Bangalore District Court
Ncb/Bzu/Blr vs A1 Ramla Shedafa Nancy on 25 October, 2024
KABC010119992021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE. CCH-33
: : PRESENT : :
SRI. VIJAYA DEVARAJA URS, B.Com., LL.B.,
XXXIII A C C& S J & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024
: : SPL. C. C. No. 768/2021 : :
COMPLAINANT : Union of India,
Narcotics Control Bureau,
Bengaluru.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
ACCUSED No. 1 : Ms. RamlaShedafaNancy, D/o.
Mr. Anthony Gabriel, Aged about
19 years, R/at House No. SP-31,
1st Floor, 5th/9th Cross
dead end, Nanjappa Layout,
Kalkere, Bangalore 560 083.
Permanent Address:
No.30, Baiko-Ikoradu,
Nigeria.
JUDGMENT 2 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
ACCUSED No. 2 : Mr. Emmanuel Michael,
S/o. Michael Peter, Aged about
34 years, R/at House No. 6,
2nd Floor, 4th Cross, Kaverinagar,
Hebbal, Bangalore 560 032.
Permanent Address :
No. 20, Upper Hill,
Nairobi, Kenya.
(By Sri. K. S. V Advocate for A-1 &Sri. H.P-, Senior
Advocate for Sri. M.M. Advocate for A-2)
Sl.
Description Date
No.
1. Date of commission of offence : 17-12-2020
2. Date of report of offences : 17-12-2020
3. Arrest of the accused : 18-12-2020
4. Date of release of accused on : Bail has not been
bail granted
5. Period undergone in custody : 03 years, 10
months and 07
days.(Till date A-
1 & A-2 are in
Judicial Custody)
JUDGMENT 3 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
6. Date of commencing of : 12-12-2022
recording evidence
7. Date of closing of evidence : 24-01-2024
8. Name of the complainant : Sri. Rathan K,
Intelligence
Officer.
9. Offence complained of : Secs.21(c),
22(C), 23(C), 28,
&29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985.
10. Opinion of the judge : Charges not
proved
11. Order of sentence : Acquittal
(VIJAYA DEVARAJA URS)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE, (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT 4 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
::JUDGEMENT::
The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Central Bureau, Bangalore Zonal Unit has filed this complaint against accused in NCB F. No. 48/01/20/2020/BZU for the offences punishable under sections 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 28, &29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Facts in brief of the complaint are as under :-
2(a). The secret information received by an Intelligence officer, Mr. Rathan K (Charge sheet witness No.1) of Narcotic Control Bureau on 17.12.2020 at 1.00 p.m. that a parcel bearing No. CC089254397NL was lying at Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru suspected to contain M D M A pills. He reduced the same in writing and informed his immediate Superior Officer and obtained permission to take necessary legal action.
JUDGMENT 5 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
2(b). An N C B team was constituted and
visited the Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru and examined the parcel. The said parcel was booked by oneMr. John Meruj of Netherlands and the same was addressed to Ms. Queen Nancy, No. 310, 4th Main Road, CQAL Lay-out, Sahakaranagara, Bengaluru.
The N C B team in the presence of two independent witnesses, Smt. Shashikala and Smt. Shylaja (Charge sheet witnesses No.5 & 6 respectively) opened the above parcel bearing No. CC089254397NL where they found 314 grams of pale yellow colored round shaped pills and 296 grams of grey colored pills in polythene pouches. The contraband/suspected drug, the materials used for packaging the parcel, and the Way-Bill affixed to the parcel were seized and a detailed Mahazar was drawn at the spot.
JUDGMENT 6 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
2(c). On 18.12.2020, the C w-1 received
another secret credible information that one stout African national lady namely Nancy, would be going to Sahakarnagara Post Office in the afternoon on that day to enquire about the parcel bearing No. CC089254397NL.
A team was constituted consisting of C w-1, a lady officer, and others and they mounted surveillance near the Sahakaranagara Post Office. At around 12.15 p.m., one stout African national lady visited the Sahakaranagara Post Office and enquired about the above said parcel bearing No. CC089254397NL. The team (NCB officers) intercepted her. On enquiry she revealed her name as Nancy and stated that she only booked the above parcel along with her fried Emmanuel Michael who was waiting outside the post office at Sahakarnagara.
2(d). The above foreign nationals were brought to the NCB office. They gave voluntary statements and JUDGMENT 7 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 those statements revealed that the parcel was booked in the name of Queen Nancy (purported to be Accused No.-
1) though the telephone number mentioned on the parcel cover was that of Emmanuel Michael (Accused No.-2). An FIR came to be registered in Crime No. NCB FNo.48/1/20/2020 against the A-1 and A-2.
2(e). The A-1 & A-2 confessed their crime when they were interrogated and then they were arrested and produced before this Court on 19.12.2020. During the investigation, they also revealed that they had booked another parcel bearing No. EG2283680OET for receiving cocaine and based on this information another team of NCB officers was constituted.
2(f). The N C B team was constituted and visited the Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru and examined the parcel on 21/12/2020. The said parcel JUDGMENT 8 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 was booked by one Mr. HabtamuWodneh Addis of Ethiopia and the same was addressed to Ms. Queen Nancy, No. 310, 4th Main Road, CQAL Lay-out, Sahakaranagara, Bengaluru. The team in the presence of two independent witnesses, Sri. R.C. Srinivasmurthy and Sri. Shivakumar (Charge sheet witnesses No. 7 & 8 respectively) opened the above parcel bearing No. EG22836800ET where they found 235 grams of half white powder which said to be cocaine. The contraband/suspected drug, & the materials used for packing the parcel were seized and a detailed Mahazar was drawn at the spot.
2(g). The investigation team searched the house of accused No.2, and the team seized one SBI Classic Visa Card bearing No.4591 6700 1041 7738 which was in the name of Mugwani Esther Amosi. When the details of the transaction made through this card were JUDGMENT 9 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 obtained from the bank, the team noticed many suspicious credit transactions. After completion of the investigation, the Intelligence Officer (Charge-sheet witness No. 3) filed charge sheet for the offences mentioned in it.
