Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (crl.) 770 of 2002
PETITIONER:
NARAYANASWAMY RAVISHANKAR
RESPONDENT:
ASSTT. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/10/2002
BENCH:
B.N. KIRPAL, CJ. & ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.B. SINHA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2002 Supp(3) SCR 121
The following Order of the Court was delivered : We have heard the learned
counsel for the appellant.
In the instant case, according to the prosecution, 5940 gms. of heroin
concealed in the bottom of a suitcase alleged to be belonging to the
appellant was recovered when he was attempting to transport the same from
the International Airport, Chennai to Singapore. The recovery memo was
prepared on 5th January, 1987 at 3.00 A.M. and thereafter the appellant was
arrested on that day at 2.00 P.M. The trial court acquitted the appellant
by holding that mandatory provisions like Section 42 and Section 50 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS
Act") had not been complied with.
In appeal, the High Court reversed the decision of the trial court and
convicted the appellant and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh and in default to undergo RI for one month.
In this appeal, it has been contended by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant that the provisions of Section 42 of the NDPS Act have not been
complied with. He further states that there was delay in arresting the
appellant which had not been explained and further that the provisions of
Section 57 of the NDPS Act which are mandatory in nature have not been
complied with.
In the instant case, according to the documents on record and the evidence
of the witnesses, the search and seizure took place at the Airport which is
a public place. This being so, it is the provisions of Section 43 of the
NDPS Act which would be applicable. Further, as Section 42 of the NDPS Act
was not applicable in the present case, the seizure having been effected in
a public place, the question of non-compliance, if any, of the provisions
of Section 42 of the NDPS Act is wholly irrelevant. Furthermore, in the
Mahazar which was prepared, it is clearly stated that the seizure was made
by PW-1. The Mahazar was no doubt drawn by one S Jayanth. But, the
contention of the learned senior counsel that prosecution version is
vulnerable, because Jayanth has not been examined, is of no consequence
because it is PW-1 who has conducted the seizure. With regard to the
alleged non-compliance of Section 57 of the NDPS Act, the High Court has
rightly noted that PW-3 has stated that the arrest of the accused was
revealed to his immediate superior officer, namely, the Deputy Director.
It was also contended by the learned senior counsel that the ground on
which the appellant was arrested was not communicated to him. We find no
merit in this because the arrest memo clearly indicates the offence stated
to have been committed by the appellant under the NDPS Act. Further, the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
record also shows that copy of the arrest memo Exh. P-20 was received by
the appellant. In the instant case, no search or seizure was conducted on
the person of the accused and, therefore, the provisions of Section 50 of
the NDPS Act were not attracted. The High Court was, therefore, right in
coming to the conclusion which it did.
We do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.