ASHRAF Vs. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE INTELLIGENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the accused in O.K. No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. Calicut, for the offence under Section 21 (c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as 'N.D.P.S. Act'). The petitioner seeks bail in this bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The prosecution case is the following. The Intelligence Officer, D.R.I.. Calicut, of specific information at 16.20 hours on 24.12.2010 that a person aged about 40 years, with slight limp while walking, would be present hear the main ticket counter of Calicut Railway Station at about 5 p.m. with 500 grams of heroin in his possession, for the purpose of carrying the same to Kuttipuram. The Intelligence Officer reduced the information in writing and transmitted the same to the Senior Intelligence Officer, D.R.I. Regional Unit, Calicut. The officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence proceeded to the spot. Two persons available there were requested to be the witnesses. Within a short time, the person with the given description arrived at the spot carrying a plastic bag. The Senior Intelligence Officer intercepted the person. Oh formal questioning, he revealed his name and identity. After complying with the procedural formalities, the officers of the D.R.I. examined the plastic bag in the possession of the petitioner. They found a brown coloured powder kept in the bag. The officers of D.R.I. felt that it was not convenient to conduct further detailed examination at the Railway station premises. Therefore, the petitioner was taken to the D.R.I. Regional Office situated at a distance of half a kilometre. The plastic bag was kept with the petitioner and the petitioner was also taken along with the D.R.I. officials. After reaching the D.R.I. Regional Office, the plastic cover was opened in the presence of witnesses, examined the contents in the bag, tested the contents with the help of field testing kit, weighed the substance and samples were taken.

(2.) THE statement of the petitioner was taken under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. On his arrest, he was produced before Court and he was remanded to judicial custody.

(3.) SRI Udayabhanu, the learned Special Prosecutor, submitted that there was no violation of the provisions of Section 42 of the Act. The petitioner was intercepted at the busy Railway Station premises. It was not practicable to conduct the test, prepare the mahazar and make search and seizure at that place. Summons was served on the petitioner to appear before the Senior Intelligence Officer at the D.R.I. Regional Office, Calicut. The petitioner agreed to accompany the officers in their vehicle to the D.R.I, office. Weighing, testing and sampling were done at the D.R.I .office. The petitioner was carrying the bag with him till he reached the D.R.I. office. In the voluntary statement given by the petitioner he had stated all these facts in clear terms. There was no procedural illegality in the search, seizure and arrest. It is submitted that here is no chance for the acquittal of the petitioner. The learned Special Prosecutor ve hementiy opposed the ball application and submitted that the conditions under Section 37(l)(ii)(b) are not satisfied entitling the petitioner to be released on bail.