3. The accused Nos. 1 & 2 have been in judicial custody since the date of their arrest. This Court's learned Predecessor-in-office on perusing the contents of the charge sheet and the annexed documents, took cognizance of the offences punishable under sections 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), 27, 27A, 28, 29 & 32B(a)(d) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The copy of the charge-sheet and annexed documents were furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the A-1 & A-2 respectively as provided under Sec. 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
JUDGMENT 10 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
4. Since the offences levelled against the accused are cognizable in nature, this Court's predecessor-in-office heard the learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1 & 2 and Special Prosecutor on the question of charges. She found that, the materials placed on record by the prosecution make out a case for trial against the accused Nos. 1 & 2. Thereafter, this Court's Learned Predecessor-in-office framed charges against the accused Nos. 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under sections 22(c), 21(c), 23(c), of the NDPS Act, 1985 on 19/04/2022. Then the charges read-over, and explained to them in English language known to them. They, after understood the contents of the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. This Court's learned predecessor in office recorded the plea and then posted the case for recording the evidence for the prosecution.
JUDGMENT 11 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
5. In support of the case, the complainant/prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses as Pw-1 to 8, got marked Ex. P-1 to 99, & M. Os. 1 to 8 got admitted during the course of evidence. After closure of the prosecution / complainant's side, accused were examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by explaining the incriminating circumstances available against them. The case of accused is that of total denial.
6. On perusal of the evidence available on record and the statement of the accused, this Court was of the considered opinion that the accused were not entitled for an order of acquittal under section 232 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Thereafter, the accused were called upon to lead evidence, if any. The accused have submitted that they have no evidence to lead on their side, but they got marked two documents as per Ex. D-1 and 2.
JUDGMENT 12 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
7. This Court has heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and also the learned senior counsel for the accused. They placed following judgments/citations-
7(a). The learned Special Public Prosecutor has relied on a number of decisions reported in :-
1. 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 611 in between V.SenthilBalaji Vs. The State represented by Deputy Director and Ors.
2. 1990 Crl. L.J. 463 Lallan Vs. State of U P.
3. (2016) 13 SCC 366 Devraj Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.
4. (2019) 20 SCC 609 Union of India Vs. Dimple Happy Dhakad.
5. A I R 2004 SC 1103 Rajendra and another Vs. State of M P.
6. (2001) 6 SCC 692 Sajan Abraham Vs. State of Kerala.
7. Crl. Pet. No. 1469 between Emmanuel Michael Vs. Union of India, NCB, JUDGMENT 13 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Bangalore.
8. (2010) 1 SCC 149 Dalel Singh Vs. State of Haryana.
9. (2009) 8 SCC 539 Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana.
10. 1969(2) SCC 872 Jaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharastra.
11. A I R 2015 SC 2050 Pawan Kumar alias Monu Mittal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.
12. (2016) 3 SCC 379 Union of India Vs. Mohanlal and another.
13. (2012) 5 SCC 777 Ramesh Harijan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh.
14. A I R 2002 Sarwan Singh Vs. State of Punjab.
15. 1990 CRL. L. J. 821 LaxmanSahu Vs. State of Orissa.
16. (2003) 7 SCC 465 Madan Lal and anothers Vs. State of H.P.
17. 2020 SAR(Cri)1113 Jeet Ram Vs. The NCB, Chandigarh.
18. 2015 SAR(Cri) 597 Kulwinder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab.
JUDGMENT 14 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
19. 2024 SCC Online SC 934
PrabirPurkayastha Vs. State(NCT of Delhi).
20. (2020) 12 SCC 492 Dharamveer Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another.
21. A I R 2013 SC 953 Sukdev Singh Vs. State of Haryana.
22. (2009) 2 SCC 624 Union of India Vs. Rattan Mallik.
22. Crl. Pet No. 6916/2021 Joswin Lobo Vs. State of Karnataka.
23. ILR 2021 Kar 4753 Surjeet Singh Vs. State of Karnataka.
7(b). The learned counsel for the accused No. 2 has relied on a number of decisions:-
1. (1988) 3 SCC 609 Kehar Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration).
2. ILR 1996 Kar. 2 Nagaraj Vs. State of Karnataka.
3. Mys. L J 1962 page 656 Abbas Abdulkarim Vs. State of Mysore.
JUDGMENT 15 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
4. (2009) 8 SCC 539 Karnail Singh Vs. State of Haryana.
5. (2013) 2 S C C 502 Kishan Chand Vs. State of Haryana.
6. (2008) 2 S C C370 Directorate of Revenue and another Vs. Mohammed Nisar Holla.
7. (2000) 2 S C C 523 Seshmani and Another Vs. Deputy director of Consolidation, District Basti, UP and others.
8. (2006) 12 S C C 321 RiteshChakarvarti Vs. State of M P.
9. 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1002 Amar Chand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh.
10. 2023 SCC online SC 862 Mangilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh.
11. (2021) 4 SCC 1 Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu.
12. W P No. 12859/2022 Mr. Anjay Kumar Singh Vs. State of Karnataka and another.
13. (1999) 7 SCC 280 State of H P Vs. Jai Lal and others.
14. (1979) 2 SCC 158 The State (Delhi JUDGMENT 16 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Administration) Vs. Pali Ram.
15. (1994) 3 SCC 440 Directorate of Enforcement Vs. Deepak Mahajan and another.
8. Having heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the learned Senior Counsel for the accused No.2, and also the learned counsel for the accused No.1 and on perusal of the above rulings, the following points that arise for consideration is as follows :-
Point No. 1 : Whether the prosecution / complainant has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that A-1 and A-2 had procured/imported illegal Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance from foreign nations via Indian Post parcel bearing Nos.
CC089254397NL &
JUDGMENT 17 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
EG22836800ET in the name of
' Queen Nancy ' by using
mobile number of A-2 and
thus they violated the provision of Sec. 8(c) and committed offences punishable under Secs. 21(c), 22(c), 23(c), of the NDPS Act, 1985 ?
Point No. 2 : What Order or Sentence ?
9. The findings on the above points by this Court are as under :-
Point No. 1 : In the Negative,
Point No. 2 : As per the final order for
the following....
