STANELY ROBERT Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR CUSTOMS TIRUCHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Order of the Court is as follows :- Stanely Robert is the appellant herein. He was convicted in S. C. No 187 of 1990 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy for the offence under Section 8 (c) read with Section 23 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act and Section 135 (a) of Customs Act and sentenced to undergo R. I. for 12 years and in addition to pay a fine of Rs. 1, 00, 000/-, in default, to undergo R. I. for one year.

(2.) THE gravemen of the charge against the appellant is that on 18-6-1990 at about 3. 45 p. m. at Customs Airport , tiruchy he was found in possession of 266 gms. of narcotic drugs valued at Rs. 26, 000/- kept concealed in the shoes worn by him, in contravention of the provisions of an offence punishable under Sections 8 (c) and 23 of the N. D. P. S. Act and Section 135 (a) of the Customs Act.

(3.) MR. Sankara Subbu, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant took me through the entire evidence and raised the following contentions : - (i)The trial court has not complied with the mandatory provisions contemplated under Sections 50, 52a, 55 and 57 of the N. D. P. S. Act. Though there is some reference about the compliance of Section 50 in the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6, in the earlier documents, namely, show cause notice Ex. D1 and Remand Report Ex. D8, the details regarding the compliance of section 50 have not been given. At any rate, even according to P. Ws. 1, 2 and 6, there was only a partial compliance of Section 50 and as such, the non-compliance of the mandatory provisions would vitiate the entire trial. The material available on record do not show that the other Sections like 52a, 55 and 57 have been complied with. Therefore, the entire proceedings are vitiated. (ii)Ex. P3, the alleged voluntary confession statement made by the appellant before P. W. 6 cannot be said to be admissible document under Section 67 of the N. D. P. S. Act. In view of the fact that mandatory requirements as contemplated under Section 164 (2) of Cr. P. C. have not been complied with.