Bangalore District Court
Customs Intelligence Unit (Ciu) vs Sumith Singh on 3 October, 2025
KABC010112452021
THE COURT OF THE XXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS),
BANGALORE. CCH.33.
: P R E S E N T:
SMT.LATHA,
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL. JUDGE (NDPS)
BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 3rd DAY OF OCTOBER 2025
SPL.C.C. No.701/2021
COMPLAINANT : Inspector of Customs,
Central Intelligence Unit (CIU),
Airport & Air Cargo Complex,
Bangalore 560 300.
(By Spl. Public Prosecutor)
V/S.
ACCUSED : Sumith Singh,
S/o.Ashok Singh,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at: No.303, 1st Cross,
1st Main Road, Devinagar Main
Road, Kamlesh Palya,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. RR., Adv.)
1. Date of Commission of offence: 31.08.2020
2
2. Date of report of offence: 31.08.2020
3. Arrest of the accused : 05.09.2020
4. Date of release of accused on bail: 03.10.2020
5. Period undergone in custody: 28 days
6. Date of commencing of
18.5.2023
recording Evidence :
7. Date of closing of Evidence : 26.9.2024
8. Name of the complainant: Dy. Commissioner,
Customs, CESTAT
Dr.Nirmal Joy
9. Offence complained of : U/Sec.20(ii)(B), 23, 28 &
29 of NDPS Act.
10. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
11. Order of sentence : The accused is
acquitted
::JUDGMENT::
The Inspector of Customs, Airport & Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore has filed Complaint against the accused in OR.No.07/2020-21 dated 2.9.2020 for the offences punishable U/Sec.8(c) R/w.Sec. 20, 22, 23, & 28 of NDPS Act.
3 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as under:-
On 31.8.2020 the Dy. Commissioners, Customs CESTAT received credible information that the Customs Officer had held an Import shipment covered in AWB No.8343284666, booked by a person M/s.Pyramid of parts and customization, Mike Kilgore, 1554, 3 rd Avenue Longview WA, USA and the said parcel was consigned to one Sumith Singh bearing door No.31, 10th Main, 2nd Main road, 2nd cross, Maruthinagar, Mallesh palya, Bangalore - 75 said to contain Primo Counter Top Water dispenser is suspected to be containing some concealed items. On cut opening the said item they found a plastic pouch containing green coloured chunks and when the same was tested with Field test kit it found to be tested as ganja. On weighing the same it came around 238.43 grams, they seized the same under a mahazar. During follow up action, the complainant conducted the raid of the house of the consignee but nothing was found. Later arrested the accused on 5.9.2020 4 and prosecuted him for the offences punishable U/s.8(c) R/w.Secs.20, 22, 23 & 28 of NDPS Act.
3. The Investigating officer, after completing the investigation filed Complaint before the Court. The accused was on bail. The learned Predecessor-in-office of this Court, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.20, 23, 28 & 29 of NDPS Act,1985. The copy of the Complaint and annexed documents were furnished to the learned counsel appearing for the accused as provided under Sec.207 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Since, the offences alleged against the accused is cognizable in nature, the predecessor-in-office of this Court heard the learned counsel for the accused and Public Prosecutor before charge and framed the Charge against the accused for the offence punishable under section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act, 1985 on 18.11.2022, read-over and explained to the accused in the language known to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed 5 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 to be tried. Therefore, posted the case for recording the evidence on behalf of prosecution.
4. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined five witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and got 5 documents marked as Exs.P1 to P5 and got one material object marked as M.O.1. After conclusion of evidence of prosecution side, the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating statements made against him. However, did not offer defence evidence.
5. Having heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, the learned Counsel for the accused and on perusal of the written arguments submitted by learned Spl.P.P., and the material placed before the Court, the Points that arise for the consideration of this Court are as under:-
Point No.1 : Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 31.08.2020 Inspector of Customs, Bangalore received information 6 that a parcel bearing AWB No.8343284666, booked by a person Mike Kilgore, M/s.Pyramid of parts and customization 1554, 3rd Avenue Longview WA, USA consigned to one Sumith Singh bearing door No.31, 10th Main, 2nd Main road, 2nd Cross, Maruthinagar, Mallesh palya, Bangalore is suspected to be containing narcotic drugs, basing on the credible information, Inspector of Customs opened the said parcel and it was containing 238.43 grams of ganja, on follow up action on 5.9.2020 accused was summoned and he has revealed that he had booked the contraband ganja without having any licence or permission, thereby accused has committed the offence punishable U/s.20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act?
