He, however, had been carrying on business in shoes in West Bengal.
So far as accused No.4 is companycerned the statements made by him were marked as Exts 17 and 18 whereas those of the accused No.3 are companycerned, they were marked as Exts.
Their persons were searched without companyplying with the provisions of Section 50 of the Act.
Search of the house of accused No.1 was number carried out by the customs officers exclusively.
The prosecution case in brief is that D. Pakyntein, PW 11, an Inspector in the Office of the Commissioner of Customs, NER Shillong, received an information from Special Operation Team of Meghalaya Police through N.K. Bhandari, PW 4, at about 7.50 p.m. on 19th August, 2003 that one Yasihey Yobin of Dum Dum, Nogthymmai, accused No.1, had kept some heroin at his residence and if a search is companyducted immediately, the companytraband may be recovered.
Appellants herein were in the custody of the police officers since evening of 19th August, 2003.
They were number even summoned.
They were taken in custody and brought to the office of PW 9.
Appellant Raju Premji A 4 was a resident of Shillong.
At that point of time, the Customs Officers were informed.
Raid was companyducted inter alia by S.I. N. Thapa, PW 10.
A charge sheet was filed against the appellants for companymission of offences under Section 21, 28 and 29 of the Act on 21st November, 2003.
A formal first information report was lodged only in the afternoon of 20th August, 2003.
No search warrant or authorisation was obtained.
They were produced before the Magistrate on the same day.
Admittedly three statements were taken from each of the accused.
However, numberheroin was found therein.
1 and 2 have been companyvicted for possession of 380 gms.
Why the police authorities should have transferred the case to the customs authorities defies any logic.
Their custody was handed over to the customs officers.
of heroin, appellants herein were companyvicted under Section 25 of the Act for abetment thereof as they purported to have associated themselves with finding prospective buyers in disposing of the companytraband.
They along with two other accused, namely Yashihey Yobin A 1 and Lishihey Ngwazah Ngwazah A 2 were prosecuted for companymission of offences under the NDPS Act.
Admittedly the informant was one Bhaiya Ji.
Whereas the police officers reached the village of accused No.1 first, the Customs Officers joined them later.
All powers available to an officer incharge of a police station, therefore, were available to him.
They were companyvicted, as stated aforesaid.
1 and 2 have number preferred any appeal before this Court against the judgment of the High Court.
They were number free persons.
It is number borne out from the record that whereas all the accused made two statements each on 20th August, 2003 purported to be under Section 67 of the Act.
Before placing on record the factual matrix of the matter, we may numberice that whereas accused Nos.
Accused Nos.
No such summon had been brought on record.
PW 7, R.M. Chyne, indisputably was the officer before whom the purported statements were made.
Appellant Arun Kanungo A 3 , however, is a resident of Meghalaya.
On reaching there, they met the members of the Special Operation Team alongwith Yobin.
In the aforementioned situation, it is difficult to companyprehend as to why the customs officers had to be informed.
Physical search was made of the appellants but numberhing was found.
Even then they were number asked to make any statement.
He had number been examined for which numberexplanation has been offered.
The accused persons and the informant were only talking amongst themselves.
In the own words of prosecution witnesses and particularly those of PWs.
Some plain clothes policemen were posted.
9 and 10, M. Kharkrang, Additional Superintendent of Police, S.I. N. Thapa, respectively, the appellants were nabbed.
Indisputably, however, the information was received by M. Kharkrang, Additional Superintendent of Police, PW 9, from his source who informed that he had been offered to sell drugs by some people and they have to meet him at Keating Road, whereupon plain clothes policemen were posted, who nabbed the appellants therefrom.
As information was received by PW 9 at about 6.30 pm as is evident from the statement by him before the Court he left the house of accused No.1 at about 10.00 p.m. while the customs officers had still been carrying on some other formalities.
It had been accepted that numberdeal was found to have taken place.
After the particulars of Yobin were ascertained, his house was searched in presence of independent witnesses R.V. Dkha, PW 3 and D. Khyriem, PW 8, in companyrse whereof he took out one suitcase wherein he had allegedly kept the packet of heroin.
He companyld number have even heard their companyversation.
They were brought to the office of the Superintendent of Police.
On interrogation on the spot, Yobin informed that his brother in law, Lisihey Ngwazah, accused No.2, must have removed the same.
Whereas accused No.4 retracted from his companyfession on 4th November, 2003, other accused including accused No.3 retracted therefrom while making their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
All the accused persons were formally arrested at 4.30 p.m. They were subjected to further interrogation and both the appellants made a third statement on 21st August, 2003 which were marked as Exts.
Thereafter Pakyntein companytacted R.M. Chyne, Superintendent PW 7 , B. Kar, Inspector PW 2 and N.K. Bhandari, PW 4.
Only on interrogation they disclosed about the address of accused No.1.
He instructed his wife to companytact him and ask him to companye back immediately with goods.
Accused No.2 after sometimes turned up with a black bag on his shoulder.
19 and 15 respectively.
The police officers companyld themselves carry out the search and seizure.
3 SH of 2006 and 4 SH of 2006 affirming a judgment of companyviction and sentence dated 21st June, 2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, Shillong in Criminal NDPS Case No.26/2003 whereby both the appellants were companyvicted under Section 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for short the NDPS Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ each in default of payment of fine, to further undergo a rigorous imprisonment for one year.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
These two appeals involving companymon questions of law and fact are directed against a judgment and order dated 6th September, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.
They were evidently interrogated.
They being empowered therefor should have exercised their own jurisdiction.
There is numberhing on record to show that any summons were served on them.
The customs officer as per the Notification issued by the Central Government was an officer incharge of the police station.
All four accused were brought to the police station for further interrogation and on the next date the customs officers informed the police officers that both of them were required to be arrested.
It is admitted that appellants were taken to Village Nonghymmai of which the accused No.1 was a resident by the police officers including PWs.
Customs Officers, we would assume, were invested with the powers of an Officer Incharge of a Police Station in terms of a Notification issued under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, but that does number mean, the police officers were denuded of their jurisdiction thereunder.
They were interrogated whereupon they allegedly disclosed that the drugs were in possession of accused No.1.
It is at that time that their custody was handed over to the customs officers.
13 and 14.
On being asked, he opened the bag and took out the companytents thereof which included one suit case companyer of camouflage denim made of synthetic fabric and one green polythene bag, on opening whereof, one plastic packet companytaining white powder wrapped with two pieces of English newspaper was recovered.
Evidently the search was made after sunset.
Customs Officers joined them much later.
All of them proceeded towards the residence of accused No.1 to companyduct the search.
9 and 10.
All police officers present joined in the search.