:: REASONS ::
10. Point No. 1 :
10(a). The case of the prosecution is that P W-1,
Mr. Rathan K who was Intelligence Officer, N C B, JUDGMENT 18 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Bangalore from November 2012, has deposed that on 17/12/2020 at about 01.00 p.m. received a secret information that a parcel bearing No. CC089254397NL suspected to be containing MDMA pills was lying at Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet. He immediately, reduced the said information in NCB-1 format. He has identified the said document as Ex. P-1. He has deposed that the said information was immediately conveyed to his Superior Officer, C w-2 (PW-2, Sri. VenugopalG. Kurup).
On direction from the Superior Officer, he formed a team and visited the Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet. They introduced themselves to the Postal officials and in the presence of two postal officials, Smt. Shasikala and Smt. Shylaja(Cw-5 & 6 respectively) i.e., said to have been independent witnesses seized the suspected parcel by drawing a detailed mahazar. The said mahazar has been marked as Ex. P-22. The P W-1 has identified the Air-way JUDGMENT 19 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 bill as Ex.P-23 i.e., parcel tracking bearing No. CC089254397NL.
10(b). The Pw -1 has further deposed that he received another secret credible information that one stout African national lady namely Nancy, would be going to Sahakarnagara Post Office in the afternoon on that day to enquire about the parcel bearing No. CC089254397NL. A team was constituted consisting of a lady officer, other officials and himself and they mounted surveillance near the Sahakaranagara Post Office. At around 12.15 p.m., one stout African national lady visited the Sahakaranagara Post Office and enquired about the above said parcel bearing No. CC089254397NL. The team (NCB officers) intercepted her. On enquiry she revealed her name as Nancy and stated that she only booked the above parcel along with her friend Emmanuel Michael who was waiting outside the post office at Sahakarnagar. The N C B Team JUDGMENT 20 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 apprehended both the persons and brought to the N C B office.
10(c). The voluntary statements of the accused Nos. 1 & 2 were recorded on 18/12/2020, 20/12/2020 & 22/12/2020 respectively. The said statements got marked as Ex. P-26, 27, 32, 33, 37, & 38. The Pw-1 further deposed that, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 confessed their crime when they were interrogated. He has further deposed that the accused Nos. 1 & 2 also revealed that they had booked another parcel bearing No. EG22836800ET for receiving cocaine. He deposed that he came to know from the confession statements of the A-1 & 2 that they procured the contraband through " Dark-Net ".
JUDGMENT 21 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
10(d). He has further deposed that with another
NCB team visited the Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet on 21/12/2020. They introduced themselves to the Postal officials and in the presence of two postal officials, Sri. R C Srinivasa Murthy and Sri. Shiva Kumar (Cw-7 & 8 respectively) i.e., said to have been independent witnesses seized the suspected parcel by drawing a detailed mahazar. The said mahazar has been marked as Ex. P-36.
10(e). One Smt. Shasikala said to have been the Postal Assistant, Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet during 2019 to 2022 has been examined as P W-3. The gist of her examination in chief is that the N C B officials visited the post office on 17/12/2020 and checked/verified the parcel tracking bearing No. CC089254397NL in her presence. On cut opening the said parcel, they found MDMA tablets along which other articles and the said JUDGMENT 22 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 MDMA was totally weighing 314 grams. The said drugs, packing materials and Way- bill were seized in her presence by drawing a detailed Mahazar. She identified that Mahazar as Ex. P-22.
10(f). Though, the P W-3 was cross examined at length nothing has been elicited to disbelieve her version that she was present, and in her presence, the seizure procedure took place as per Ex. P-22.
10(g). One Sri. Shivakumar said to have been the House keeper, Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet during 2020 has been examined as P.w-6. The gist of his examination in chief is that the N C B officials visited the post office on 21/12/2020 and checked/verified the parcel in his presence. On cut opening the said parcel, they found six packets. The said packets, & packing materials JUDGMENT 23 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 were seized in his presence by drawing a detailed Mahazar. He identified that Mahazar as Ex. P-36.
10(h). Though, the P W-6 was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve his version that he was present and in his presence, the seizure procedure took place as per Ex. P-36.
10(i). The learned Special Public Prosecutor relying on the Ex. P-23, & 36 and the voluntarily/confessional statements of A -1 and A-2 at Ex. P-26, 27, 32, 33, 37, & 38 argued that A-1 and A-2 had conspired each other and they procured/imported illegal Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substance from foreign nations via Indian Post postal parcel bearing Nos. CC089254397NL & EG22836800ET in the name of ' Queen Nancy ' i.e., A-1 by using mobile number of A-2. He further argued that though, the P W-1, 3 & 6 were cross JUDGMENT 24 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 examined at length, nothing has been elicited from their mouth to disprove the seizure of above two articles. He has also contended that there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P W-1, 3 & 6- official Witnesses who were one of the members of the raiding party, and independent witnesses and as such, the prosecution has proved that the accused have committed the offences alleged against them.
10(j). Dr. Purnima Mishra, Chemical Examiner, CRCL, New-Delhi, has been examined before the Court as P W-5. She deposed before the Court that she had received three sample articles through speed post from NCB, Bangalore for chemical examination. A detailed chemical analysis was conducted by one Dr. Anil Mahendrakar under her supervision. As per the chemical examination, she opined that the samples resulted MDMA & Cocaine Hydrochloride. She identified the report as JUDGMENT 25 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex. P-85. Though, this witness was cross examined nothing has been elicited to disprove that the samples were not tested positive for MDMA & Cocaine Hydrochloride.
10(k). The learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that as per the report submitted by the P W-5, Dr. Purnima Mishra, Chemical Examiner, CRCL, New- Delhi, the seized articles which were sent for chemical examination responded positive for MDMA & Cocaine Hydrochloride and in view of her evidence and the certificate at Ex. P-85 submitted by P W-5, the prosecution has established its case against the A-1 & 2 beyond all doubt.
10(l). The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt by adducing convincing and acceptable evidence the charges levelled against the accused Nos. 1 JUDGMENT 26 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 & 2. The evidence of the investigating officials can be accepted if there are no flaws in their evidence or if there is evidence conclusively to prove the guilt of the accused Nos 1 & 2 for the charged offences, beyond reasonable doubt.