Point No.2: What Order ?
6. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: As per the final order for the following:
7 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 ::REASONS::
7. POINT No.1 :- The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, has examined 5 witnesses.
CW.1 Dr. Nirmal Joy, the then Deputy Commissioner, Customs. CESTAT., has been examined as PW1. According to him, he received the information from Assistant Commissioner, Courier Section, Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore on 31.08.2020 regarding suspected concealment in a package that arrived at Air Cargo Complex, Bangalore through Courier. Based on the said information, Offices of Customs, Intelligence Unit, Air Cargo Complex Bangalore examined the said consignment. The consignment has come from USA Air addressed to Sumith Singh who is the accused in the present case. He further deposed that soon after receiving the said consignment they opened it and examined the parcel and found concealed package containing green coloured chunks, that on examining the said chunks, it resulted indicative of presence of ganja, that based on the said information, he made a request to Assistant 8 Commissioner of HPU, City Customs to conduct a search, that he issued a letter to Assistant Commissioner on 1.9.2020.
8. CW2 N Bhargava Rama has been examined as PW2. He is the retired Assistant Commissioner, Central Taxes. He was working as Assistant Commissioner, Customs, Courier Division, SACA, that according to him on 31.08.2020, based on intelligence received from courier section, he had informed the said information to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, CIU., regarding some kind of concealment in 4 parcels, that the said letter is at Ex.P2, that as per the instructions of Deputy Commissioner he examined the said consignment.
9. CW.15 has been examined as PW.3. PW.3 Sri Shashibhushan the then Assistant Chemical Examiner CRCL., Delhi. According to him, on 04.12.2020 he had received a sealed white kora cloth packet article along with the plastic pouch weighing 30.8 grams. On examination and 9 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 analysis of the said sample, it responded the presence of cannabis ganja and is covered under NDPS Act. Accordingly, he issued a report as per Ex.P3.
10. CW.6 Sri.Rajesh Shastri, Superintendent of GST., Bangalore has been examined as PW4. He deposed that on 31.08.2020, he had received a letter from USA Courier, DHL., speaking about arrival of suspicious consignment and to conduct investigation, that on 1.9.2020 at about 6.00 pm., they went to DHL office to conduct the investigation, that when they reached DHL office around 6.00 pm., along with his colleagues, the officials of customs have produced the suspicious parcel before them, that they scanned the said parcel, they came to know that a suspicious image was concealed in the said parcel, that they broke open the said parcel in the presence of two independent witnesses, that on opening the said parcel they found one water dispenser, that on breaking open the said water dispenser, they found one parcel concealed inside the water dispenser, that when 10 they opened the said cover they found green coloured chunks which appeared to be some narcotic substance, on conducting preliminary field test which gave an indication that said green chunks were contraband ganja, that green chunks were weighed in the weighing machine provided in the DHL office, the weight came around 239.43 grams, that two samples were drawn out of the bulk for scientific analysis. PW4 further deposed that since the preliminary test shown narcotic substance, the consignee Sumith Singh was required to be summoned, since his address is falling within City Customs jurisdiction, a letter was sent to City Customs Commissionerate to cause necessary enquiry and needful action. The officers of City Customs Commissionerate on looking to the address on the parcel went to the address of the consignee and found that the consignee was not staying in the address, that discrete enquiry with the landlord revealed that the said consignee was staying in the said address about 10 years back for 1½ years, that the City Customs have drawn the mahazar in the 11 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 spot and they informed CIU that they have apprehended the Sumith Singh who was working in one private company located at MG road, they issued summons to appear before CIU for necessary investigation. The said person appeared before CIU on 04.09.2020 and he was asked about the import of the said consignment, that they recorded his voluntary statement based on the mahazar, that in the statement, the accused had stated about the plan of importing suspicious narcotic substance and he admitted that he consigned the parcel using dark website, that he had drawn Rs.30,000/- from his account and transferred it to Bitcoin and placed an order through dark website, that a mahazar was drawn on 1.9.2020 which is marked as Ex.P5. He has also identified the sample contraband which is at MO.1, along with the accused who was present before the court.
