(1.) Heard. Perused the case diary.
(2.) As per prosecution story, on 13.08.2019, pursuant to an information received by the Narcotics Control Bureau, one Mahindra Bolero pick up vehicle was intercepted in which Ishwar Patel and Rajesh Patel were sitting. The vehicle was searched and it was found to contain 28 packets total of which was 105.886 kilograms. These 28 packets were mixed and thus samples were drawn which reveal that the contraband contained was Cannabis. Statements of accused persons were recorded and they stated that contraband was being transported as per instructions of the applicant. Later on, applicant was also arrested and he in his statements given under Section 67 of the NDPS Act has confessed to have committed the crime.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a businessman and he has nothing to do with the contraband. Infact, he has not given any statements under Section 67 of NDPS Act and his signatures were taken on a blank paper, which was later on filled as a memorandum under Section 67 of NDPS Act. The statements are not in his writing and there is no witness and the aforesaid document does not bear his signatures. It is further stated that each of the 28 packets should have been separately sampled i.e. sample should have been taken from each of 28 packets and the possibility cannot be ruled out that only one packet infact contained contraband Cannabis. In support, citations of Netram vs. State of Rajasthan [2014 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 163. and Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs. State of Goa , AIR 1993 SC 1456 has been submitted. Moreover, it has been mentioned that evidence under Section 67 of NDPS Act is a weak piece of evidence and alone it cannot be relied upon for conviction. Citation of Surinder Kumar Khanna vs. Intelligence Officer , 2018 (8) SCC 271 has been submitted in support. He further submits that corroborating piece of evidence like call records, bank transaction were also showing involvement of the applicant and has not been collected when the vehicle belonged to other person and therefore, presumption under Sections 35 and 34 of NDPS Act are not attracted.