10(m). It is the specific case of the prosecution that the P W-1 received a secret information on 17/12/2020 that a parcel bearing No. CC089254397NL was lying in the Foreign Post Office, Chamarajapet, Bengaluru and it suspected to be containing illegal drugs. It is its case that the said parcel booked from Netherlands and addressee/consignee Name is mentioned as " Queen Nancy " and the address mentioned on the parcel is " No. 310, 4th Main Road, CQAL layout, Sahakaranagar, Bengaluru". The name of the addressee and address can be had from Ex. P-23. It is its further contention that on 18/12/2020, the P W-1 JUDGMENT 27 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 received an another information that a stout African National lady would be visiting Sahakaranagara Post office to enquire about the parcel bearing No. CC089254397NLand there, they intercepted her i.e., accused No. 1, Ms. Ramla Shedafa Nancy and issued a summons under section 67 of the N D P S Act, 1985. The said summons is marked as Ex. P-24. The name and the address mentioned on Ex. P-24 is Ms. RamlaShedafa Nancy, D/o. Anthony Gabriel, R/o. H. No. SP-31, 1st floor, 5/9thcross(dead end), Nanjappa Layout, Kalkere, Bangalore-560 033.
10(n). The P W-1 at page No. 23 of his deposition admits the suggestion that the address given on the parcel on Ex. P-23 is different from the actual address of A-1. He also admits the suggestion that A-1 has not been residing in the address mentioned on Ex. P-23.
JUDGMENT 28 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
10(o). The P W-4, Mr. Kamalesh Kumar who is
the investigation officer in the present case. He has
produced and identified the rent agreements of the A-1 at Ex. P-42 and P-43 during the course of his examination- in-chief. These two documents have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the accused No. 1 during the course of cross examination. The Ex. P-43 is the original Rent agreement between one Mrs. S. Usha Nandini and Ms. Ramla Shedafa Nancy (Accused No.1). It is dated 25th May 2020. The Ex. P-42 is the photocopy of the Rent agreement between one Mr. Rangaprasad Badasheshi and Ms. Ramla Shedafa Nancy(Accused No.1). It is dated 10th November 2020. The name and residential address of the A-1 is different from the name & address mentioned on the Ex. P-23.
JUDGMENT 29 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
10(p). The undisputed facts, in the case on
hand, are that the name & address of the accused No. 1 was not found on the Ex. P-23 i.e., on the parcel that contained illegal drugs.
10(q). A consignment number is a 13-digit unique alphanumeric code assigned to every parcel sent through Post's service. This postal consignment number/tracking number is essential for systematic delivery and easy tracking. It is not so easy to remember and say the said tracking number to anybody.
10(r). It is the specific case of the prosecution that the A-1 used the mobile number of A-2 to procure the contraband. The Ex. P-29 is the alleged Jamatalashi of A-1. According to the prosecution it is an inventory prepared at the time of apprehending A-1 at Sahakaranagara Post Office. It clearly goes to show that JUDGMENT 30 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 A-1 was not possessing mobile bearing sim No. 7349117293.
10(s). Usually the consignee/receiver of the postal parcel would go to the post office concerned to enquire about the non-delivered parcel with 13-digit unique alphanumeric code/tracking number. There is no evidence on record to show that A-1 possessed such number with her when she (allegedly) visited the postal authority on 18/12/2020.
10(t). It is the normal conduct of the receiver/addressee/consignee of the un-delivered parcel to visit the post officer concerned to enquire about the non-delivered parcel. The person would enquire with the officer/official of the post office concerned with his/her identity card, address proof, and unique tacking number. Neither in the complaint nor in the evidence of the P W-1, JUDGMENT 31 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 it has come that the A-1 approached the postal official concerned, represented herself as " Queen Nancy ", showed her identity card, address proof and enquired with tracking number.
10(u). If A-1 had been to the Sahakaranagara Post Office, enquired about the alleged parcel with tracking number with the official of the postal department, there would have been an evidence to that effect. Admittedly, none of the postal officials at the relevant time from Sahakaranagara post office examined before the Court to prove the fact that the A-1 had visited Sahakaranagara Post Office, represented herself to be "Queen Nancy ", enquired about the parcel bearing Number CC089254f397NL.
JUDGMENT 32 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
10(v). In almost all the post offices/Government
offices are under surveillance/CCTV cameras installed. Admittedly, neither P W-1 nor P W-4 collected the CCTV footages of the Sahakaranagara post office, Bangalore for the relevant date/time i.e., of 18/12/2020 to vouch safe their case that A-1 visited the Sahakaranagara Post Office, represented herself as " Queen Nancy ", enquired about the parcel bearing Number CC089254f397NL" and also showed her address as " No. 310, 4th main road, CQAL Layout, Sahakaranagar, Bangalore, Karnataka India -560 092".
10(w). No oral or documentary evidence are produced before the Court to show that A-1 has represented herself as or called as " Queen Nancy " and her address is " No. 310, 4th main road, CQAL Layout, Sahakaranagara, Bangalore, Karnataka India -560 092.
JUDGMENT 33 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
10(x). It is the specific case of the prosecution
thatA-1 and A-2 used to procure the contraband by using " Dark-web ".What is known as the dark web exists within the deep web, it is an area of the internet that is only accessible by users who have a tor browser installed. The P W-1 & P W-2 have not produced any material evidence to show that either the P W-1 or P W-2 used Dark Web to procure the contraband. Even no financial transactions made available to the Court to vouch safe that the A-1 and 2 procure the contraband by using any kind of financial transactions. The Ex.P-41 & 44 are the mahazars drawn at the residence of A-1 and 2. It is mentioned in these two documents that no incriminating article found their houses. Thus, the allegations made by the prosecution cannot be said to be proved.
JUDGMENT 34 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
10(y). The way-bill for the 13-digit unique
alphanumeric code/tracking number of parcel bearing No. EG22836800ET is not produced before the Court to vouch safe that it was booked in the name of " Queen Nancy ". As Per Ex. P-36 dated 21/12/2020. P W-1 admits the suggestion that this parcel was not ordered by using the A-2's mobile number.
10(z). It is the specific case that on the confessional statements of A-1 and A-2, the P W-1 came to know that they had booked another parcel. The said information was recorded as per Ex. P-9. Admittedly, in the alleged voluntary statement of A-1, she has not stated her name & address as mentioned in Ex. P-9. By the time, Ex. P-9 came into existence, the A-1 was in custody of the N C B officials. Therefore, the name and address should have been the name and address disclosed by the A-1.