11. CW.7 Sri Prateek Chugh has been examined as PW.5. PW.5 is the then Inspector of Customs, CIU. He 12 deposed that on 31.08.2020 he received a letter from Assistant Commissioner Couriers, DHL stating that a consignment arrived which is a suspicious consignment and the Assistant Commissioner requested him to conduct investigation, that on 1.9.2020 at about 6.00 pm., he went to DHL office to conduct investigation, that they secured the said consignment from the DHL office, they scanned it and found a suspicious image, they broke open the said parcel in front of the independent witnesses, inside the said parcel there was water dispenser and there was a cover inside the water dispenser that on opening that cover they found green coloured chunks which appeared to be some narcotic substance, that they conducted preliminary field test and it responded positive for contraband ganja, they weighed it and had drawn samples for sending it for scientific analysis, that they summoned the addressee found in the said parcel, namely the accused herein. They recorded the statement of the landlord and he revealed that the accused was staying in his house about 10 years back and he stayed 1½ years 13 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 and he collected the phone number of the accused, summoned him, that he appeared before CIU on 04.05.2020 that they recorded the statement of accused and had also drawn Ex.P5 mahazar.
12. The prosecution apart from examining 5 witnesses has also got 5 documents marked as Ex.P1 to P5. Ex.P1 is the letter written by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs CIU to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. City Customs Commissioner.. Ext. P2 is the letter written by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs to the Deputy Commissioner, CIU, Air Cargo Complex, Kempe Gowda International Airport. Ext. P3 is the Chemical test report submitted by the chemical analyst. Ext. P4 is the letter addressed to the court By the chemical examiner along with the report. Ex.P5 is the mahazar drawn on 1.9.2020.
13. As could be seen from the written argument submitted by the learned Special P.P., he has narrated the facts of the case, the evidence adduced on behalf of the 14 prosecution as well as the documents produced on behalf of the prosecution. According to the learned Spl.P.P., the accused had given voluntary statement under Section 67 of NDPS Act and on the basis of voluntary statement of the accused, it appears that the prosecution came to know that he booked the parcel for delivery at Door No. 31, 10 th Main, 2nd Cross, Maruthi Nagara, Malleshapally, Bangalore, that he had ordered the said Ganja through dark website by paying Rs.30,000/- through his bitcoin account. Except the say of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution did not collect any documents to show that the officers had recorded the statement of the owner of the house where the accused allegedly stayed. The owner has not been examined by the prosecution. The prosecution failed to produce document to show that in whose name the said house is registered, and the accused was the tenant under the said owner. The prosecution failed to produce the rent agreement, if any, entered into between the owner of the said house and the accused. The prosecution failed to prove 15 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 that the accused was paying rent to the said owner and he stayed in the said house about 10 years back for 1½ years. If at all, the prosecution had examined the owner of the said house, definitely the prosecution would have produced certain documents to show that the said person was owning the said house and the prosecution would have examined the said owner before the court in support of its case.
14. The learned Spl.P.P., has also submitted that the accused in his statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act on 5.9.2020 had voluntarily admitted that he had booked one parcel for delivery at Door No. 31, that he further stated that he had ordered Ganja on website through online application i.e., WICKR. User-ID WOLFPACK and paid the amount through Bitcoin account and transferred the equivalent INR amount of Rs.30,000/- from his HDFC account. The learned Spl.P.P.,, though referred to the statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, it has no evidentiary value as per the dictum in the case of Tofan 16 Singh Vs., State of Tamil Nadu reported in AIR 2020 SC 5592. In the said decision, it is observed as under:
155. 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 a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act." In view of the observation made by the Apex Court, the statements recorded by the customs officers under Section 67 of NDPS Act Is inadmissible in evidence and the customs officers are also considered as police officers for the purpose of recording statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act.
17 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021
15. The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor in Para-23 of written submission stated that the accused had deliberately given his previous address of Mallesh Pallya, where he was found not residing currently, but mischievously had given the said address for delivery of the goods. However, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was earlier residing in the said address and absolutely there are no materials to show that the accused used to reside in the said residence.
