Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

37. The above aspect is important because in the given circumstances, where the parcel had been detained and was not being processed, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish that the parcel was kept securely and was no tampered with. However, in her cross examination PW1 conceded that she had not make any such enquiries.

38. The panchnama (Ex.PW1/B) indicates that Mr Puneet Sharma (PW5) had produced the parcel bearing the Airway Bill No. 466420580086 before the NCB Team on 21.03.2011. The same was a cardboard box and contained five synthetic fiber bags. The panchnama also indicates that the parcel envelope was accompanied by Proforma Invoice and the Airway Bill in question (Airway Bill No. 466420580086).The said Proforma Invoice (Ex.PW1/B1) indicates the date of shipment of the parcel as 24.02.2011. The shipper's name is reflected as under:

52. Nitesh Patel was interrogated as to what was the reason for the difference in the weight of the parcel as dispatched from Chennai and as received in Ahmedabad. He allegedly responded by stating that one staff member, Ibrahim, had received the parcel and he had no idea as why the weight of the parcel dispatched and received was different.

53. Statement of Sagar Iyer Subramanium (PW7/B) was recorded on 04.04.2011 and the same was sent by the Ahmedabad Zonal Unit along with the letter dated 05.04.2011 (PW6/C). In his statement, he stated that he ran a courier agency as a franchisee of Trackon Courier Pvt. Ltd. He acknowledged that he had signed as the authorized signatory of Ramesh Bhai, the shipper (consignor), on the Proforma Invoice (Ex PW1/B1). He stated that whenever a local courier brings a parcel, where the name of the sender is not available, he writes the address of his office and also signs the same. He admitted that the Proforma Invoice was prepared in his office. He stated that the parcel in question, which was dispatched from his office, was given to him by Nitesh Patel at his office. He also stated that Nitesh Patel had dispatched 15 such parcels in the past where the shipper's name was reflected as Ramesh Bhai.

"It is correct that NCB officers had also shown me the copy of proforma invoice, airway bill and manifest report which I had identified as the documents received along with the aforesaid consignment ......."

108. PW18 was cross-examined in respect of this testimony. In his cross-examination, he stated as under:

"When the parcel in question was received by me from Mumbai the proforma invoice Ex.PW1/B1 was not accompanying the said parcel. Vol. The proforma invoice Ex.PW1/B1 was handed over to me when the parcel was booked to me by Kasim Bhai".

109. He, subsequently, stated that he did not go through Ex.PW1/B1 and had put his signatures on the same without going through its contents. He, subsequently, stated in his cross-examination that he was told by the NCB officials that this document (Ex.PW1/B2) relates to the consignment in question.

110. There is no question of any of the said documents (proforma invoice, airway bill in question and the manifest report) accompanying the parcel allegedly received by Mushahid Ali and delivered to Kasim Bhai or received by Mushahid Ali from Kasim Bhai and dispatched to Nitesh Patel. The Proforma Invoice was, admittedly, prepared by Sagar Iyer (PW8) on 24.02.2011. The airway bill and the manifest report are documents prepared by Fedex and the same were also prepared on 24.02.2011. Thus, the question of Mushahid Ali being aware of the said documents or ever seeing the said documents prior to him being shown the same by NCB officials does not arise. The suggestions were put to Mushahid Ali (PW18) on behalf of NCB in an endeavour to establish that the parcel dispatched by PW8 was the same that was dispatched by Mushahid Ali.Clearly, such link evidence,as was sought to be established by the NCB, is non-existent.