JUDGMENT 35 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 It shows that the A-1 gave voluntary statement is very much doubtful.
11. The P W-1 at page No. 30 deposes that he did not record the statement at Post Office of Nancy when she was apprehended. If it so on what basis, he reasoned to believe that A-1 is also called as Queen Nancy and she booked the alleged parcel. At page No. 32 P W-1 deposes that no ordered was made/booked by using A-2's mobile. This is contrary to his complaint.
12. Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior Counsel for the A-2 submits that the confession statement of accused is inadmissible in law as stated under Sections 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that the decision relied upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor is not applicable, since the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of TOFAN SINGH -VS- STATE OF TAMIL NADU (2021) 4 JUDGMENT 36 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 SCC 1 was dealing with the statement recorded preceding search and seizure by the officer under Section 42 of NDPS Act.
13. Section 67 of the NDPS Act deals with the power of an officer referred to in Section 42 of the Act to examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.
14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) while dealing with Section 67 of the Act at paras66 and 68 has held as follows:
"66. This becomes even clearer when Section 52(3) of the NDPS Act is read. Under Section 52(3), every person arrested and article seized under Sections 41 to 44 shall be forwarded without unnecessary delay either to the officer in charge of the nearest police station, who must then proceed to "investigate" the case given to him, or to the JUDGMENT 37 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act, which officer then "investigates"
the case in order to find out whether an offence has been committed under the Act. It is clear, therefore, that Section 67 is at an antecedent stage to the "investigation", which occurs after the officer concerned under Section 42 has "reason to believe", upon information gathered in an enquiry made in that behalf, that an offence has been committed.
68. The consequence of accepting Shri Lekhi's argument flies in the face of the fundamental rights contained in Articles 20(3) and 21, as well as the scheme of the NDPS Act, together with the safeguards that have been set out by us hereinabove. First and foremost, even according to Shri Lekhi, a police officer, properly so called, may be authorised to call for information, etc. under Section 67, as he is an officer referred to in Section 42(1). Yet, while "investigating" an offence under the JUDGMENT 38 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 NDPS Act i.e. subsequent to the collection of information, etc. under Section 67, the same police officer will be bound by Sections 160- 164 CrPC, together with all the safeguards mentioned therein -- firstly, that the person examined shall be bound to answer truly all questions relating to such case put to him, other than questions which would tend to incriminate him; secondly, the police officer is to reduce this statement into writing and maintain a separate and true record of this statement; thirdly, the statement made may be recorded by audio-video electronic means to ensure its genuineness; and fourthly, a statement made by a woman can only be made to a woman police officer or any woman officer. Even after all these safeguards are met, no such statement can be used at any inquiry or trial, except for the purpose of contradicting such a witness in cross-examination."
JUDGMENT 39 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
15. The understanding derived from the reading of Section 67 of the NDPS Act and also the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) is that, the examination of Section 67(c) of the NDPS Act is only for the purpose of gathering information so as to satisfy that there is reason to believe that the offence has been committed. In the instant case, the statement of the co-accused i.e. accused No.1 was recorded after search and seizure. Therefore, the confession statement of accused No.1 recorded was under
Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, and not under Section 67(c) of NDPS Act.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana -vs- Samarth Kumar (2022 LiveLaw (SC)
622) has held that the accused may be able to take advantage of the decision in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) perhaps at the time of arguing regular bail JUDGMENT 40 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 application or at the time of final hearing after conclusion of the trial.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) at para-
158.1 has held as follows:
"158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act."
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as confessional statement in the trial for the offence punishable under the NDPS Act and any JUDGMENT 41 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 confessional statement made to the police officer would be barred under the provision of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. In the instant case, the accused No.1, who was apprehended after search and seizure is alleged to have confessed that she procured the contraband as per the say of Accused No. 2, and the statement recorded was not under Section 67(c). Any confession statement made to the police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate that the A-1 procured the contraband as per the say of A-2.
19. A perusal at the complaint and the evidence of P W- 1 & 4 would indicate that no recovery of drugs was made from the hands of the Accused Nos. 1 & 2.
JUDGMENT 42 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
20. It becomes necessary to refer to the judgment relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for accused No. 2 of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of TOFAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADUreported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court holds as follows :-
.... .... ....
158. We answer the reference by stating:
158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as JUDGMENT 43 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act."
The Apex Court has held that a voluntary or a confession statement made under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used to pin the accused down for the offences under the NDPS Act.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE v. PALLULABID AHMAD ARIMUTTA reported in (2022) 12 SCC 633 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
11. Having gone through the records along with the tabulated statement of the respondents submitted on behalf of the petitioner NCB and on carefully perusing the impugned orders [PallulabidAhamadArimutta v. State, 2019 SCC OnLineKar 3516], [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLineKar 3433], [MuneesKavilParamabath v. State, JUDGMENT 44 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 2020 SCC OnLineKar 3431], [Abu Thahir v. State, 2019 SCC OnLineKar 3517], [Mohd. Afzal v. Union of India, 2020 SCC OnLineKar 1294], [MuneesKavilParambath v. State of Karnataka, 2020 SCC OnLineKar 3432] passed in each case, it emerges that except for the voluntary statements of A-1 and A-2 in the first case and that of the respondents themselves recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, it appears, prima facie, that no substantial material was available with the prosecution at the time of arrest to connect the respondents with the allegations levelled against them of indulging in drug trafficking. It has not been denied by the prosecution that except for the respondent in SLP (Crl.) No. 1569 of 2021, none of the other respondents were found to be in possession of commercial quantities of psychotropic substances, as contemplated under the NDPS Act.
JUDGMENT 45 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
22. The Judgment in the case of TOFAN SINGH is reiterated in BALWINDER SINGH v. NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1213 where the Apex Court holds as follows:
.... .... ....