16. Further, in Para No. 24, the learned PP submitted that it was only after the officers of City Customs called the accused, impersonating as delivery executive and requested him to give his correct address for delivery of parcel, the accused gave correct address for delivery of parcel. However, on record, absolutely there are no materials to show that the City Customs Officers followed the provisions contemplated under Section 50A of NDPS Act and they had taken fair permission from the authorized persons as 18 contemplated under the said provision. Without following the procedure under Section 50A of NDPS Act, the process of controlled delivery is inadmissible in evidence. Moreover, there are no materials to show that the said officers followed the procedure contemplated under Section 50A of NDPS Act and there was the process of controlled delivery to confirm the address of the accused. Except the self-serving statement of the official witnesses there are no documents to show that there was the process of controlled delivery as contemplated under Section 50A of NDPS Act. Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that there was process of controlled delivery cannot be accepted.
17. Further, in Para No.26, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor submitted that, it was only after the consignee, Sumith Singh being found not responding to DHL's service center called to come forward to file KYC, detailed investigation, thorough scanning and analysis of image was carried out by CIU officials and decision was taken to break 19 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 open the imported goods, in the presence of two independent witnesses and more importantly in the presence of one representative of Service Provider i.e. Mr. Mezesam. DHL Express Courier Private Limited Bangalore, as much as, all such consignees duly authorized, customs licensed courier operator to act on their behalf to fulfill customs formalities. However, in the present case, except the so called mahazar, there are no materials to show that the said consignment was opened in the presence of two independent witnesses. Though the prosecution has cited two independent witnesses, it failed to examine those witnesses. Therefore, the contention taken by the learned Spl.P.P., cannot be taken into consideration and the said argument of Learned Spl.P.P., is without any material, therefore, it does not sustain under law.
18. Further, it is also submitted by Learned Spl.P.P., that only due to Customs Official vigilant action, while undertaking thorough scanning, the concealment of 20 narcotic controlled substance i.e. ganja was noticed and later retrieved upon breaking open of stated imported consignment and seizure, otherwise the accused would have succeeded in his mischievous design to commit the offence. The value of the ganja seized is Rs.3,84,000/- and which contained dried leaves of ganja. Though the prosecution contended that the said contraband seized under Ex.P5 seizure mahazar in the presence of two independent witnesses, in the absence of examining the said independent witnesses the prosecution could not prove the contents of Ex.P5 mahazar and absolutely there are no material to show that there was due seizure of the alleged contraband as contended by the official witnesses in their evidence. The seizure of the contraband has not been proved in accordance with law.
19. Learned Spl.P.P., has also submitted regarding physical possession of narcotic drugs with animus and also 21 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 relied on the case of Mohanlal Vs., State of Rajasthan reported in (2015) 6 SCC 222 has held and stated that:-
"this Court also observed that the term "possession"
could mean physical possession with animus; custody over the prohibited substances with animus; exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment; or personal knowledge as to the existence of the contraband and the intention based on this knowledge." This court has no disagreement with the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision. However, in the present case, the prosecution has not placed any material to show that it has established the physical possession of narcotic drugs with the accused. In the absence of a specific evidence, the court cannot consider that the prosecution proved the physical possession of the accused over the alleged seized narcotic drug.
20. Further, as submitted by learned counsel for the accused, in the present case, the prosecution failed to establish that there is compliance of mandatory provisions 22 contemplated under Sections 42(1) and 42(2)of NDPS Act. At this stage, it is relevant to rely on the decision of Karnail Singh Vs., State of Haryana reported in (2009) 8 SCC
539. In the said decision in Para No.35 it is held as under:-
35. In conclusion, what is to be noticed is Abdul Rashid did not require literal compliance with the requirements of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) nor did Sajan Abraham hold that the requirements of Section 42(1) and 42(2) need not be fulfilled at all. The effect of the two decisions was as follows :
(a) The officer on receiving the information (of the nature referred to in Sub-section (1) of section 42) from any person had to record it in writing in the concerned Register and forthwith send a copy to his immediate official superior, before proceeding to take action in terms of clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1).
(b) But if the information was received when the officer was not in the police station, but while he was on the move either on patrol duty or otherwise, either by mobile phone, or other means, and the information calls for immediate action and any delay would have resulted in the goods or evidence being removed or destroyed, it would not be feasible or practical to take down in writing the information given to him, in such a situation, he could take action as per clauses (a) to (d) of section 42(1) and thereafter, as soon as it is practical, 23 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 record the information in writing and forthwith inform the same to the official superior.
