M PRABHULAL Vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR REVENUE INTELLIGENCE TIRUCHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD. The petitioner herein was arrested by the respondent, an Investigating Agency, authorised by the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act', on 16-5-1993 at his residence at Trichirapalli town, for the alleged offences under Sections 8(c), 21, 23 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, followed by the interrogation, recording the statements, he was lodged to judicial custody on 18-5-1993 and since then onwards he was confined to be behind the bars as a remanded prisoner.

(2.) THE facts leading to the arrest of the petitioner, according to the respondent, is that, he is the brain behind the whole episode of transporting 361.6 Kgs. of Opium valued at Rs. 36, 16, 000 and 66.1 Kgs. of Heroin valued at more than Rs. 132 crores through a lorry to Sri Lanka from India, and that it was intercepted on 15-5-1993 at Thalapallam Village, near Salem and found detected, and that pursuant to the same, several persons including the Driver, Cleaner and occupants of the said lorry as well as the occupants of an Ambassador Car following the said lorry, supposed to be the persons going as escorts, were also secured and interrogated. THE investigation reveals, according to the respondent, that a criminal conspiracy was hatched out by the petitioner herein along with his own brother Shivanarain and his close associates Loganathan and other co-accused. For the limited purpose of this application. I do not propose the extract the various contents of the voluntary confession statements, recorded by the respondent. Enough for me at this stage, to say, that on perusal of the voluntary confession statements recorded from the petitioner as well as his own brother Shivanarain, Loganathan and two others, it is seen, that theprima faciepossibility of the petitioner involved in the offence in this case cannot be ruled out, for the reason that when the petitioners was lodged before the Judicial Magistrate, nothing has been recorded by him adverse to his conduct of giving confession. This position has been clearly identified as has been laid down by the Courts of law clearly. THE said confessions are materials, deemed to be legal evidence available, totally adverse to the petitioner herein, as an information collected under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Under the circumstances, it is thus seen that there are ample and adequate materials and legal evidence collected by the respondent and very much available totally against the petitioner herein regarding his direct involvement.

(3.) MR. P. Rajamanickam, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent besides filing his counter-affidavit as well as additional counter-affidavit, raised two contentions while controverting the ground projected by MR. Sengottian, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, which are the following :-