26. Now that it has been declared in Tofan Singh's case (supra) that the judgments in the case of Kanhaiyalal (supra) and Raj Kumar Karwal (supra) did not state the correct legal position and they stand overruled, the entire case set up by the prosecution against Balwinder Singh, collapses like a House of cards. It is not in dispute that Balwinder Singh was not apprehended by the NCB officials from the spot where the naka was laid and that Satnam Singh alone was apprehended in the Indica car. The version of the prosecution is that after Satnam Singh was arrested, his statement was recorded under Section 67 of JUDGMENT 46 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 the NDPS Act wherein he ascribed a specific role to the co-accused - Balwinder Singh and the Sarpanch. The NCB officers claimed that they were on the lookout for both of them since they had managed to run away from the spot. While Sarpanch could not be apprehended, the NCB officers learnt from reports in the newspaper that Balwinder had been arrested by the Amritsar Police in an NDPS case and was lodged in the Central Jail, Amritsar. Permission was taken from the concerned Court to take Balwinder Singh into custody in the instant case and he was arrested. A notice was served on him under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and his statement was recorded. Treating his statement as a confessional statement, Balwinder Singh was arrested.
27. Once the confessional statement of the coaccused, Satnam Singh recorded by the NCB officers under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, who had attributed a role to Balwinder JUDGMENT 47 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Singh and the subsequently recorded statement of Balwinder Singh himself under Section 67 of the NDPS Act are rejected in the light of the law laid downinTofan Singh (supra), there is no other independent incriminating evidence that has been brought to the fore by the prosecution for convicting Balwinder Singh under the NDPS Act. On ignoring the said confessional statements & recorded before the officers of the NCB in the course of the investigation, the vital link between Balwinder Singh and the offence for which he has been charged snaps conclusively and his conviction order cannot be sustained.
28. As a result of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that Balwinder Singh deserves to be acquitted of the charge of being in conscious possession of commercial quantity of heroin under the NDPS Act.
Ordered accordingly.
.........
JUDGMENT 48 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
31. Thus, it can be seen that the initial burden is cast on the prosecution to establish the essential factors on which its case is premised. After the prosecution discharges the said burden, the onus shifts to the accused to prove his innocence. However, the standard of proof required for the accused to prove his innocence, is not pegged as high as expected of the prosecution. In the words of Justice Sinha, who speaking for the Bench in Noor Aga (supra), had observed that:
"58. ....... Whereas the standard of proof required to prove the guilt of the accused on the prosecution is "beyond all reasonable doubt" but it is "preponderance of probability" on the accused. If the prosecution fails to prove the foundational facts so as to attract the rigours of Section 35 of the Act, the actusreus which is possession of contraband by the accused cannot be said to have been established."
JUDGMENT 49 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
32. The essence of the discussion in the captioned case was that for attracting the provisions of Section 54 of the NDPS Act, it is essential for the prosecution to establish the element of possession of contraband by the accused for the burden to shift to the accused to prove his innocence. This aspect of possession of the contraband has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt."
23. These judgments are again reiterated by the Apex Court in FIRDOSKHAN KHURSHIDKHAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 holding as follows:
.... .... ....
"23. Now, coming to the case of appellant Firdoskhan(A-2) in Criminal Appeal No. 2044 of 2010.
JUDGMENT 50 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
24. It is not in dispute that the appellant Firdoskhan(A-2) was not apprehended on the spot or at the time of seizure. On a perusal of the panchnama(Exhibit30), it is evident that Firdoskhan is not named therein. We find that even though Anwarkhan(A-1) was present with the raiding team from 4.30 p.m onwards, no effort was made by any of the NCB officials to make an inquiry from him regarding the identity of his companion who allegedly fled away from the spot.
25. The name of Firdoskhan(A-2) cropped up for the first time in the statement of Anwarkhan(A-1) recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. However, we are duly satisfied that the sequence in which the said statement came to be recorded completely discredits the reliability thereof. Anwarkhan(A-1) was apprehended at the bus stand with the packet of narcotic drug at around 4 : 30 p.m. His signatures had been taken on the panchnama(Exhibit-30) JUDGMENT 51 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 prepared at 9 : 00 p.m. and thus, it does not stand to reason that the Intelligence Officer would defer arresting Anwarkhan(A-1) to a later point of time because, as per the arrest memo(Exhibit-43) his arrest is shown at 11 : 45 p.m. It seems that this deferment in formal arrest of Anwarkhan(A-1) was only shown in papers so that the Intelligence Officer could record the statement of Anwarkhan(A-1) under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and avoid the same being hit by the rigours of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
26. The admissibility of a confessional statement of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was examined by this Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra) and it was laid down that such confessional statements are not admissible in evidence.
27. Hence, the statement(Exhibit-42) of Anwarkhan(A-1) wherein he allegedly identified the appellant Firdoskhan(A-2) as JUDGMENT 52 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 the person who had escaped from the spot cannot be read in evidence against the appellant Firdoskhan(A-2) because the manner in which the said statement was recorded leaves much to be desired and creates a grave doubt on the sanctity thereof, in addition to the same having rendered inadmissible by virtue of Tofan Singh (supra).
28. The prosecution witness Deepak Pareek(PW-2) claimed that Firdoskhan(A-2) was apprehended from Shah Jahan Pur Police Station, Madhya Pradesh. However, no document pertaining to the apprehension/detention of appellant Firdoskhan(A-2) at the Shah Jahan Pur Police Station was placed on record by the prosecution. Thus, the very manner in which the said accused was apprehended and brought to the NCB Office at Ahmedabad in the purported exercise of recording his statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act is full of doubt and creates grave suspicion.
JUDGMENT 53 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Even otherwise, the confession of the accused recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be admitted in evidence as a confession as had been held in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). Hence the confessional statement(Exhibit-42) does not lend any succour to the prosecution in its quest to prove the charges against the accused Firdoskhan(A-2)."
24. Further, the Apex Court in its latest judgment in the case of NAJMUNISHA V. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 520- has held as follows :
"49. Thereinafter, a significant reliance was placed by the High Court on the statements of the accused wherein a categorical admission was substantiated by them, especially Accused No. 01 and Accused No.
04. To begin with, Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 reads: "67. Power to call for information, etc.-- Any officer referred to in section 42 who is authorised in this behalf by JUDGMENT 54 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 the Central Government or a State Government may, during the course of any enquiry in connection with the contravention of any provision of this Act,-- (a) call for information from any person for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of this Act or any rule or order made thereunder; (b) require any person to produce or deliver any document or thing useful or relevant to the enquiry; (c) examine any person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case."