(c) In other words, the compliance with the requirements of Sections 42 (1) and 42(2) in regard to writing down the information received and sending a copy thereof to the superior officer, should normally precede the entry, search and seizure by the officer. But in special circumstances involving emergent situations, the recording of the information in writing and sending a copy thereof to the official superior may get postponed by a reasonable period, that is after the search, entry and seizure. The question is one of urgency and expediency.
(d) While total non-compliance of requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 42 is impermissible, delayed compliance with satisfactory explanation about the delay will be acceptable compliance of section 42. To illustrate, if any delay may result in the accused escaping or the goods or evidence being destroyed or removed, not recording in writing the information received, before initiating action, or non-sending a copy of such information to the official superior forthwith, may not be treated as violation of section 42. But if the information was received when the police officer was in the police station with sufficient time to take action, and if the police officer fails to record in writing the information received, or fails to send a copy thereof, to the official superior, then it will be a suspicious circumstance being a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Similarly, where the police officer does not record the information at all, and 24 does not inform the official superior at all, then also it will be a clear violation of section 42 of the Act. Whether there is adequate or substantial compliance with section 42 or not is a question of fact to be decided in each case. The above position got strengthened with the amendment to section 42 by Act 9 of 2001.
As observed in the aforesaid decision, the compliance of Section 42(1) and 42(2) of NDPS Act is mandatory and Ex.P1 is not the information recorded by the authorized person. Informant regarding the information issued by him. Ex.P1 reads as under:-
"Sub: Concealment of suspected Hydro Weed in AWB. No. 8343284666, pertaining to Shri.Sumith Singh, Bangalore -reg.
---
This office I presently investigating an attempt to smuggle Hydro Weed into India, under AWB No.8343284666, filed at DHL Courier Terminal, Air Cargo Complex, Bengaluru Customs.
As per the Air Way Bill filed on behalf of the consignee Shri.Sumith Singh and commercial invoice dated 808922 dated 14.08.2020, the goods have been declared as "Primo Counter Top Water Dispenser" and the value of the goods as 49.99 USD. During X-ray scanning and open examination of the courier consignment by the officers of Customs, Courier Cell, on 31.0-8.2020, the Customs officers found some substance packed in a polythene pouches and concealed in Primo counter top water dispenser. The case was then handed over to the CIU Section, AP&ACC on 31.08.2020, for further investigation.
25 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 As per the import documents, the said consignment was shipped by M/s. Pyramid of parts and customization Mike Kilore, 1554, 3rd Avenue Longview WA, USA to the consignee Sumith Singh, door No.31, 10 th main, Second Cross, maruthi nagar, Malleshpalya, Bangalore - 560075.
In this connection it is requested to conduct a follow- up action at the above referred premises immediately and the import related documents along with any other incriminating documents/ evidence may be recovered and furnished to this office immediately."
As seen from the contents of Ex.P1, Ex.P1 is the forwarded letter by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to the Deputy Commissioner of City Customs Commissionerate. Therefore, the said document is not an information recorded by the informant as it is as received by him. Further, it is also clear that the information received has not been submitted to the higher officer of the informant. In view of that, there is clear violation of Sections 42(1) and 42(2) of NDPS Act. The non compliance of Section 42(1) and 42(2) is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
26
21. It is to be noted that, as seen from the evidence of PW4, the Superintendent of GST, Bangalore, after recovering the so called contraband, the said officers subjected the said contraband for preliminary field test and weighed the seized contraband, that it was weighing 239.43 grams that he had taken 2 samples from the bulk for scientific analysis. It is evident from the evidence of PW4 that the sample was taken during the time of seizure of the so called contraband and from the evidence placed on record, it is clear that the concerned officers have not followed the procedure contemplated under Section 52A of NDPS Act. At this stage it is relevant to relay on the decision of Mohanlal versus State of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No.652/2012 dated 28.01.2016. In the aforesaid decision in Para No.13 it is observed as under:-
"13. It is manifest from Section 52A (2)(c) (supra) that upon seizure of the contraband the same has to be forwarded either to the officer in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 who shall prepare an inventory as stipulated in the said provision 27 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 and make an application to the Magistrate for purposes of
(a) certifying the correctness of the inventory (b) certifying photographs of such drugs or substances taken before the Magistrate as true and (c) to draw representative samples in the presence of the Magistrate and certifying the correctness of the list of samples so drawn. Sub-section (3) of Section 52- A requires that the Magistrate shall as soon as may be allow the application. This implies that no sooner the seizure is effected and the contraband forwarded to the officer in charge of the Police Station or the officer empowered, the officer concerned is in law duty bound to approach the Magistrate for the purposes mentioned above including grant of permission to draw representative samples in his presence, which samples will then be enlisted and the correctness of the list of samples so drawn certified by the Magistrate. In other words, the process of drawing of samples has to be in the presence and under the supervision of the Magistrate and the entire exercise has to be certified by him to be correct.
