VINOD KUMAR GUPTA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Code'), petitioner has challenged orders dated 13.3.2005 and 15.3.2005 passed by the Duty Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge respectively, remanding the petitioner to judicial custody, in the case under Sections 20, 23 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub- stances Act (for short, 'the Act'), on the application filed by Customs Department.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is as follows: In November, 2004 a consignment declaring to be samples of book covers was exported to Seychelles by one V.K. Pillay. The authorities in Seychelles on suspicion checked the consignment and it was found containing 6.78 kg. of Hashish. The contraband was seized and information was sent to the Customs Department in India through Interpol. Investigations revealed that the said consignment was sent by the petitioner, Managing Director of M/s. V.K. International Pvt. Ltd., in the name of M/s. M.R. Overseas. Petitioner was summoned and his statement was recorded. In his statement, petitioner admitted that the said consignment of Hashish was sent by him. Some other incriminating material was also found against the petitioner, on the basis of which he was arrested on 13.3.2003, under the above- noted sections, by the Air Cargo (Export), Customs Department, New Delhi and was produced before the Duty Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. The investigating officer moved an application before the Court, stating above facts and pleading that the investigation in the case is at the initial stage, the matter is required to be investigated overseas and prayed that the accused be sent to judicial custody. The Duty Magistrate heard the case and remanded the accused to judicial custody for two days, directing him to be produced before the concerned Court. On 15.3.2005, petitioner was produced before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Delhi. The Investigating Officer moved fresh application for further judicial remand pleading above facts, and again submitted that investigations abroad are in progress and prayed for judicial remand of the accused petitioner for 14 days. Learned Court 'considered' the matter and remanded petitioner to judicial custody till 29.3.2005. On similar applications, subsequently accused was remanded to judicial custody from time to time. These orders are under challenge, inter alia, on the grounds that copy of the entries in the case diaries were not forwarded to the Court by the Investigating Officer, when the impugned orders were passed, which is in violation of law, therefore, petitioner is entitled to be released. The Commissioner of Customs (respondent) has filed the reply, stating that after arrest petitioner was produced before the Duty Magistrate on 13.3.2005 and before the Special Judge on 15.3.2005. The case file consisting of documents received from Seychelles, documents recovered from possession of the accused and also statement(s) of the accused and other witnesses were produced before the Courts whenever application for judicial remand of the petitioner was moved. The learned Court(s) after hearing arguments and perusing the case file, remanded the accused to judicial custody.

(3.) I have heard learned senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent.