KANHAIYALAL KANA Vs. CENTRAL NARCOTICS BUREAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPLICANT Kanhaiyalal s/o Shambhoolal is aggrieved by the Order dated 12.9.1999, passed by Special Court, Ratlam, framing charge u/s 8/29 of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, against the applicant. Three other co accused, namely, Chandra Shekhar, Smt. Shirin Bohra and Kanhaiyalal S/o Devilal, are also being prosecuted together with the applicant on the basis of a complaint made u/s 8/21 and 8/29 of NDPS Act by respondent The Inspector, Central Narcotics Bureau, Ratlam.

(2.) FROM the complaint and the papers filed therewith, it appears that on 31.7.1998, co accused Chandra Shekhar and Smt. Shirin, travelling in an Ambassador Car, were intercepted by the respondent Inspector in between Ratlam and Indore and 4.00 Kgs. of Heroin was recovered from inside the Diesel tank of the car. Statement of co accused Chandra Shekhar was recorded u/s 67 of the Act which revealed that the seized contraband was supplied to him by co accused Kanhaiyalal s/o Devilal. He further informed that accused applicant Kanhaiyalal s/o Shambhoolal had also in the past about 4 months prior to the alleged seizure, supplied him similar contraband for being carried to Indore. On the basis of this information, accused applicant and his two sons were also noticed by the respondent Inspector and their statements were recorded u/s 67. While the two sons of the applicant categorically denied their involvement in the crime in question, accused applicant is said to have confessed his guilt stating that he has been supplying Heroin to the said co accused Chandra Shekhar for being taken to and sold at Indore. Said co accused Kanhaiyalal s/o Devilal is still absconding. The Court below has proceeded against the remaining 3 accused, the applicant herein, Chandra Shekhar and Smt. Shirin. Applicant has been charged u/s 8/29 while the other two accused have been charged u/s 8/21 of the Act.

(3.) AS against it, Shri G. Desai, learned counsel for respondent Department, defended the impugned order and contended that the complicity of the accused applicant in the crime is established prima facie and no interference is, therefore, called for by this Court in revision. It is further pointed out that part of the evidence has already been recorded and the applicant would be, therefore, better advised to ventilate his grievance at the trial itself and secure acquittal. Statements recorded u/s 67 of the Act are admissible in evidence. It is a different matter that what importance is to be attached to those retracted statements. I need not at this stage, express any opinion on the merits or demerits of those statements, lest it may prejudice one party or the other at the trial. Suffice to say that the charge against the applicant cannot be termed as groundless.