AZGAR SHEIKH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Counsel for the applicant and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh learned Counsel on behalf of respondents.

(2.) The prosecution in case in brief is that the officer of the N.C.B. Varanasi Unit on 21.4.2003 accompanied with the police officer and other officers got truck No. U.P. 78-N-8652 at about 4.00 A.M. was stopped after an attempt was being made by the driver to run away. On search 14.900 K.G. Heroin was said to have been recovered from the cavity which was allegedly made in the cabin for 4eeplrWbove Heroin. The formalities of preparation of recovery memo were observed and recovery memo was prepared in the presence of independent witnesses and the accused-persons namely Dinesh Chandra Verma and Sheo Kanth Pal. Officers of the N.C.B. recorded the statements under Sec. 67 of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act and thereafter they were produced then before the Special Judge. So far as the role of the applicant is concerned, it has come that the present applicant was working as informer being employee of M/s. Sekh Traders, a foreign money changer firm attached to the B.S.F. The N.C.B. Officers concluded the evidence in the form of Statement of Ratan Mallick who is said to be owner of the aforesaid recovered Heroin and he stated that before the N.C.B. Officers that he knew present applicant who was offered commission for not informing the consignment of above Ratan, Mallick and smuggled articles.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that the present applicant has nothing to do with the alleged recovered Heroin and there is absolutely no material to make the present applicant liable for commission of offence under the provisions of Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of Ratan Mallick under Sec. 67 of the Act and argued that even this statement had been retracted and that the statement is said to have been recorded under coercion and duress. Learned Counsel for the applicant drawing the attention of this Court, warts the statement of the present applicant recorded under Sec. 67 of the Act has also argued that there is absolutely no material to make out any offence under the provision of the Act. Therefore, the applicant may be granted bail.