50. The evidentiary value of confessional statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 was dealt with by this Court in the case of Tofan Singh (supra). As per the majority verdict delivered by 3-Judges' Bench in this case has held that the powers conferred on the empowered officers under Section 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 read with Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985 arelimited in nature conferred for the purpose JUDGMENT 55 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 of entry, search, seizure and arrest without warrant along with safeguards enlisted thereof. The "enquiry" undertaken under the aforesaid provisions may lead to initiation of an investigation or enquiry by the officers empowered to do so either under Section 53 of the NDPS Act 1985 or otherwise. Thus, the officers empowered only under the aforesaid provisions neither having power to investigate nor to file a police report meet the test of police officer for the purpose of Section 25 of the IEA 1872. Consequently, the bar under Section 25 of the IEA 1872 is not applicable against the admissibility of confessional statement made to the officers empowered under Section 41 and 42 of the NDPS Act 1985.
51. Furthermore, it was also held by this Court that Section 67 is at an antecedent stage to the investigation, which occurs after the empowered officer under Section 42 of the NDPS Act 1985 has the reason to believe JUDGMENT 56 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 upon information gathered in an enquiry made in that behalf that an offence under NDPS Act 1985 has been committed and is thus not even in the nature of a confessional statement. Hence, question of its being admissible in trial as a confessional statement against the accused does not arise.
52. The same, therefore, cannot be considered to convict an accused person under the NDPS Act 1985. A reference at this stage may be made to the majority view in the 3-Judges' Bench decision wherein it was held as follows in paragraph number 158:
"158. We answer the reference by stating:
158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into JUDGMENT 57 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act.
158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act.
53. By virtue of the decision in Tofan Singh (supra), the benefit is to be granted to the appellants herein in regard to the inadmissibility of their statements under Section 67 of the NDPS Act 1985."
25. On a combine reading of the above judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, what would unmistakably emerge is, the conviction cannot by sole basis on alleged voluntarily statements of the A-1 & 2, as there is not an iota of corroboration that would pin down the A-1 & 2 to the offences, except the voluntary/confessional statement of the A-1 & 2 recorded under Section 67 of the Act, which is JUDGMENT 58 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 clearly hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as is considered by the Hon'be Apex Court on an interplay between Section 25 of the Evidence Act and Section 67 of the Act.
26. The learned Special public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused have relied on many reported judgments. There is no dispute with regard to the propositions of law that have been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and other Hon'ble Courts in the above rulings. The only question that arises/survives for consideration is as to whether the said rulings are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
27. The most of the above decisions relied by the learned Counsel for of the respective parties would not come to their aid as those judgments are delivered under different contexts.
JUDGMENT 59 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021
28. The prosecution is not able to prove that the A-1 and A-2 had procured illegal Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances from foreign nations via Indian Post parcel by placing cogent and acceptable evidence and as such, this Court answers this Point No. 1 in the Negative.
29. Point No. 2 :
In view of the Negative finding on Point No. 1, this Court proceeds to pass the following order...
::ORDER::
Acting under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 21(C), 22(C), 27, 27A, 28, 29 and 32B(a)(d) of the N D P S Act, 1985.
Accused Nos. 1 & 2 shall be released forthwith if they are not required in any other case.
JUDGMENT 60 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
Office to intimate the Jail Authorities
concerned by sending the operative portion of this order, without undue delay.
(Typed and computerized by me, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 25th day of October 2024) (VIJAYA DEVARAJA URS) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE, (NDPS) BENGALURU.
::ANNEXURE::
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS/ES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
P-w.-1 C.W.-1 Sri. Rathan K,
P-w.-2 C.W.-2 Sri. Venugopal G Kuroop,
P-w.-3 C.W.-5 Smt. Shashikala,
P-w.-4 C.W.-3 Sri. Kameleshkumar,
P-w.-5 C.W.-4 Dr. Purnima Mishra,
P-w.-6 C.W.-8 Sri. Shivakumar,
JUDGMENT 61 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
P-w.-7 C.W.-10 Sri. M Vishwanath,
P-w.-8 C.W.-9 Sri S Udayakumar.
2. LIST OF THE WITNESSE /S EXAMNINED FOR THE DEFENCE :-
- NIL-
3. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE PROSECUTION :-
Ex. P-1 : Information report i.e., Form NCB-
I, dated 17.12.2020,
Ex. P-2 : Forwarding Memo dated
17.12.2020,
Ex.P-3 : Godown receipt dated 17.12.2020,
Ex.P-4 : Malkhana Register extract,
Ex.P-5 : Seizure Report U/s.57 of NDPS Act
dated 17.12.2020,
Ex.P-6 : Information U/s.42 of NDPS Act
dated 18.12.2020,
Ex.P-7 : Arrest report dated 19.12.2020,
Ex.P-8 : Malkhana Register extract,
JUDGMENT 62 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021
Ex.P-9 : Information report U/s.42 of
