INTELLIGENCE OFFICER Vs. C GOVINDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, South Zone, Madras-17 who is the petitioner in all the three cases was the respondent before the Court below and filed these petitions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the cancellation of the bail granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge to the respondents in the above three cases in Crl. M.P. No. 2662 of 1993, dated 18/6/1993, Crl. M.P. No. 2995 of 1993, dated 30/6/1993, and Crl. M.P. No. 3376 of 1993, dated 13/7/1993.

(2.) The petitioner in all the three cases is one and the same. But however, the respondents in these cases are different. The said three cases arise out of one common occurrence in which all the three respondents are involved, though separate orders were passed by the learned Sessions Judge and against which the above three different petitions were filed. Since the questions to be decided in all the three cases are common, I have proposed to dispose the same by pronouncing a common order accordingly.

(3.) The brief facts which led to the filing of these petitions under Sections 439 and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be stated as follows: - On information, the Officers of the Narcotic Control Bureau, South Zone, Madras, the petitioner herein spotted the three respondents herein who came to the private vehicle parking slot at the Central Railway Station on 24/5/1993, and when they were about to start their Maruti Van, bearing Registration No. TN-04A-8266, intercepted by disclosing their identity and the purpose for which they intend to check the inmates. The respondents in the three cases were identified. On enquiry, it came to know that Packiaraja and Kumar, the respondents in Crl. O.P. No. 8817 and 848 of 1993 were returning from New Delhi by Tamil Nadu Express and the respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 7452 of 1993 came to the station to pick up the above said persons in the vehicle above referred to. The respondent by name Govindasamy stated further that he is the brother-in-law of the respondent in Crl. O.P. No. 8817 of 1993 by name Packiaraja and the other respondent was his associate accompanied him during the journey. The staff of the petitioner then examined the multi colored bag, which was in the hands of Jay Kumar, the respondent in the third case before the witnesses. On opening, it was noticed that certain used clothes together with one rose-colored mattress were found packed in a polythene cover. On a closer examination it was noticed that it was a bed spread with 2 pillow covers and red colored flowers embroided on it. On opening the same, the Officers noticed a polythene cover placed inside with a brown colored substance along with a railway ticket showing the destination from Delhi to Jhansi and subsequently extended till Madras, from the bag. Then the officers examined the cement colored zip-bag, which was found in the possession of Packiaraja, the respondent in Cr1. O.P. No. 8817 of 1993. They found some old used personal clothing along with a bundle wrapped in a Tamil Newspaper, which was tied by a violet polythene thread and on-opening they found a bundle of 100 rupee denominations of notes to the extent of Rs. one lakh. After testing the brown powder and recording the answers for the substance of heroin, the three respondents along with the van with the witnesses who were present were brought to their office at T. Nagar for further examination as the place of interception was not conducive to proceed further in accordance with the procedural law. Then it was found as the brown sugar weight about 500 gms and accordingly it was seized along with the currency of Rs. 1,00,000.00 with certain incriminating documents from the dash board of the-said Maruti van under the mahazar, in the presence of witnesses attested, followed by two representative samples of 5 gms, approximately were drawn from the said brown substance for chemical analysis The petitioners staff under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act then recorded the voluntary statements given by the said three respondents, admiting their respective guilt. Consequently, they were arrested on 25/5/1993 and remanded to judicial custody.