The Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant Ravindran John was registered as Criminal Appeal No.1144 of 2003 while the appeal of Peter John was numbered as Criminal Appeal 14 of 2003.
P 4 was recorded.
It appears that he absconded and therefore his trial was separated.
The High Court has number accepted the involvement in the companyspiracy of Hiralal who in his companyfessional statement claimed to have handed over the companytraband to appellant Peter John.
The High Court in its impugned judgment and order has found that the only piece of evidence against Hiralal, A 3 was the companyfessional statement of the companyaccused which companyld number be used against him and which was number sufficient to sustain the charge of companyspiracy.
The High Court has number companysidered it safe to act on the companyfession of Hiralal and acquitted him of the charge leveled against him.
The charge against appellant Peter John is one of companyspiracy to companymit offences under the Act.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1201 OF 2005 The facts of the case are that PWs 1 and 2 who were officials of the Customs Sea Base Party, Tiruchendur on receiving specific information rushed to the Kayalpattinam Bus Stand at about 3.00 a.m. on December 21, 2000 since there was reliable information that one person carrying psychotropic substance was to companye there.
P 11 he had got the packet from his friend Bharatlal absconding accused No.4 .
The appellant did number insist on his search before a Magistrate or Gazetted Officer.
Each one of the accused aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court preferred an appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
The report of the Chemical Analyst was challenged on the ground that he had number tested the sample for its companyponents.
The packet was sealed and brought to the Customs Office since there was numberfacility to weigh the substance and to prepare samples at the bus stand.
The appellant Peter John and Hiralal were arrested at Salem on December 23, 2000.
While in the companyfession of appellant Peter John it was stated that Hiralal had told him that he had found the packet abandoned in a running train, Hiralal in his companyfessional statement stated that he had received the packet from his friend Bharatlal and he had handed over the same to appellant Peter John.
The case of the prosecution is that on further questioning the appellant companyfessed his guilt and his companyfessional statement Exb.
The same was, therefore, seized under Mahazar, Ex.
The appellants have preferred the instant appeals by special leave.
It was found to companytain white companyour powder.
It further numbericed that according to Hiralal the companytraband had been given to him by Bharatlal and in turn he handed over the same to appellant Peter John.
The appellant was found to be carrying a white companyoured polythene bag.
It was also companytended that the independent witnesses were number examined at the trial and that was fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Both the companyfessions were recorded one after the other.
One other accused namely, Bharat Lal was found involved in the companyspiracy.
In his companyfessional statement appellant Peter John stated that the packet in question was given to him by Hiralal since acquitted .
It was argued before the Trial Court as well as the High Court that the companyviction of appellant Ravindran was number justified in view of number compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 42 2 of the Act.
Two representative samples each weighing 5 grams were drawn and sealed in two separate companyers which were duly packed, labeled and sealed with the customs seal.
The trial was also vitiated for number compliance with the mandatory provisions of Sections 50 and 57 of the Act.
The percentage of purity of the sample was therefore number proved.
The High Court by its impugned companymon Judgment and Order dated April 2, 2004 upheld the companyviction of the appellants but acquitted Hiralal against whom it found numbersatisfactory evidence to prove the charges.
On being asked the appellant informed them that the substance was Diazepam.
The High Court has number accepted this part of the prosecution story because in that event Hiralal would have been found guilty of having companyspired to companymit the offence or at least companyld have been found guilty of abetment since he had admitted that he had received the packet from Hiralal and handed over the same to appellant Peter John for sale.
P 10 and P 11 were obtained after prolonged custody since Custom Officials arrested them in Salem and later brought them to Madurai.
Appellant Peter John and Hiralal were arrested and brought to Madurai together and their companyfessions were recorded.
On weighing, the substance was found to weigh 1.528 Kilograms.
He, further, companyfessed that he had handed over the packet to appellant Ravindran for sale.
The companyfession of the appellant was also recorded by the same team of officers at about the same time.They were brought to Madurai where their companyfessions were recorded which are Exbs.
If the companyfession of Hiralal companyld number be used against him, certainly it companyld number be used against appellant Peter John a company accused.
If the companyfessional statement of Hiralal is discarded, there remains numberevidence except his own companyfession to implicate the appellant Peter John.
He did number know the address of Bharatlal whom he had known for about a year and a half.
P 10 and P 11.
The prosecution relied upon the companyfessional statements to implicate the appellant as well as Hiralal.
He was searched by PWs 1 and 2 in the presence of two independent witnesses namely, Ravi and Chandrasekar.
According to the prosecution the substance seized was worth about Rs.75,000/ .
At the bus stand they found appellant Ravindran and on suspecting him to be the person companycerned they informed him that they are going to companyduct personal search and asked him whether he would like the search to be companyducted before a Judicial Magistrate or a Gazetted Officer.
The defence on the other hand companytended that Exb.
Peter John companyaccused admitted that the plastic bag companytaining white companyour powder had been given to him by his friend Hiralal companyaccused and that he had handed over the same to the appellant for sale.
Hiralal had told him that he had found the packet abandoned in the lavatory of a train and that it was a Narcotic drug and companyld be sold for profit.
From the companyfessional statement of the appellant, the involvement of the other two accused was revealed.
He further admitted that he had handed over the companytraband to Peter John for sale.
In these circumstances, the evidence that remains against the appellant Peter John is rather slender and it is number safe to uphold his companyviction on such evidence, particularly when the person who is supposed to have given him the companytraband has been given the benefit of doubt by the High Court.
The report of the Chemical Analyst established that the sample on being tested showed the presence of Diazepam.
According to the companyfession of Hiralal Exb.
The companyfessional statement of a company accused companyld number be used as substantive evidence against the company accused.
On searching the bag one polythene packet was found inside the bag which was opened in the presence of the independent witnesses.
The two independent witnesses also accompanied the appellant and PWs 1 and 2.
The appellant was arrested on December 21, 2000 while the other two accused were arrested on December 23, 2000.
WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1202 OF 2005 Peter John Appellant Versus The Superintendent of Customs Respondent P. Singh, J. The appellants herein with one other namely, Hiralal were tried by the Special District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crime Case No.320 of 2001 charged of the offences under Section 8 c read with Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
It was also submitted that the companyfessional statements were subsequently retracted and, therefore, numberreliance companyld be placed on them.
Learned District Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated November 20, 2002 found them guilty of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/ and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years.
