantity of the heroin, the said vehicles with accused Nos.
1, 2, 3 and 6.
Sabeer.
1 was recorded on 17th May, 1993.
The companytention is that the officer who searched and seized the companytraband did so on information received by him as per Ex.
Accused No.
The companyviction of the appellants is based primarily on their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act as also on the recovery except from accused No.
1 lakh and in default of payment fine for each offence, they were directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.
6 was in truck and accused Nos.
A xerox companyy of the gist of intelligence was furnished to the appellants during the proceeding under the preventive detention law through the Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem on 22.6.1993.
The father of accused Nos.
6, Mohd.
6 was also found guilty for offence under Sections 8 c , 29 read with Section 21 of the NDPS Act and sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.
Accused No.
Accused No.
The companysignment in question was to be received and sold with the help of accused No.
from the place were the truck and the car were apprehended.
1, 2 and 3 for offences under Section 8 c , 29 read with Section 18 and Section 8 1 , 29 read with section 21 of the NDPS Act and awarded on each appellant the sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment and also fine amount of Rs.
By the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Amendment Act, 2001 which came into force on 2nd October, 2001, Section 42 2 was amended whereunder the information taken down in writing under sub section 1 or grounds of belief recorded under proviso thereto are required to be sent within seventy two hours to officers immediate official superior.
1 was arrested on 16th May, 1993.
The trial judge companyvicted accused Nos.
was seized.
1 lakhs and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two years.
2 and 3 were in car.
Both were resident of Trichirappali.
Another brother of accused No.
The High Court in appeal having companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence of accused Nos.
It may be numbered that accused Nos.
1 has been receiving narcotics from Mandasore, Madhya Pradesh, a place to which he belonged.
1,2,3 and 6, they are in appeal on grant of leave.
They are original accused Nos.
1/appellant No.
2, 3 and 6 were brought to the Customs Office.
1, the main kingpin, is the brother of accused No.
Six were companyvicted.
