Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CRL. A. Nos. 918/2017 & 931/2017 Page 9 of 57

20. NCB alleges that Rafiq had packed "the said parcel with five Indian made synthetic fiber executive bags and concealed Amphetamine". The said substance was given to him by one Salim Bhai.

21. NCB alleges that consequent on the recovery of 2.4 kgs. amphetamine on 21.03.2011 and on the basis of the voluntary statement of Rafiq recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, he was arrested on 06.06.2011 at about 23:00 hours.

20) who authorized the search.

63. It is important to note that there is no material on record to establish that Rafiq was "wanted" in connection with the seizure of 2.4 kgs amphetamine. There is nothing on record to indicate that any effort was made to contact Rafiq or to make any inquiries from him. Mr Yadav (PW20) had, in his letters (Ex.PW20/E and Ex.PW20/F) sent on 6.04.2011 and 7.04.2011, requested that inquiries be conducted by NCB Mumbai in a secret manner. Thus, even if his request was complied with, inquiries if any would have been done in a secret manner. There is no material whatsoever to indicate that Rafiq was evading NCB or avoiding any inquiries. His telephone numbers and his addresses were known to NCB and also provided to the Zonal Unit in Mumbai. It is also important to note that, admittedly, no summons under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were sent to Rafiq prior to 06.06.2011. This Court is unable to appreciate as to why Rafiq was treated as a wanted man in connection with the seizure of 2.4 kg of amphetamine.

CRL. A. Nos. 918/2017 & 931/2017 Page 30 of 57

68. Rafiq allegedly confessed that he had "concealed amphetamine/Ketamine given by salim bhai" in the inner layer of bags as directed to him by one Salim Bhai.

69. Rafiq was questioned by NCB as who he had tied up in Chennai and he responded by giving Mushahid Ali's name. He further stated that he knew Mushahid Ali since last one year and Mushahid Ali worked for one Kasim Bhai of Chennai. He further stated that Mushahid Ali was fully aware that Ketamine/Amphetamine was concealed in the said bags. Rafiq stated that he had no other source of income except his courier business, which is being run in the name of M.R. Express. He further stated that he received commission of ₹700/- per kg for couriering the substances.

76. The statement of Nitesh Patel was also recorded for the second time on 14.07.2011. It is material to note that whereas this statement is in the handwriting of Nitesh Patel; his first statement recorded on 04.04.2011 was not in his own handwriting for the ostensible reason that he was not able to write his statement in his own hand and he did not have practice. Apparently, there was no such issue on 14.07.2011. His statement is more or less is on the same lines except that there are significant improvements in favour of the prosecution's case; he now acknowledged that he was fully aware that the parcel sent by him contained Ketamine/Amphetamine but Sagar Iyer was not. Additionally, he confessed that he was aware that dealing in drugs was a crime and he had done so for money. If the statement is accepted, it also absolves Sagar Iyer of any knowledge that Ketamine/Amphetamine was concealed in the parcels that were dispatched by him. Further, at the end of the statement, he also identified Rafiq Shaikh from his passport size photograph.