Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The Senior Intelligence Office, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore Zonal Unit, Bangalore has lodged the above complaint before Court against the accused U/s.9(A) R/w.Sec.25(A), 28, 29 of NDPS Act.

CCH-33 3 SPl.C.C.9/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:

On 11.12.2011 the complainant received information that at International Airport, Bangalore two persons transporting Pseudo Ephedrine drug and directed to conduct the road. At 3.30 pm., he went along with his staff members.

18. P.W.6 stated that on 26.12.2011 he conducted various tests on sample articles and issued report Ex.P27 and opined that sample articles responded positive for Pseudo Ephedrine Hydrochloride and that it is used for Methamphetamine synthesis. In his cross examination denied that he has not conducted tests personally and issued false report.

19. Ex.P3 mahazar reveals that PW.s.1 and 2 seized M.Os.1 to 8 at International Airport, Bangalore in the presence of panch witnesses from the possession of accused Nos.1 and 2. Ex.P4 and 5 arrest memos of both accused at International Airport. Ex.P6 and P7 report submitted U/s.57 CCH-33 15 SPl.C.C.9/2012.

20. As per evidence of P.W.6 F.S.L officer and Ex.P27 report, sample articles responded positive for Pseudo Ephedrine Hydrochloride, which is a controlled substance. Even at the time of seizure said contraband tested with test kit by P.W.1 and 2. So prosecution proves that the said contra band seized from the possession of the accused persons is a controlled substance.

21. So far as the arrest of the accused persons at International Airport at particular point of time is concerned, testimonies of PW.s.1 to 5 and 9 corroborate with each other. So the testimony of P.Ws.1 to 4 is corroborated by independent mahazar witnesses P.W.5 and 9. Ex.P15 to P22 boarding passes, Manifest, tickets seized from the accused persons. The said documents were not in the custody of DRI officials. The said documents will be issued from Aircraft department to the concerned persons. The said documents reveal that on the particular date both accused were booked and made attempt to fly to Kualalumpur. Mean while, DRI officials on reliable information apprehended them and seized the contraband and documents. Ex.P15 to P22 are material documents. It cannot be believed that DRI officials created the said documents in the name of accused persons. The arrest of accused at particular point of time in Airport is not disputed. It is simply denied the suggestion of prosecution witnesses that they have not arrested the accused and seized the articles from their possession. No explanation given by CCH-33 17 SPl.C.C.9/2012.