The question of drawing of samples at the time of seizure which, more often than not, takes place in the absence of the Magistrate does not in the above scheme of things arise. This is so especially when according to Section 52- A(4) of the Act, samples drawn and certified by the Magistrate in compliance with sub-section (2) and (3) of Section 52-A above constitute primary evidence for the purpose of the trial. Suffice it to say that there is no 28 provision in the Act that mandates taking of samples at the time of seizure."
In view of the observation made in the aforesaid decision, the compliance of Section 52A is mandatory and if the sample was not drawn in the presence of Magistrate, the report of scientific analysis obtained on the basis of the sample drawn by the Investigating Officer at the spot, has no evidentiary value and the court cannot rely on the said report. When such being the case, if the said report is kept aside, then there is no material to hold that the so called seized material is prohibited narcotic drug.
22. Further, if the documents produced on behalf of the prosecution are gone through, absolutely there are no materials to show that Raid Success Report under Section 57 of NDPS Act is submitted to the higher officer of PW4. PW4 has not complied the provisions of Section 57 of NDPS Act and the non compliance of the said mandatory provision is also fatal to the case of the prosecution and it creates doubts in the mind of the court that whether actually there 29 CCH-33 Spl.C.C.701/2021 was seizure of the alleged contraband as deposed by PW4. Section 57 of the NDPS Act reads as under ;
57. Report of arrest and seizure.--
Whenever any person makes any arrest or seizure, under this Act, he shall, within forty-eight hours next after such arrest or seizure, make a full report of all the particulars of such arrest or seizure to his immediate official superior.
In this matter, the prosecution has not produced any document to show that the consignment was addressed in the name of accused. Except the self-serving statements of the interested witnesses, namely the officers, absolutely there are no material to hold that the consignment was addressed in the name of the accused. Further, though there is oral evidence of officers to show that the accused had transferred Rs.30,000/-through bitcoin account, there are no materials to show that he had transferred the said amount for purchasing the said narcotic drug. Absolutely, there are no materials to link the said consignment with the accused. Only on the basis of the voluntary statement of 30 the accused he had been apprehended and as already observed hereinafter since there is no evidentiary value to a statement recorded under Section 67 of NDPS Act, the said statement cannot be relied on. And in the absence of the said statement, absolutely there are no materials to connect the accused with the said consignment. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the alleged offences against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the prosecution has also failed to comply the mandatory provisions under Section 42(1) & 42(2), Sec.52A and Sec.57 of NDPS Act. Therefore, the accused shall be acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act. Accordingly point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
23. Point No.2: In the result, following:
::ORDER::
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Sumith Singh is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A) of NDPS Act.
31 CCH-33
Spl.C.C.701/2021
M.O.1 contraband is ordered to be
returned to complainant for producing before the Drug Disposal committee for disposal after the expiry of appeal period.
Accused is directed to comply Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C. , with in a week.
[Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on the computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 3rd day of October 2025) (LATHA) XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS) BANGALORE.
ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined for the:
(a) Prosecution:
P.W.1 : Dr.Nirmal Joy
P.W.2 : Sri Bhargavarama
P.W.3 : Sri Shashibhushan
P.W.4 : Sri Rajesh Shastry
P.W.5 : Sri Parteek Chugh
(b) Defence :
- NIL -
32
2. List of documents Exhibited for the:
(a) Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Letter written by Deputy
Commissioner of Customs
Ex.P.2 : Letter written to Asst. Commissioner
Ex.P.3 : FSL report
Ex.P.4 : Letter written by Chemical examiner
Ex.P.5 : Seizure Mahazar
(b) Defence:
-Nil-
3.List of Material Objects admitted in evidence:
M.O.1 : Sample contraband
(LATHA)
XXXIII ACC & SJ & SPL.JUDGE (NDPS)
BANGALORE.
CN/*