NDPS Act i.e., Form NCB-I, dated 20.12.2020, Ex.P-10 : Forwarding memo for deposit of seized NDPS substances, Ex.P-11 : Godown receipt dated 21.12.2020, Ex.P-12 : Seizure report U/s.57 of NDPS Act dated 22.12.2020, Ex.P-13 : Interrogation report dated 28.12.2020, Ex.P-14 : Interrogation report in respect of two foreigners dated 27.01.2021, Ex.P-15 : Seizure information to Kodigehalli PS dated 30.12.2020, Ex.P-16 : Arrest report dated 20.05.2021, Ex.P-17 : Seal issued extract, Ex.P-18 : Search authorization dated 19.12.2020, Ex.P-19 : Search authorization 19.12.2020, Ex.P-20 : Request letter to witness dated 17.12.2020, JUDGMENT 63 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex.P-21 : Request letter to witness dated 17.12.2020, Ex.P-22 : panchanama dated 17.12.2020, Ex.P-23 : Airway bill, Ex.P-24 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act dated 18.12.2020, Ex.P-25 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act dated 18.12.2020, Ex.P-26 : Voluntary statement of A-1, dated 18.12.2020, Ex.P-27 : Voluntary statement of A-2, dated 18.12.2020, Ex.P-28 : Arrest memo of A-1 dated 18.12.2020, Ex.P-29 : Jamatalashi dated 18.12.2020, Ex.P-30 : Arrest memo dated 18.12.2020 in respect of A-2, Ex.P-31 : Jamatalashi dated 18.12.2020, Ex.P-32 : Questionnaire of A-1 dated 20.12.2020, Ex.P-33 : Questionnaire of A-2 dated 20.12.2020, JUDGMENT 64 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex.P-34 : Request letter to witness dated 21.12.2020, Ex.P-35 : Request letter to witness dated 21.12.2020, Ex.P-36 : Panchanama dated 21.12.2020, Ex.P-37 : Questionnaire of A-1 dated 22.12.2020, Ex.P-38 : Questionnaire of A-2 dated 22.12.2020, Ex.P-39 : Certificate U/s.52(A) of NDPS Act by Learned Addl. CMM., Bangalore dated 31.12.2020, Ex.P-40 : Test Memo, Ex.P-41 : panchanama dated 20.12.2020, Ex.P-42 : Rental agreement dated 10.11.2020, Ex.P-43 : Rental agreement dated 25.05.2020, Ex.P-44 : Panchanama dated 20.12.2020, Ex.P-45 : Rental agreement dated 26.09.2020, JUDGMENT 65 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex.P-46 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act dated 16.02.2021, Ex.P-47 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act dated 15.03.2021, Ex.P-48 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act dated 22.03.2021, Ex.P-49 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act dated 01.04.2021, Ex.P-50 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act dated 20.04.2021, Ex.P-51 : Voluntary statement of Sri Vaibhav Gupta dated 19.05.2021, Ex.P-52 : Arrest Memo in respect of Sri Vaibhav Gupta dated 19.05.2021, Ex.P-53 : Remand Application of Sri. Vaibhav Gupta dated 20.05.2021, Ex.P-54 : Application for custody of A-2 dated 20.05.2021, Ex.P-55 : Questionnaire of A-2 dated 23.05.2021, JUDGMENT 66 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex.P-56 : Remand Application of A-2 dated 24.05.2021, Ex.P-57 : Notice U/s.67 of NDPS Act dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-58 : Voluntary statement of Smt.Shashikala dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-59 : Notice U/s.67 of NDPS Act dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-60 : Voluntary statement of Smt.Shylaja dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-61 : Notice U/s.67 of NDPS Act dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-62 : Voluntary statement of Sri. R.C.Shrinivasmurthy dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-63 : Notice U/s.67 of NDPS Act dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-64 : Voluntary statement of Sri. Shivakumar dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-65 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act to one Sri. Suraj Yogananda dated 7.1.2021, JUDGMENT 67 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex.P-66 : Voluntary Statement of Sri. Suraj Yogananda dated 8.01.2021, Ex.P-67 : Rental agreement dated 26.09.2020, Ex.P-68 : Notice U/s.67(C) of NDPS Act to one Sri. Rangaprasad Bada Sheshi dated 18.01.2021, Ex.P-69 : Voluntary Statement of Sri Rangaprasad Bada Sheshi dated 19.01.2021, Ex.P-70 : Letter addressed to Dy. Director, FRRO, dated 15.1.2021, Ex.P-71 : Letter addressed to Sri. Kamalesh Kumar, IO., from FRRO dated 19.1.2021, Ex.P-72 : Letter addressed to SHO., D J Halli PS, dated 16.2.2021, Ex.P-73 : FIR No.53/2021, of D.J.Halli PS Ex.P-74 : Letter addressed to SHO, Ramamurthynagar PS dated 16.2.2021, Ex.P-75 : FIR No.58/2021 of Ramamurthynagar PS, JUDGMENT 68 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex.P-76 : Letter addressed to RTO, Janakpuri, Delhi dated 1.3.2021, Ex.P-77 : Reply letter from RTO dated 12.03.2021, Ex.P-78 : Notice U/S.67(c) to one Sri. Amithkumar dated 29.03.2021, Ex.P-79 : Notice U/S.67(c) to one Sri. Amithkumar dated 5.05.2021, Ex.P-80 : Intimation letter dated 2.6.2021 to Zonal Director, NCB., Delhi, Ex.P-81 : Letter to Nodal Officer- Vodafone dated 21.01.2021, Ex.P-82 : CD from Vodafone dated 22.01.2021, Ex.P-83 : Letter to Nodal Officer- Airtel dated 25.01.2021, Ex.P-84 : CD received from Airtel dated 16.02.2021, Ex.P-85 : CRCL Report, Ex.P-86 : Letter to Post Office to secure CCTV footages dated 08.01.2021, JUDGMENT 69 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex.P-87 : CCTV footage dated 18.12.2020, Ex.P-88 : Information of arrest of A-1 to Ramamurthynagar PS dated 17.10.2021, Ex.P-89 : Intimation of arrest of A-2 to D J Halli PS dated 17.02.2021, Ex.P-90 : Intimation of arrest of foreigner to Ministry of External Affairs dated 31.12.2020, Ex.P-91 : Letter to Dy. Director General, NCB., New Delhi about arrest of foreigners dated 07.01.2021, Ex.P-92 : Letter to SBI, Yelahanka, dated 4.1.2021, Ex.P-93 : Reply given by SBI dated 18.3.2021, Ex.P-94 : Freezing order of movables of A-2 dated 07.01.2022, Ex.P-95 : Complaint, Ex.P-96 : Letter addressed to Post Master from Asst. Commissioner, Customs dated 17.12.2020, JUDGMENT 70 CCH-33 SPL. C C No. 768/2021 Ex.P-97 : Item internal manifest dated 10.12.2020, Ex.P-98 : Postal details dated 12.12.2020, Ex.P-99 : Letter addressed to City Customs.
4. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED FOR THE DEFENCE :-
Ex.D-1 : Certified copy of the Order passed in WP.No.17961/2021 (GM-RES) dated 28.07.2023, Ex.D-2 : Certified copy of the Order passed in WP.No.11193/2021 (GM-RES) dated 24.01.2022.
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE :-
M.Os. 1 to 6 : Samples
M.O.7 & 8 : Packing Materials
(VIJAYA DEVARAJA URS)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE, (NDPS) BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT 71 CCH-33
SPL. C C No. 768/2021