PARAMJEETSING NANDE @ PAMM Vs. P.J. NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for bail by the petitioner who is alleged to be involved in offences under sections 21, 8(c), 23, 29, 27(a) and 31 of the NDPS Act. In short, the facts leading to the prosecution of the petitioner along with other accused are as follows :-

(2.) A consignment of Heroine consigned by M/s Ajit Traders to M/s Shamrock Holdings, Calgary, Canada, was seized by Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In that connection Muttalib Ali Khan Sonde - Accused No.1 herein was intercepted at Sahar International Airport at Bombay. In that connection, his statements came to be recorded u/s 67 of the NDPS Act on 28th, 29th and 30th June 1995. From the statements of accused and other documents produced on record name of the petitioner was involved and accordingly his statements were recorded on 29th June 1995 and 4th and 5th July 1995 u/s 67 of the NDPS Act and he was arrested on 5-7-1995. Thereafter, complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner on 25th September 1995. The charge against the petitioner is that he with his father in law - accused No.1 Muttalib Ali Khan Sonde and a Canadian national Martin Kantlegerg, entered into a conspiracy in drug trafficking and that consignment of Heroine was booked from Bombay to Canada hidden in toys and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

(3.) MR . Manohar has relied on certain decisions to show that confessional statement of the accused or such statement of the co-accused cannot be basis for conviction and can be used only as a supporting evidence, provided there is other evidence on record. In (1992) I Supreme Court Cases 473 (Chandrakant Chimanlal Desai vs. State of Gujarat) it has been stated that evidence in the form of confession can be used for supporting other evidence and confessional statement cannot be made as the basis. To make confessional statement as the basis and then look for corroboration and to conclude that the confession is corroborated in material particulars is held to be an erroneous approach. In 1988 Cri.L.J. 963 (Smt. Paru Mrugesh Jaikrishna vs. Asstt. Collector of Customs), this Court (Agarwal, J.) quashed the order of issue of process, in which the only evidence was the confessional statement of the co-accused. On the similar lines, other judgments of the Supreme Court in AIR 1964 SC 1184 (Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar) and AIR 1987 S.C. 955 (Param Hans Yadav vs. State of Bihar and others). Having considered this position, it is to be observed that these decisions were rendered after conclusion of the trial and at final decision of the matter, while we are at the stage of granting bail. Mr. Manohar also submitted that the confessional statement made to the officers of the Narcotic Department is hit by section 25 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Bobade appearing for Department drew my attention to a decision in (1990) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 (Rajkumar Karwal vs. Union of India), wherein it has been specifically held that officers of the department of Revenue Intelligence are not police officers. It is unnecessary to consider this aspect in great detail herein.